Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants

Main Report

Final Report

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NUREG-1437, Volume 1

Revision 1
NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

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

records include, to name a few, NUREG-series 

publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, 

licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; 

NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins 

and information notices; inspection and investigative 

reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers 

and their attachments. 

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

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

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402–0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161–0002

www.ntis.gov

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

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Office of Administration 

Publications Branch

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address 

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

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found on 

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

material available on the date cited may subsequently be 

removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material 

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as books, 

journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, 

Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. 

Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports 

and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings 

may be purchased from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738 

These standards are available in the library for reference 

use by the public. Codes and standards are usually 

copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating 

organization or, if they are American National Standards, 

from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org

212–642–4900 

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series 

publications. The views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this series are not necessarily 

those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR–

XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP–

XXXX), (3) reports resulting from international 

agreements (NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures 

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

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic and 

Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’ decisions

under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations (NUREG–

0750).

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account 

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

Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any 

agency thereof, nor any employee, makes any warranty, 

expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 

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

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

process disclosed in this publication, or represents that 

its use by such third party would not infringe privately 

owned rights.
Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants

Main Report

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: May 2013

Date Published: June 2013

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

 

NUREG-1437, Volume 1

Revision 1

 iii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Cover Sheet 

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

Regulation 

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

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

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, contact: 

Division of License Renewal 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

Mail Stop O-11F1 

11555 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

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

Fax: (301) 415-2002 

Email: LRGEISUpdate@nrc.gov 

Abstract 

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

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

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

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

of nuclear power plant operating licenses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

evaluating the significance of impacts associated with license renewal.

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

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

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

identifies 78 environmental impact issues for consideration in license renewal environmental 

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

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

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

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

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

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

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

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

the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0021. 

Public Protection Notification 

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

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

currently valid OMB control number.
 v NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Contents 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 S.5 Impacts from Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 vi 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 2.1.2 Refurbishment and Other Activities Associated with License 

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

 2.1.3 Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 vii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 viii 

 3.6.2.1 Description of Aquatic Resources near Nuclear 

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

 3.6.2.2 Overview of the Effects of Existing Nuclear Plant 

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

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

 3.6.3.1 Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered, and Protected 

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

 3.6.3.2 Aquatic Threatened, Endangered, and Protected 

 Species, Marine Mammals, and Essential Fish 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 3.9.3.1 Background Information on Microorganisms of 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ix NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 4.1.2 Environmental Consequences of Continued Operations and 

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

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

 4.1.4 Environmental Consequences of Replacement 

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

 4.1.5 Environmental Consequences of Terminating Nuclear 

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

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

 4.2.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

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

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

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

 4.2.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

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

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

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

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

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

 4.3.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

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

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

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

 4.3.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the 

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

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

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

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

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 x 

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

 4.4.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

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

 4.4.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

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

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

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

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

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

 4.5.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

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

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

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

 4.5.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

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

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

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

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

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

 4.6.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

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

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

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

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

 4.6.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

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

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

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

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

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

 4.7.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

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

 4.7.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

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

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

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

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

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

 4.8.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

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

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

 xi NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

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

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

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

 4.8.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

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

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

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

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

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

 4.9.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

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

 4.9.1.1 Environmental Consequences of Normal Operating 

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

 4.9.1.2 Environmental Consequences of Postulated 

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

 4.9.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

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

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

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

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

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

 4.10.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

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

 4.10.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

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

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

 4.11.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

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

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

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

 4.11.1.3 Offsite Radiological Impacts of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

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

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

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

 4.11.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

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

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

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

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

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

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xii 

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

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

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

 4.12.2 Environmental Consequences of Terminating Power 

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

 4.12.2.1 Termination of Operations and Decommissioning 

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

 4.12.2.2 Termination of Power Plant Operations and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 4.14.2 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and 

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

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

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

5 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................ 5-1 

6 Distribution List .......................................................................................................... 6-1 

7 Glossary .................................................................................................................... 7-1 
Contents 

 xiii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

APPENDIX B COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND FINDINGS IN 

 THIS GEIS REVISION TO THE ISSUES AND FINDINGS IN TABLE 

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

APPENDIX C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS 

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

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

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

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

 xv NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Figures

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

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

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

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

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

 Contiguous United States by One Degree of Latitude and Longitude 

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

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

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

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

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

 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, as of 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xvi 

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

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

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

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

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

3.11-2 Locations of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations Licensed 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 xvii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 xix NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Tables 

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

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

2.4-1 Environmental Impacts of Construction under the Proposed Action 

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

2.4-2 Environmental Impacts of Operations under the Proposed Action 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xx 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.8-8 Population Classification of Regions around Selected Nuclear Power 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 xxi NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

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

3.9-9 Annual Average Measurable Occupational Doses at Commercial 

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

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

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

3.9-11 Annual Individual Occupational Dose for Commercial Nuclear Power 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxii 

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

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

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

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

4.3-1 Projected Air Quality Impacts for Selected Power Production 

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

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

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

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

4.6-1 Estimated Radiation Dose Rates to Terrestrial Ecological Receptors 

 from Radionuclides Measured in Water, Sediment, and Soils at 

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.9-1 Additional Collective Occupational Dose for Different Actions under 

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

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

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

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

 Effluent Releases for Three Nuclear Power Plants That Recently Replaced 

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

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

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

 xxiii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.12-6 Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxiv 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 xxv NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

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

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

 xxvii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Chemical Nomenclature 

ABWR advanced boiling water reactor 

AC alternating current 

ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

ACS American Cancer Society 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

AEA Atomic Energy Act 

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 

AGNIR Advisory Group on Non-ionizing Radiation 

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable 

ALI annual limit on intake 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

ALWR advanced light water reactor 

ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

AWEA American Wind Energy Association 

BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (National Research Council 

Committee) 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

BMPs best management practices 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

BWR boiling water reactor 

BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CADHS California Department of Health Services 

CCS carbon capture and storage 

CCW coal combustion waste 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

CDF core damage frequency 

CdTe cadmium telluride 

CEC California Energy Commission 

CEDE committed effective dose equivalent 
Notation 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxviii 

CEG Constellation Energy Group 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CF capacity factor 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGEC California Geothermal Energy Collaborative 

CH4 methane 

CHP combined heat and power 

CIGS copper-indium-gallium-selenide 

CLB current licensing basis 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

COL combined operating license 

CSP concentrating solar power 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DC direct current 

DDREF dose and dose rate effectiveness factor 

DNC Dominion Nuclear Connecticut 

DNI direct normal insolation 

DOD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

DSM demand-side management 

EA environmental assessment 

EAB exclusion area boundary 

ECRR European Committee on Radiation Risk 

EEI Edison Electric Institute 

EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EF enhanced Fujita (scale) 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EGS engineered geothermal systems 

EI exposure index 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIML Environmental Incorporated Midwest Laboratory 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EJ environmental justice 

ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field 
Notation 

 xxix NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

EMF electromagnetic field 

EMF-RAPID Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public Information 

Dissemination (Program) 

EP emergency planning 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

ER environmental report 

ERCOT Electric Reliability Council of Texas 

ERO Electric Reliability Organization 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESP early site permit 

Exelon Exelon Generating Company LLC 

F Fujita (scale) 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

FDOH Florida Department of Health 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FES final environmental statement 

FGD flue gas desulfurization 

FICN Federal Interagency Committee on Noise 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

FPL Florida Power & Light Company 

FR Federal Register 

FRCC Florida Reliability Coordinating Council 

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report 

FS U.S. Forest Service 

GALL Generic Aging Lessons Learned 

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

Office) 

GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

GDC General Design Criterion 

GEA Geothermal Energy Association 

GEIS generic environmental impact statement 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GIS geographic information system 

GNEP Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 
Notation 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxx 

GSMFC Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 

GTCC greater than Class C 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HAPC habitat area of particular concern 

HAWT horizontal axis wind turbine 

HCCP Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention 

HDR hot dry rock 

HFC hydrofluorocarbon 

HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HHV higher heating value 

HLW high-level (radioactive) waste 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer 

ICM Interim Compensatory Measure 

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection 

IDPH Illinois Department of Public Health 

IDNR Idaho Department of Natural Resources 

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers 

IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle 

IMP Indiana Michigan Power 

INIRC International Non-Ionizing Radiation Commission 

IPE Individual Plant Examination 

IPEEE Individual Plant Examination of External Events 

IRPA International Radiation Protection Association 

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation 

ISI in-service inspection 

IWSA Integrated Waste Services Association 

LERF large early release frequency 

LET linear energy transfer 

LFG landfill gas 

LLAP Legionella-like amoebal pathogen 

LLD lower limit of detection 

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

LLW low-level (radioactive) waste 

LLRWPA Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act 

LLTF Lessons Learned Task Force 

LLWPAA Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act Amendments 
Notation 

 xxxi NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

LOA letter of authorization 

LOEL lowest observed effects level 

LWR light water reactor 

MACCS MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 

MACT maximum achievable control technology 

MCAQD Maricopa County Air Quality Department 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MEI maximally exposed individual 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MMS Minerals Management Service 

MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

MSW municipal solid waste 

MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NaCl sodium chloride (salt) 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NaNO3 sodium nitrate 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

National Register National Register of Historic Places 

NCDC National Climatic Data Center 

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

NEI Nuclear Energy Institute 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

NESC National Electrical Safety Code 

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory 

NGCC natural gas combined cycle 

NGL natural gas liquids 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

(NH4)SO4 ammonium sulfate 

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

NIH National Institutes of Health 

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

NMC Nuclear Management Company 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NO nitrogen oxide 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 
Notation 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxxii 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NORM naturally occurring radioactive material 

NOS National Oceanic Service 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPCC Northeast Power Coordinating Council 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPP nuclear power plant 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

NRPB National Radiological Protection Board 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NWI National Waste Initiative; National Wetland Inventory 

NWPA National Waste Policy Act 

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

NYSDOL New York State Department of Labor 

O3 ozone 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

OPPD Omaha Public Power District 

OTA Office of Technology Assessment 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

PARS Publicly Available Record System 

Pb lead 

PC pulverized coal 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

PDR Public Document Room 

PEIS programmatic environmental impact statement 

PFC perfluorocarbon 

PI performance indicator 

PILOT payments in lieu of tax 

PM particulate matter 

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

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

POTW publicly owned treatment works 

PPE personal protective equipment 

PRA probabilistic risk assessment 

PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

PTC production tax credit 
Notation 

 xxxiii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

PURPA Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1978 

PV photovoltaic 

PVC photovoltaic cell 

PWR pressurized water reactor 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

RD&D research, development, and demonstration 

RDF refuse-derived fuel 

REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 

RER radiological effluent release 

RERR radiological effluent release report 

RES Renewable Energy Standard 

RFC Reliability First Corporation 

ROP Reactor Oversight Program 

ROW right-of-way 

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards 

RNA ribonucleic acid 

RRC Regional Reliability Council 

RRY reference reactor year 

SAAQS State Ambient Air Quality Standards 

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative 

SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternative 

SCE Southern California Edison 

SCR selective catalytic reduction 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

SER safety evaluation report 

SFP spent fuel pool 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office or Officer 

SIP State implementation plan 

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

SNYPSC State of New York Public Service Commission 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOARCA state-of-the-art reactor consequence analysis 

SPAR standardized plant analysis risk 

SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

SPP Southwest Power Pool 

SRM Staff Requirements Memorandum 

SSCs systems, structures, and components 
Notation 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxxiv 

Stat. Statutes at Large 

STG steam turbine generator 

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TEDE total effective dose equivalent 

TESS threatened and endangered species system 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

TLD thermoluminescence dosimeter 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSS total suspended solids 

TTU Texas Tech University 

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority 

TXU TXU Generation Company 

UCB upper confidence bound 

UCS Union of Concerned Scientists 

UF6 uranium hexafluoride 

UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 

UO2 uranium dioxide 

U3O8 triuranium octaoxide 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USC United States Code 

USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WCNOC Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation 

WCS Waste Control Specialists LLC 

WEC wave energy capture 

WGA Western Governors’ Association 

WHO World Health Organization 
Notation 

 xxxv NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Shortened Nuclear Power Plant Names Used in This Report 

Arkansas Arkansas Nuclear One 

Beaver Valley Beaver Valley Power Station 

Braidwood Braidwood Station 

Browns Ferry Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 

Brunswick Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 

Byron Byron Station 

Callaway Callaway Plant 

Calvert Cliffs Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

Catawba Catawba Nuclear Station 

Clinton Clinton Power Station 

Columbia Columbia Generating Station 

Comanche Peak Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 

Cooper Cooper Nuclear Station 

Crystal River Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant 

Cook Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 

Davis-Besse Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 

Diablo Canyon Diablo Canyon Power Plant 

Dresden Dresden Nuclear Power Station 

Arnold Duane Arnold Energy Center 

Farley Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant 

Fermi Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant 

FitzPatrick James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

Fort Calhoun Fort Calhoun Station 

Ginna R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 

Grand Gulf Grand Gulf Nuclear Station 

Harris Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant 

Hatch Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 

Hope Creek Hope Creek Generating Station 

Indian Point Indian Point Energy Center 

Kewaunee Kewaunee Power Station 

LaSalle LaSalle County Station 

Limerick Limerick Generating Station 

McGuire McGuire Nuclear Station 

Millstone Millstone Power Station 

Monticello Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 

Nine Mile Point Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station 

North Anna North Anna Power Station 

Oconee Oconee Nuclear Station 

Oyster Creek Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 
Notation 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxxvi 

Palisades Palisades Nuclear Plant 

Palo Verde Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 

Peach Bottom Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 

Perry Perry Nuclear Power Plant 

Pilgrim Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station 

Point Beach Point Beach Nuclear Plant 

Prairie Island Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 

Quad Cities Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station 

River Bend River Bend Station 

Robinson H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant 

St. Lucie St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 

Salem Salem Nuclear Generating Station 

San Onofre San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 

Seabrook Seabrook Station 

Sequoyah Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 

South Texas South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 

Summer Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

Surry Surry Power Station 

Susquehanna Susquehanna Steam Electric Station 

Three Mile Island Three Mile Island, Unit 1 

Turkey Point Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 

Vermont Yankee Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 

Vogtle Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Waterford Waterford Steam Electric Station 

Watts Bar Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 

Wolf Creek Wolf Creek Generating Station 

Units of Measure

ac acre(s) 

bbl barrel(s) 

Btu British thermal unit(s) 

°C degree(s) Celsius 

cm centimeter(s) 

d day(s) 

dB decibel(s) 
Notation 

 xxxvii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

°F degree(s) Fahrenheit 

ft foot (feet) 

ft2

 square foot (feet) 

ft3

 cubic foot (feet) 

gal gallon(s) 

gpd gallon(s) per day 

gpm gallon(s) per minute 

Gy gray(s) 

ha hectare(s) 

hr hour(s) 

Hz hertz 

in. inch(es) 

kg kilogram(s) 

km kilometer(s) 

kV kilovolt(s) 

kW kilowatt(s) 

kWh kilowatt-hour(s) 

L liter(s) 

lb pound(s) 

m meter(s) 

m2

 square meter(s) 

m3

 cubic meter(s) 

mA milliampere(s) 

mg milligram(s) 

mG milligauss 

mGy milligray(s) 

MHz megahertz 

mi mile(s) 

min minute(s) 

mL milliliter(s) 

MMBtu million Btu 

MPa megapascal(s) 

mph mile(s) per hour 

mrad milliard(s) 

mrem millirem(s) 
Notation 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxxviii 

mSv millisievert(s) 

mT milliTesla(s) 

MT metric tonne(s) 

MTHM metric tonne(s) of heavy metal 

MTU metric tonne(s) of uranium 

MW megawatt(s) 

MWe or 

MW(e) megawatt(s) electric 

MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal 

MWh megawatt-hour(s) 

pCi picocurie(s) 

ppm part(s) per million 

ppmv parts per million by volume 

ppt part(s) per thousand 

psi pound(s) per square inch 

rad radian 

rem roentgen-equivalent-man 

s second(s) 

scf standard cubic foot (feet) 

Sv sievert(s) 

T tesla(s) 

TPY ton(s) per year 

V volt(s) 

yr year(s) 

μCi microcurie(s) 

μGy microgray(s) 

μm micrometer(s) 

μT microtesla(s) 
Notation 

 xxxix NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Conversion Table 

Multiply By To Obtain 

To Convert English to Metric Equivalents

acres 0.4047 hectares (ha) 

cubic feet (ft3

) 0.02832 cubic meters (m3) 

cubic yards (yd3

) 0.7646 cubic meters (m3) 

curies (Ci) 3.7  1010 becquerels (Bq) 

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

feet (ft) 0.3048 meters (m) 

gallons (gal) 3.785 liters (L) 

gallons (gal) 0.003785 cubic meters (m3

) 

inches (in.) 2.540 centimeters (cm) 

miles (mi) 1.609 kilometers (km) 

pounds (lb) 0.4536 kilograms (kg) 

rads 0.01 grays (Gy) 

rems 0.01 sieverts (Sv) 

short tons (tons) 907.2 kilograms (kg) 

short tons (tons) 0.9072 metric tons (t) 

square feet (ft2

) 0.09290 square meters (m2) 

square yards (yd2

) 0.8361 square meters (m2) 

square miles (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometers (km2) 

yards (yd) 0.9144 meters (m) 

 

To Convert Metric to English Equivalents

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

centimeters (cm) 0.3937 inches (in.) 

cubic meters (m3

) 35.31 cubic feet (ft3) 

cubic meters (m3

) 1.308 cubic yards (yd3) 

cubic meters (m3

) 264.2 gallons (gal) 

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

grays (Gy) 100 rads 

hectares (ha) 2.471 acres 

kilograms (kg) 2.205 pounds (lb) 

kilograms (kg) 0.001102 short tons (tons) 

kilometers (km) 0.6214 miles (mi) 

liters (L) 0.2642 gallons (gal) 

meters (m) 3.281 feet (ft) 

meters (m) 1.094 yards (yd) 

metric tons (t) 1.102 short tons (tons) 

sieverts (Sv) 100 rems 

square kilometers (km2

) 0.3861 square miles (mi2) 

square meters (m2

) 10.76 square feet (ft2) 

square meters (m2

) 1.196 square yards (yd2) 

 S-1 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Summary 

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

issue commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses for up to 40 years and permits the 

renewal of the licenses as well. NRC regulations allow for the renewal of these operating 

licenses for up to an additional 20 years, depending on the outcome of safety and 

environmental reviews. There are no specific limitations in the Atomic Energy Act or the NRC’s 

regulations restricting the number of times a license may be renewed. 

The license renewal process is designed to assure safe operation of the nuclear power plant 

and protection of the environment during the license renewal term. Under the NRC’s 

environmental protection regulations in Title 10, Part 51, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR Part 51), which implement Section 102(2) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license requires the preparation 

of an environmental impact statement (EIS). 

To support the preparation of these EISs, the NRC issued the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, in 1996. The original 

1996 GEIS(a)

 for license renewal was prepared to assess the environmental impacts associated 

with the continued operation of nuclear power plants during the license renewal term. The NRC 

also promulgated a rule that codified the findings of the 1996 GEIS into its regulations at 10 

CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 (61 FR 28467, June 5, 1996). The intent was 

to determine which environmental impacts would result in essentially the same (generic) impact 

at all nuclear power plants and which ones could result in different levels of impacts at different 

plants and would require a plant-specific analysis to determine the impacts. For those issues 

that could not be generically addressed, the NRC would prepare plant-specific supplemental 

EISs (SEISs) to 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 specific plant or site 

characteristics), and (3) defining the number and scope of environmental impact issues that 

need to be addressed in plant-specific EISs. 

 

(a) Any reference in this document to the 1996 GEIS includes the two-volume set published in 1996 and 

Addendum 1 to the GEIS published in 1999. 
Summary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 S-2 

As stated in the 1996 final rule that incorporated the findings of the GEIS in 10 CFR Part 51, the 

NRC recognized that environmental impact issues might change over time, and that additional 

issues may need to be considered. As further stated in the preamble to Table B-1, the NRC 

indicated that it intended to review the material in Table B-1 on a 10-year basis. 

The NRC began this review on June 3, 2003, by publishing a notice of intent to revise the 1996 

GEIS (68 FR 33209). As part of this process and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.29, the NRC 

conducted scoping and held a series of public meetings (see 74 FR 38119 for more details). 

The original public comment period began in June 2003 and closed in September 2003. The 

project was inactive for the next two years due to limited NRC staff resources and competing 

demands. On October 3, 2005 (70 FR 57628), the NRC reopened the public comment period 

and extended it until December 30, 2005. 

On July 31, 2009 (74 FR 38117), the NRC published the proposed rule, “Revisions to 

Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses,” for public 

comment in the Federal Register. The proposed rule would amend Table B-1, by updating the 

Commission’s 1996 findings on the environmental impacts related to the renewal of nuclear 

power plant operating licenses, and other NRC environmental protection regulations (e.g., 

10 CFR 51.53, which sets forth the contents of the applicant’s environmental report). Together 

with the proposed rule, the NRC also published a notice of availability of the draft revised GEIS 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML090220654); a proposed Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2, 

Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal 

Applications” (ADAMS Accession No. ML091620409); and a proposed Revision 1 to NUREG–

1555, Supplement 1, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power 

Plants” (ADAMS Accession No. ML090230497), in the Federal Register (74 FR 38238). All of 

the documents requested public comments. 

The proposed revision to the above documents were based on consideration of 1) comments 

received from the public during the public scoping period, 2) a review of comments received on 

plant-specific SEISs completed since the 1996 GEIS was issued, and 3) lessons learned and 

knowledge gained from previous and ongoing license renewal environmental reviews. The 

history of this rulemaking is discussed in more detail in the July 31, 2009 (74 FR 38117), 

proposed rule. 

Since publication of the GEIS in 1996, approximately 40 nuclear plant sites (70 reactor units) 

have been the subject of plant-specific environmental reviews. This revision to the GEIS is 

intended to incorporate lessons learned and knowledge gained from these plant-specific 

environmental reviews, as well as changes to Federal laws and new information and research 

published since the 1996 GEIS. 
Summary

 S-3 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

S.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is the renewal of commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses. The 

NRC reviews each application submitted by licensees of operating nuclear power plants. A 

renewed license is just one of a number of conditions that licensees must meet if the licensee is 

to continue plant operations during the renewal term. 

The purpose and need for NRC’s proposed action is to provide an option to continue plant 

operations beyond the current licensing term to meet future system generating needs, as such 

needs may be determined by State, utility, system, and, where authorized, Federal (other than 

NRC) decision-makers. Unless there are findings in the safety review required by the Atomic 

Energy Act or in the NEPA environmental review that would lead the NRC to reject a license 

renewal application, the NRC has no role in the energy-planning decisions of power plant 

owners, State regulators, system operators, and, in some cases other Federal agencies, as to 

whether the plant should continue to operate. 

In addition, the NRC has no authority or regulatory control over the ultimate selection of future 

replacement power alternatives. The NRC also cannot ensure that environmentally preferable 

replacement power alternatives are used in the future. While a wide range of replacement 

power alternatives are discussed in the GEIS, the only alternative to license renewal within 

NRC’s decision-making authority is to not issue a renewed operating license. The impacts of 

not issuing a renewed operating license are addressed under the no-action alternative. 

At some point, all nuclear power plants will terminate operations and undergo decommissioning. 

Under the no-action alternative, plant operations would be terminated at or before the end of the 

current license term. The no-action alternative, unlike the other alternatives, does not expressly 

meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, as it does not provide a means of meeting 

future electric system needs. No action, on its own, would likely create a need for replacement 

power, conservation and energy efficiency (demand-side management), purchased power, or 

some combination of these options. 

A full range of replacement power alternatives are evaluated in the GEIS, including fossil fuel, 

new nuclear, and renewable energy sources. Conservation and power purchasing are also 

considered as replacement power alternatives to license renewal, because they represent other 

options for electric system planners. 
Summary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 S-4 

S.2 Development of the Revised Generic Environmental 

 Impact Statement 

The GEIS documents the results of the systematic approach NRC used to evaluate the 

environmental consequences of renewing the licenses of commercial nuclear power plants and 

operating the plants for an additional 20 years beyond the current license term. The 

environmental consequences of license renewal include (1) impacts associated with continued 

operations and refurbishment activities similar to those that have occurred during the current 

license term; (2) impacts of various alternatives to the proposed action; (3) impacts from the 

termination of nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning after the license renewal 

term (with emphasis on the incremental effect caused by an additional 20 years of operation); 

(4) impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle; (5) impacts of postulated accidents (designbasis accidents and severe accidents); (6) cumulative impacts of the proposed action; and 

(7) resource commitments associated with the proposed action, including unavoidable adverse 

impacts, the relationship between short-term use and long-term productivity, and irreversible 

and irretrievable commitment of resources. The environmental consequences of these activities 

are discussed in the GEIS. 

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC identified and assessed 92 environmental issues. This GEIS 

revision reviews and reevaluates the environmental impact issues and findings in the original 

GEIS. Experience gained from license renewal reviews conducted since the 1996 GEIS was 

published provides a source of new information for the evaluation presented in this 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 remain valid. In doing so, the NRC 

considered the need to modify, add to, group, or delete any of the 92 issues evaluated in the 

1996 GEIS. 

In a Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2003, the NRC notified the 

public of its plan to revise the GEIS and to give people an opportunity to participate in the 

environmental scoping process. This step was the initial opportunity for public participation in 

the GEIS revision. In July 2003, the NRC held public scoping meetings in four locations (one in 

each of the four NRC regions)—Atlanta, Georgia; Oak Lawn, Illinois; Anaheim, California; and 

Boston, Massachusetts. 

Participation in the scoping process by members of the public and local, State, Tribal, and 

Federal government agencies was encouraged and used to (1) determine the scope of the 

GEIS revision and identify whether there are any significant new issues that should be analyzed 

in depth; (2) identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral, are not 

significant, or have been covered by prior environmental reviews; (3) identify any environmental 
Summary

 S-5 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

assessments and other EISs that are being or will be prepared that are related to, but are not 

part of, the scope of the proposed action; and (4) identify other environmental review and 

consultation requirements related to the proposed action. 

The initial scoping period for this GEIS revision was from June 3, 2003, to September 17, 2003, 

but scoping was reopened between September 27, 2005, and December 30, 2005. The NRC 

staff reviewed the transcripts and all written material received during the scoping periods and 

identified individual comments. All comments and suggestions received orally during the 

scoping meetings or in writing were considered. 

In evaluating the impacts of the proposed action and considering comments received from the 

public, agencies and other entities during the scoping period, the NRC identified 78 impact 

issues: 70 impact issues were associated with continued operations, refurbishment, and other 

supporting activities; 2 with postulated accidents; 1 with termination of plant operations and 

decommissioning; 4 with the uranium fuel cycle; and 1 with cumulative impacts. For all of these 

issues, the incremental effect of license renewal was the focus of the evaluation. 

For each potential environmental impact issue, the revised GEIS (1) describes the nuclear 

power plant activity that could affect the resource, (2) identifies the resource that is affected, 

(3) evaluates past license renewal reviews and other available information, (4) assesses the 

nature and magnitude of the environmental impact on the affected resource, (5) characterizes 

the significance of the effect, (6) determines whether the results of the analysis apply to all 

nuclear power plants (whether the impact issue is Category 1, Category 2, or uncategorized), 

and (7) considers additional mitigation measures for adverse impacts. 

The scope of the revised GEIS also evaluates the impacts of alternatives to license renewal, 

including replacement power generation (using fossil fuels, nuclear, and/or renewable energy), 

conservation and energy efficiency (demand-side management), and purchased power. It also 

evaluates the impacts from the no-action alternative (not renewing the operating license). This 

GEIS includes the NRC’s evaluation of construction, operation, postulated accidents, 

decommissioning, and fuel cycles for these alternatives. 

The NRC issued the revised GEIS as a draft on July 31, 2009; the NRC published a notice of 

the issuance in the Federal Register (34 FR 38238, July 31, 2009). The NRC also issued a 

proposed rule, which would codify the findings of the revised GEIS in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 

51 as well as amend related 10 CFR Part 51 regulations (34 FR 38117, July 31, 2009). Both 

the notice issuing the draft revised GEIS and the proposed rule asked for public comments. 

The public comment period ran from July 31, 2009 to January 12, 2010. The NRC received 

several comment submissions (e.g., letters, e-mails), which contained, in aggregate, several 

hundred written comments. During the public comment period, the NRC also held six public 

meetings, which were transcribed (see ML093070141 for a summary of the public meetings). 
Summary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 S-6 

All in-scope comments, both written and those received during the public meetings, were 

considered in preparing this revised GEIS. 

S.3 Impact Definitions and Categories 

The NRC’s standard of significance for impacts uses the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) terminology for “significantly” (40 CFR 1508.27), which requires consideration of both 

“context” and “intensity.” Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance for 

potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. The definitions of the three significance 

levels, which are presented in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, follow: 

• SMALL impact: 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 impact: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

• LARGE impact: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

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

a determination was made whether the analysis in the GEIS could be applied to all nuclear 

plants (as well as to all plants with certain plant or site characteristics). Issues were assigned a 

Category 1 or Category 2 designation as follows: 

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

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to 

apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of 

cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristics; 

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been 

assigned to the impacts (except for offsite radiological impacts—collective impacts 

from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste); 

 
Summary

 S-7 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the 

analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation 

measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 

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

required in future SEISs unless new and significant information is identified. 

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

therefore, require additional plant-specific review. 

S.4 Affected Environment 

For purposes of the evaluation in this GEIS revision, the “affected environment” is the 

environment currently existing around operating commercial nuclear power plants. Current 

conditions in the affected environment are the result of past construction and operations at the 

plants. The NRC has considered the effects of these past and ongoing impacts and how they 

have shaped the environment. The NRC evaluated impacts of license renewal that are 

incremental to existing conditions. These existing conditions serve as the baseline for the 

evaluation and include the effects of past and present actions at the plants. It is this existing 

affected environment that comprises the environmental baseline against which potential 

environmental impacts of license renewal are evaluated. 

The NRC described the affected environment in terms of the following resource areas and 

activities: (1) land use and visual resources; (2) meteorology, air quality, and noise; (3) geologic 

environment; (4) water resources (surface water and groundwater resources); (5) ecological 

resources (terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, special status species and habitats); 

(6) historic and cultural resources; (7) socioeconomics; (8) human health (radiological and 

nonradiological hazards); (9) environmental justice; and (10) waste management and pollution 

prevention. The affected environments of the operating plant sites represent diverse 

environmental conditions. 
Summary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 S-8 

S.5 Impacts from Continued Operations and Refurbishment 

Activities Associated with License Renewal 

NRC identified 78 impact issues from continued operations and refurbishment associated with 

license renewal. Seventeen of these issues were identified as Category 2 issues and would 

require plant-specific evaluations in future SEISs. The conclusions in each resource topical 

area are summarized here. 

Land Use 

• The impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on onsite land use would be 

SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued operations and refurbishment would 

be a small fraction of the nuclear power plant site and would only involve land that is 

controlled by the licensee. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• The impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on offsite land use would be 

SMALL. Offsite land use would not be affected from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Use of transmission line right-of-ways (ROWs) would continue with no change in offsite 

land use restrictions. This is a Category 1 issue. 

Visual Resources 

• No important changes to the visual appearance (aesthetics) of plant structures or 

transmission lines are expected from continued operations and refurbishment. This is a 

Category 1 issue. 

Air Quality 

• Air quality impacts from continued operations and refurbishment activities would be 

SMALL. Emissions from refurbishment activities at locations in or near air quality 

nonattainment or maintenance areas would be short-lived and would cease once the 

activities are completed. Operating experience has shown that the scale of refurbishment 

activities has not resulted in exceedances in the de minimis thresholds for criteria 

pollutants. Best management practices, including fugitive dust controls and the imposition 

of permit conditions in State and local air emissions permits, would ensure conformance 

with applicable State or Tribal Implementation Plans. Emissions from emergency diesel 

generators and fire pumps and routine operations of boilers used for space heating would 

not be a concern, even for plants located in or adjacent to nonattainment areas. Impacts 
Summary

 S-9 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

from cooling tower particulate emissions even under the worst-case situations have been 

SMALL. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen from transmission lines is insignificant and 

does not contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases. This is a Category 1 

issue. 

Noise Impacts 

• The impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on offsite noise levels would be 

SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory guidelines for offsite receptors. This 

is a Category 1 issue. 

Geology and Soils 

• The effect of geologic and soil conditions on plant operations and the impact of continued 

operations and refurbishment activities on geology and soils would be SMALL and would 

not change appreciably during the license renewal term. This is a Category 1 issue. 

Surface Water Resources 

• The non-cooling system impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on surface 

water use and quality would be SMALL if best management practices are employed to 

control soil erosion and spills. Surface water use would not increase significantly or would 

be reduced if refurbishment occurs during a plant outage. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• 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. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• 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. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Effects on thermal stratification in lakes 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. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• 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. This is a 

Category 1 issue. 
Summary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 S-10 

• Discharges of metals in cooling system effluent have not been found to be a problem at 

operating nuclear power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and 

have been mitigated at other plants. Discharges are monitored as part of the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. This is a Category 1 

issue. 

• The discharge and effects of biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor chemical spills are 

regulated by State and Federal environmental agencies. Discharges are monitored and 

controlled as part of the NPDES permit process. These impacts have been SMALL at 

operating nuclear power plants. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Surface water use conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear 

power plants with once-through heat dissipation systems. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Surface water use conflicts could occur with nuclear power plants that rely on cooling 

ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river. Impacts could be SMALL or 

MODERATE, depending on makeup water requirements, water availability, and 

competing water demands. This is a Category 2 issue. 

• Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in the vicinity of intake and discharge 

structures and to maintain barge shipping has not been found to be a problem for surface 

water quality. Dredging is performed under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and possibly, from State or local agencies. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Temperature effects on sediment capacity 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. This is a Category 1 issue. 

Groundwater Resources 

• The non-cooling system impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on 

groundwater would be SMALL. Extensive dewatering is not anticipated during continued 

operations. Industrial practices involving the use of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy 

metals, or other chemicals and/or the use of wastewater ponds or lagoons have the 

potential to contaminate site groundwater, soil, and subsoil. Contamination is subject to 

State or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-regulated cleanup and monitoring 

programs. The application of best management practices for handling any materials 

produced or used during these activities would reduce impacts. This is a Category 1 

issue. 
Summary

 S-11 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

• Groundwater use conflicts are not anticipated for nuclear power plants that withdraw less 

than 100 gallons per minute. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater users could occur with nuclear power 

plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute. Impacts could be SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE. This is a Category 2 issue. 

• For plants with closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw makeup water from a river, 

groundwater 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. The 

impacts on groundwater quality could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. This is a 

Category 2 issue. 

• Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear power plants would not significantly 

degrade groundwater quality. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• For plants with closed-cycle cooling ponds in salt marshes, groundwater quality could be 

degraded; the impact would be SMALL. However, groundwater in salt marshes is 

naturally brackish and thus, not potable. Consequently, the human use of such 

groundwater is limited to industrial purposes. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• For plants with closed-cycle cooling ponds at inland sites, the impacts on groundwater 

quality could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. 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. This is a Category 2 issue. 

• Radionuclides released to groundwater, particularly tritium, due to inadvertent leaks of 

radioactive liquids from plant components and pipes could result in SMALL or 

MODERATE groundwater quality impacts. Such leaks have occurred at numerous plants. 

Groundwater protection programs have been established at all operating nuclear power 

plants to minimize the potential impact from any inadvertent releases. This is a 

Category 2 issue. 

Terrestrial Resources 

• Non-cooling system impacts of continued operations and refurbishment may affect 

terrestrial communities. Application of best management practices would reduce the 

potential for impacts. The magnitude of impacts (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) would 
Summary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 S-12 

depend on the nature of the activity, the status of the resources that could be affected, 

and the effectiveness of mitigation. This is a Category 2 issue. 

• The impacts of the exposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides would be SMALL. 

Doses to terrestrial organisms are expected to be well below exposure guidelines 

developed to protect these organisms. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources would be SMALL for all nuclear plants 

with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds. 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 are 

not expected to be significant. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Cooling tower operations and the impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased 

humidity associated with cooling tower operation have the potential to affect adjacent 

vegetation. However, these impacts have been SMALL at operating nuclear power plants 

and are not expected to change over the license renewal term. This is a Category 1 

issue. 

• Bird collisions with cooling towers and other plant structures and transmission lines occur 

at rates that are unlikely to affect local or migratory populations, and the rates are not 

expected to change during the license renewal term. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources for plants with cooling ponds or cooling 

towers using makeup water from a river could be SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on 

terrestrial resources in riparian communities affected by water use conflicts could be of 

moderate significance in some situations. This is a Category 2 issue. 

• Transmission line ROW management impacts on terrestrial resources would be SMALL. 

Continued ROW management is expected to keep terrestrial communities in their current 

condition. Application of best management practices would reduce the potential for 

impacts. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna would be 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. This is a 

Category 1 issue. 
Summary

 S-13 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Aquatic Resources 

• The impacts of impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms could be SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE at nuclear plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling 

ponds. The impacts are SMALL at many plants but may be MODERATE or even LARGE 

at a few plants, depending on cooling system withdrawal rates and volumes and the 

aquatic resources at the site. This is a Category 2 issue. 

• The impacts of impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms would be SMALL at 

plants with cooling towers. 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. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a problem at 

operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license 

renewal term. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE at 

nuclear plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds. 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 would depend on sitespecific thermal plume characteristics and the nature of aquatic resources in the area. 

This is a Category 2 issue. 

• Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms associated with plants that use cooling towers 

would be SMALL because of the reduced amount of heated discharge. This is a 

Category 1 issue. 

• Infrequently reported thermal impacts would be SMALL for all nuclear plants during the 

license renewal term. Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear 

plants with once-through cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations or been 

found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling 

ponds, and is not expected to be a problem. Thermal plumes have not been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem. 

Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to affect the larger 

geographical distribution of aquatic organisms. Premature emergence has been found to 

be a localized effect at some operating nuclear power plants but has not been a problem 

and is not expected to be a problem. Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been 

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 
Summary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 S-14 

power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem. 

This is a Category 1 issue. 

• The effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and 

eutrophication are expected to result in SMALL impacts at all nuclear plants. 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 once-through cooling system, but 

the problem 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. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• The impacts of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms would be 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. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• The impacts of radionuclides on aquatic organisms would be SMALL. Doses to aquatic 

organisms are expected to be well below exposure guidelines developed to protect these 

organisms. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• The effects of dredging on aquatic resources would be SMALL. Dredging at nuclear 

power plants is expected to occur infrequently, would be of relatively short duration, and 

would affect relatively small areas. Dredging is performed under permit from the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from other State or local agencies. This is a 

Category 1 issue. 

• Water use conflicts with aquatic resources for plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers 

using makeup water from a river could be SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on aquatic 

resources in stream communities affected by water use conflicts could be of moderate 

significance in some situations. This is a Category 2 issue. 

• The non-cooling system impacts of continued operations and refurbishment activities on 

aquatic resources would be SMALL. Licensee application of appropriate mitigation 

measures is expected to result in no more than small changes to aquatic communities 

from their current condition. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• The impacts of transmission line ROW management on aquatic resources would be 

SMALL. Licensee application of best management practices to ROW maintenance is 
Summary

 S-15 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

expected to result in no more than small impacts to aquatic resources. This is a 

Category 1 issue. 

• Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal 

stresses would be 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. This is a Category 1 issue. 

Special Status Species and Habitats 

• The magnitude of impacts on threatened, endangered, and protected species, critical 

habitat, and essential fish habitat would depend on the occurrence of listed species and 

habitats and the effects of power plant systems on them. Consultation with appropriate 

agencies would be needed to determine whether special status species or habitats are 

present and whether they would be adversely affected by continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal. This is a Category 2 issue. 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

• Continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to 

have no more than small impacts on historic and cultural resources located onsite and in 

the transmission line ROWs 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 Native American Tribes to 

determine the potential effects on historic properties and mitigation, if necessary. This is a 

Category 2 issue. 

Socioeconomics 

• Although most nuclear plants have large numbers of employees with higher than average 

wages and salaries, employment, income, recreation, and tourism, impacts from 

continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to 

be SMALL. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Impacts on tax revenues would be SMALL. Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local 

jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, payments in lieu of tax (PILOT) 

payments, or tax payments on energy production. The amount of tax revenue paid during 

the license renewal term as a result of continued operations and refurbishment associated 

with license renewal is not expected to change. This is a Category 1 issue. 
Summary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 S-16 

• Changes to community services and education resulting from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal would be SMALL. With little or no change 

in (1) employment at the licensee’s plant, (2) value of the power plant, (3) payments on 

energy production, and (4) PILOT payments expected during the renewal term, 

community and educational services would not be affected by continued power plant 

operations. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Population and housing impacts would be SMALL as changes resulting from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal to regional population and 

housing availability and value would be SMALL. With little or no change in employment at 

the licensee’s plant expected during the license renewal term, population and housing 

availability and values would not be affected by continued power plant operations. This is 

a Category 1 issue. 

• Transportation impacts would be SMALL as changes resulting from continued operations 

and refurbishment associated with license renewal to traffic volumes would be SMALL. 

This is a Category 1 issue. 

Human Health 

• 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. The impacts from radiation doses to the public would be SMALL. 

This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Radiation doses to plant workers from continued operations and refurbishment associated 

with license renewal are expected to be within the range of doses experienced during the 

current license term and would continue to be well below regulatory limits. The impacts 

from radiation doses to plant workers would be SMALL. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting from continued operations and refurbishment 

associated with license renewal are expected to be minimized by the licensee 

implementing good industrial hygiene practices as required by permits and Federal and 

State regulations. Chemical releases to the environment and the potential for impacts to 

the public are expected to be minimized by adherence to discharge limitations of NPDES 

and other permits. The impacts from chemical hazards to plant workers would be SMALL. 

This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Microbiological hazards to the public are not expected to be a problem at most operating 

plants but could result in SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE impacts at plants with cooling 
Summary

 S-17 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

ponds, lakes, canals, or that discharge to a river. Impacts would depend on site-specific 

characteristics. This is a Category 2 issue. 

• Microbiological hazards to plant workers would be SMALL. Occupational health impacts 

are expected to be controlled by continued application of accepted industrial hygiene 

practices to minimize worker exposures as required by permits and Federal and State 

regulations. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• The chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) associated with nuclear plants and 

associated transmission lines are uncertain. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not uncovered 

consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. EMFs are unlike other 

agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that 

dramatic acute effects cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. 

Because the state of the science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human 

health impacts is possible. This issue has not been categorized. 

• Physical occupational safety and health hazards are generic to all types of electrical 

generating stations, including nuclear power plants, and are of small significance if the 

workers adhere to safety standards and use personal protective equipment as required by 

Federal and State regulations. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• Electric shock hazards could result in SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE impacts. 

Electrical shock potential is of small significance for transmission lines that are operated in 

adherence with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Without a review of 

conformance with NESC criteria of each nuclear power plant’s in-scope transmission 

lines, it is not possible to determine the generic significance of the electrical shock 

potential. This is a Category 2 issue. 

Postulated Accidents 

• The environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are SMALL for all nuclear plants. 

Due to the requirements for nuclear plants to maintain their licensing basis and implement 

aging management programs during the license renewal term, the environmental impacts 

during a license renewal term should not differ significantly from those calculated for the 

design-basis accident assessments conducted as part of the initial plant licensing 

process. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• For severe accidents, 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 
Summary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 S-18 

severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such 

alternatives. This is a Category 2 issue. 

Environmental Justice 

• Impacts to minority and low-income populations and subsistence consumption resulting 

from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal will be 

addressed in plant-specific reviews. See NRC Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040, 

August 24, 2004). This is a Category 2 issue. 

Waste Management and Pollution Prevention 

• The impacts from low-level waste (LLW) storage and disposal would be SMALL. The 

comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public doses being 

achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts on the environment would 

remain SMALL during the license renewal term. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• The impacts from onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel would be SMALL. The expected 

increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be safely 

accommodated onsite during the license renewal term with small environmental effects 

through dry or pool storage at all plants. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• The impacts from offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste 

(HLW) disposal are uncertain. The issue is not categorized. 

• The impacts from mixed-waste storage and disposal would be 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 longterm disposal of mixed waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are SMALL. This 

is a Category 1 issue. 

• The impacts from nonradioactive waste storage and disposal would be 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. This is a Category 1 issue. 
Summary

 S-19 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Cumulative Impacts 

 Cumulative impacts are those impacts on the environment that result from the 

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

reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions. The cumulative impacts of continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal must be considered on a 

plant-specific basis. Impacts would depend on regional resource characteristics, the 

resource-specific impacts of license renewal, and the cumulative significance of other 

factors affecting the resource. This is a Category 2 issue. 

Uranium Fuel Cycle 

• The individual offsite radiological impacts resulting from portions of the uranium fuel cycle, 

other than the disposal of spent fuel and HLW, would be SMALL. The impacts on 

individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases during the license renewal term 

would remain at or below the NRC’s regulatory limits. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• With respect to the collective offsite radiological impacts from the uranium fuel cycle other 

than the disposal of spent fuel and HLW, there are no regulatory limits applicable to 

collective doses to the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of estimating 

health effects based on collective doses may not be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities 

are designed and operated to meet the applicable regulatory dose limits and standards. 

Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the collective impacts are acceptable. This 

is a Category 1 issue. 

• The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of an 

operating license for any plant would be SMALL. This is a Category 1 issue. 

• The impacts of transporting materials to and from uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, 

the public, and the environment are expected to be SMALL. This is a Category 1 issue. 

Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning 

• Termination of plant operations and decommissioning would occur eventually regardless 

of license renewal. The additional 20-year period of operation under the license renewal 

term would not affect the impacts of shutdown and decommissioning on any resource or 

at any plant. This is a Category 1 issue. 
Summary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 S-20 

S.6 Comparison of Alternatives 

The GEIS also evaluates the impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) and alternatives 

to license renewal, including the no-action alternative (not renewing the operating license). It 

also evaluates the impacts of replacement power alternatives (fossil fuels, nuclear, and 

renewable energy), conservation and energy efficiency (demand-side management), and 

purchased power. The impacts of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant are 

comparable to the impacts of energy alternatives. Replacement power alternatives would 

require the construction of a new power plant or modification of the electric transmission grid. 

The new power plants would also have operational impacts. Conversely, license renewal does 

not require major construction and operational impacts, which would not change beyond what is 

currently being experienced. Other alternatives that would not have construction or operational 

impacts include conservation and energy efficiency (demand-side management), delayed 

retirement, repowering, and purchased power. 

Operational impacts of license renewal are comparable to replacement power alternatives and 

some renewable alternatives in some resource areas (socioeconomics) but quite different in 

other resource areas (air emissions, fuel cycle, land use, and water consumption). Renewable 

energy alternatives (wind, ocean wave, and ocean current alternatives) have very few 

operational impacts, while others (biomass combustion and conventional hydropower) can have 

considerable impacts. Some renewable energy alternatives (wind and solar) have relatively low 

but regionally variable capacity factors. 

License renewal and alternatives differ in other respects, including the consequences of 

accidents. License renewal and new nuclear energy alternatives may have low-probability but 

potentially high-consequence accidents. In addition, fuel cycle impacts vary across alternatives. 

Some, like fossil fuel, require large amounts of land for fuel extraction. 

Impacts from terminating power plant operations and decommissioning would vary between 

license renewal and the alternatives. License renewal delays the date of reactor shutdown and 

decommissioning but does not alter the impact levels. Impacts would be SMALL in all resource 

areas. In comparison, impacts from terminating operations and decommissioning of most 

alternatives would be larger than impacts from license renewal. 

Under NEPA, the NRC has the obligation to consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

action of renewing the license for a nuclear reactor. The GEIS facilitates that alternative 

analysis by providing NRC review teams with empirical evidence of the performance, 
Summary

 S-21 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

environmental impacts, and resource demands and impacts of those potential replacement 

power alternatives current as of the time this GEIS was prepared. A site-specific analysis of 

alternatives will be performed for each SEIS, taking into account changes in technology and 

science since the preparation of this GEIS. 

 1-1 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

1 Introduction

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

authorizes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) to issue commercial 

nuclear power plant operating licenses 

for up to 40 years. The 40-year length of 

the original license period was imposed 

for economic and antitrust reasons 

rather than the technical limitations of 

the nuclear power plant. NRC 

regulations allow for the renewal of these 

operating licenses for up to an additional 

20 years, depending on the outcome of 

an assessment determining whether the 

nuclear power plant can continue to 

operate safely and protect the 

environment during the 20-year period of 

extended operation. There are no 

specific limitations in the Atomic Energy 

Act or the NRC’s regulations restricting 

the number of times a license may be 

renewed. 

The license renewal process is designed 

to assure the safe operation of the 

nuclear power plant and protection of the environment for up to an additional 20 years. Under 

the NRC’s environmental protection regulations in Title 10, Part 51 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR Part 51), which implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license requires the preparation of an environmental 

impact statement (EIS). 

To support the preparation of these EISs, the NRC prepared the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996, 1999). 

The original 1996 GEIS(a)

 for license renewal was prepared to assess the environmental 

impacts associated with the continued operation of nuclear power plants during the license 

 

(a) Any reference in this document to the 1996 GEIS includes the two-volume set published in 1996 and 

Addendum 1 to the GEIS published in 1999. 

Contents of Chapter 1 

• Purpose of the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants

(GEIS), NUREG-1437 (Section 1.1) 

• Description of the Proposed Action (Section 1.2)

• Purpose and Need for the Proposed 

Action (Section 1.3) 

• Alternatives to the Proposed Action (Section 1.4)

• Analytical Approach Used in the GEIS 

(Section 1.5) 

• Scope of the GEIS Revision (Section 1.6) 

• Decisions to Be Supported by the GEIS 

(Section 1.7) 

• Implementation of the Rule (Section 1.8) 

• The Public Comments on the Draft GEIS 

(Section 1.9) 

• Changes from the Draft GEIS (Section 1.10) 

• Lessons Learned (Section 1.11) 

• New Organization of the GEIS (Section 1.12) 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-2 

renewal term. The intent of the GEIS is to determine which impacts would essentially be the 

same at all nuclear power plants and which ones could be different at different plants and would 

require a plant-specific analysis to determine the impacts. 

1.1 Purpose of the GEIS 

The GEIS for license renewal of nuclear power 

plants assesses the environmental impacts that 

could be associated with license renewal and 

an additional 20 years of power plant 

operation. This assessment is summarized in 

this GEIS. This GEIS also provides the 

technical basis for license renewal 

amendments to the Commission’s regulations, 

10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and 

Related Regulatory Functions.” In the 1996 

GEIS and related rulemaking, the Commission 

determined that certain impacts associated 

with the renewal of a nuclear power plant 

operating license were the same or similar for all plants and could be treated on a generic basis. 

In this way, repetitive reviews of these impacts could be avoided. The Commission based its 

generic assessment of certain environmental impacts on the following factors: 

(1) License renewal will involve nuclear power plants for which the environmental impacts 

of operation are well understood as a result of lessons learned and knowledge gained 

from operating experience and completed license renewals. 

(2) Activities associated with license renewal are expected to be within this range of 

operating experience; thus, environmental impacts can be reasonably predicted. 

(3) Changes in the environment around nuclear power plants are gradual and predictable. 

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 EISs. The GEIS provides information that will aid the 

preparation of plant-specific EISs. 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

(GEIS) 

A GEIS is an environmental impact 

statement that assesses the scope and 

impact of the environmental effects that would 

be associated with an action (such as license 

renewal) at numerous sites. 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (SEIS) 

A SEIS updates or supplements an existing 

EIS (such as the GEIS). The Commission 

directed the NRC staff to issue plant-specific 

supplements to the GEIS for each license 

renewal application. 
Introduction 

 1-3 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

1.2 Description of the Proposed Action 

Under NRC’s environmental protection 

regulations in 10 CFR 51.20, renewal of a 

nuclear power plant operating license is 

identified as a major Federal action that 

requires the preparation of an EIS to address 

the impacts of renewing a plant’s operating 

license. The EIS requirements for a plantspecific license renewal review are specified in 

10 CFR 51.71 and 51.95. NRC’s public health 

and safety and other technical requirements for 

the renewal of operating licenses are found in 

10 CFR Part 54. Part 54 requires applicants to perform safety evaluations and assessments of 

nuclear power plants and provide the NRC with sufficient information to analyze the impacts of 

continued operation for the requested renewal term. Applicants are required to assess the 

effects of aging on passive and long-lived systems, structures, and components. 

Most utilities are expected to begin preparation for license renewal about 10 to 20 years before 

expiration of their current operating licenses. Inspection, surveillance, test, and maintenance 

programs to support continued plant operations during the license renewal term would be 

integrated gradually over a period of years. Any refurbishment-type activities undertaken for the 

purposes of license renewal have generally been completed during normal plant refueling or 

maintenance outages before the original license expires. Activities associated with license 

renewal and operation of a plant for an additional 20 years are discussed in Chapter 2. 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

The Commission acts on each application submitted by a licensee for the renewal of 

commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses per Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act. 

A renewed license is just one of a number of conditions that licensees must meet to operate its 

nuclear plant during the license renewal term. State regulators, system operators, and in some 

cases, other Federal agencies, ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate 

based on factors such as need for power or other factors within the State’s jurisdiction or 

owner’s control. Economic considerations play a primary role in this decision. 

 

The purpose and need for the proposed action (issuance of a renewed license) is to provide an 

option that allows for baseload power generation capability beyond the term of the current 

nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs. Such needs 

may be determined by other energy-planning decision-makers, such as State, utility, and, where 

The Proposed Action 

To renew commercial nuclear power plant 

operating licenses. 

Purpose and Need for the Proposed 

Action

To provide an option to continue plant 

operations beyond the current licensing term

to meet future system generating needs. 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-4 

authorized, Federal agencies (other than the NRC). Unless there are findings in the safety 

review required by the Atomic Energy Act or the NEPA environmental review that would lead 

the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC does not have a role in the energyplanning decisions of 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 power plant to meet system 

energy requirements beyond the term of the plant’s current license. In cases of interstate 

generation or other special circumstances, Federal agencies such as the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) may be involved in 

making these decisions. 

1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

In license renewal environmental reviews, the NRC considers the environmental consequences 

of the proposed action, the no-action alternative (i.e., not renewing the operating license), and 

the environmental consequences of various alternatives for replacing the nuclear power plant’s 

generating capacity. No conclusions are made in the GEIS about the relative environmental 

consequences of license renewal, the no-action alternative, and the construction and operation 

of alternative facilities for generating electric energy. However, information presented in the 

GEIS can be used by the NRC and applicants in performing the plant-specific analysis of 

alternatives. 

In plant-specific environmental reviews, the NRC compares the environmental impacts of 

license renewal with those of the no-action alternative and replacement power alternatives to 

determine whether the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are great enough to 

deny the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision-makers. 

1.5 Analytical Approach Used in the GEIS 

1.5.1 Objectives 

The GEIS serves to facilitate NRC’s environmental review process by identifying and evaluating 

environmental impacts that are considered generic and common to all nuclear power plants. 

Plant-specific impact issues will be addressed in separate supplemental EISs (SEISs) to the 

GEIS. Generic impacts will be reconsidered in SEISs only if there is new and significant 

information that would change the conclusions in the GEIS. 
Introduction 

 1-5 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

1.5.2 Methodology 

Environmental impacts of license renewal and the resources that could be affected by continued 

operation and refurbishment were identified. The general analytical approach for identifying 

environmental impacts was to (1) describe the nuclear power plant activity that could affect the 

resource, (2) identify the resource that is affected, (3) evaluate past license renewal reviews and 

other available information, (4) assess the nature and magnitude of the environmental impact on 

the affected resource, (5) characterize the significance of the effects, and (6) determine whether 

the results of the analysis apply to all nuclear power plants (whether the environmental impact 

issue is Category 1 or Category 2, as described below). Identifying environmental impacts (or 

issues) was conducted in an iterative rather than a stepwise manner. For example, after 

information was collected and levels of significance were reviewed, impacts were reexamined to 

determine if any should be removed, added, consolidated, or divided. 

1.5.2.1 Defining Environmental Issues 

The 1996 GEIS presents the findings of a systematic inquiry into the environmental impacts of 

license renewal resulting in the identification of 92 environmental issues (or impacts), which 

were evaluated in the GEIS. Public and stakeholder comments on previous plant-specific 

license renewal reviews were analyzed in an effort to reevaluate the existing environmental 

issues and identify new issues. Environmental issues in this GEIS are arranged by resource 

area. This perspective is a change from the 1996 GEIS in which environmental issues were 

arranged by power plant systems. 

1.5.2.2 Collecting Information 

Information from completed license renewal environmental reviews was collected and reviewed. 

Searches of the open scientific literature, databases, and Web sites were conducted for each 

resource area. This information was collected and evaluated to determine if the environmental 

issues and findings in the 1996 GEIS needed to be revised. 

1.5.2.3 Determining Significance Levels for Issues 

A standard of significance was established for each license renewal environmental impact issue 

evaluated in the 1996 GEIS based on the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology 

for “significantly” (see 40 CFR 1508.27). Since the significance and severity of an impact can 

vary with the setting of the proposed action, both “context” and “intensity,” as defined in CEQ 

regulations 40 CFR 1508.27, were considered. 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 nuclear power plant. Intensity refers to the severity of the impact 

in whatever context it occurs. Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-6 

for potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. The definitions of these three 

significance levels, which are presented in the footnotes to Table B–1 in Appendix B to 

Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, follow: 

• 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 alter noticeably, but not to 

destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

• LARGE—environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

important attributes of the resource. 

The discussion of each environmental impact issue in the GEIS includes an explanation of how 

the significance category was determined. For issues in which the probability of occurrence is a 

key consideration (i.e., postulated accidents), the probability of occurrence has been factored 

into the determination of significance. Possible mitigation measures that could be used to 

avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for adverse impacts are discussed 

where appropriate. 

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

determination was made whether the analysis in the GEIS could be applied to all nuclear power 

plants. The categories to which an issue may be assigned are presented below. 

• Category 1—the analysis reported in the GEIS has shown the following: 

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply 

either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling 

system or other specified plant or site characteristics; 

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been 

assigned to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the 

fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel); and 

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the 

analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation 

measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 
Introduction 

 1-7 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

• Category 2—the analysis reported in the GEIS has shown that one or more of the 

criteria of Category 1 cannot be met, and therefore, additional plant-specific review is 

required. 

If all three Category 1 criteria apply to a particular issue, then the generic impact analysis 

presented in this GEIS is relied upon by the NRC in evaluating license renewal applications and 

plant-specific SEISs provided there is no new and significant information requiring further 

analysis. For issues that do not meet all three Category 1 criteria, the issue is considered a 

Category 2 issue, and a plant-specific impact analysis is required for that issue. 

1.6 Scope of the GEIS Revision 

The NRC assessed the impact of license renewal on 92 environmental issues for the 1996 

GEIS. Impacts associated with 69 of these issues were determined to be generic (i.e., the 

same or similar at all plants), or Category 1. These issues are addressed in the 1996 GEIS and 

do not require a plant-specific assessment unless new and significant information is found that 

would change the conclusions in the GEIS. Guidance on plant-specific analyses required for 

the other 23 issues is provided in 10 CFR Part 51. Findings on the scope and magnitude of 

environmental impacts of renewing a nuclear power plant operating license in the GEIS as 

required by section 102(2) of NEPA are summarized in Table B–1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 

10 CFR Part 51 (Table B–1). 

 

This GEIS reviews and reevaluates the issues and findings of the 1996 GEIS in compliance with 

the requirement to review the material in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 and 

update it on a 10-year cycle, if necessary. Lessons learned and knowledge gained during 

previous license renewal reviews provided a significant source of new information for this 

review. Public comments received during previous license renewal environmental reviews were 

re-examined to validate existing environmental issues and identify new ones. Since 1996, over 

40 commercial nuclear power plants have undergone a license renewal environmental review. 

The purpose of the review for this GEIS was to determine if the findings presented in the 1996 

GEIS remain valid. In doing so, the NRC considered the need to modify, add, group, or delete 

any of the 92 environmental impact issues evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. In addition, new 

research, findings, and other information were considered when the significance of impacts 

associated with license renewal was being evaluated. After this review, the NRC carried 

forward 78 environmental impact issues for detailed consideration in this GEIS. 

1.7 Decisions to Be Supported by the GEIS 

The decisions to be to be supported by the GEIS are whether or not to renew the operating 

licenses of individual commercial nuclear power plants for an additional 20 years. The GEIS 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-8 

was developed to support these decisions and to serve as a basis from which future NEPA 

analyses for the license renewal of individual nuclear power plants would tier. According to 

CEQ guidelines (40 CFR 1508.28), tiering refers to “the coverage of general matters in broader 

environmental impact statements (such as national program or policy statements) with 

subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses (such as regional or basinwide 

program statements or ultimately site-specific statements) incorporating by reference the 

general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement 

subsequently prepared. Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the lead agency to 

focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already 

decided or not yet ripe.” The GEIS provides the NRC decision-maker with important 

environmental information considered common to all nuclear power plants and allows greater 

focus to be placed on plant-specific (i.e., Category 2) issues. 

The scope of the environmental review for license renewal consists of the range of actions, 

alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an EIS. The purpose of scoping is to identify 

significant issues related to the proposed action. Scoping also identifies and eliminates from 

detailed study issues that are not significant or have been covered by a prior environmental 

review. Having a defined scope for the environmental review allows the NRC to concentrate on 

the essential issues resulting from the actions being considered rather than on issues that may 

have been or are being evaluated in different regulatory review processes, such as the license 

renewal safety review (NRC 2006). 

The NEPA process focuses on environmental impacts rather than on issues related to safety. 

Safety issues become important to the environmental review when they could result in 

environmental impacts, which is why the environmental effects of postulated accidents are 

considered in the GEIS and in plant-specific supplements to the GEIS. Since NEPA regulations 

do not provide for a safety review, the license renewal process includes an environmental 

review that is distinct and separate from the safety review. Since the two reviews are separate, 

operational safety issues and safety issues related to nuclear power plant aging are considered 

outside the scope for the environmental review, just as the environmental issues are not 

considered as part of the safety review. However, safety issues that are raised during the 

environmental review are forwarded to the appropriate NRC organization for consideration and 

appropriate action (NRC 2006). 
Introduction 

 1-9 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Actions subject to NRC approval for license 

renewal are limited to continued nuclear power 

plant operation consistent with the plant design 

and operating conditions for the current 

operating license and to the performance of 

specific activities and programs necessary to 

manage the effects of aging on the passive, 

long-lived structures and components identified 

in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54. 

Accordingly, the GEIS does not serve as the 

NEPA review for other activities or programs outside the scope of NRC’s 10 CFR Part 54 

license renewal review. 

Separate NEPA reviews must be prepared regardless of whether the action is necessary as a 

consequence of receiving a renewed license, even if the activity were specifically addressed in 

the GEIS. For example, the environmental impacts of spent fuel pool expansion are addressed 

in the GEIS in the context of the environmental consequences of approving a renewed 

operating license. However, any specific application submitted to the NRC to expand spent fuel 

pool capacity at a given facility would still require its own separate NEPA review. These 

separate NEPA reviews may reference and otherwise use applicable environmental information 

contained in the GEIS. For example, an environmental assessment prepared for a separate 

spent fuel pool expansion request may use the information in the GEIS to support a finding of 

no significant impact (see June 5, 1996 Final Rule [61 FR 28467]). 

There are many factors that NRC takes into consideration when deciding whether to renew the 

operating license of a nuclear power plant. The analyses of environmental impacts evaluated in 

this GEIS will provide NRC’s decision-maker (in this case, the Commission) with important 

environmental information for use in the overall decision-making process. There are also 

decisions outside the regulatory scope of license renewal that cannot be made on the basis of 

the final GEIS analysis. These decisions include the following issues. 

1.7.1 Changes to Plant Cooling Systems 

 

The NRC will not make a decision or any recommendations on the basis of information 

presented in this GEIS regarding changes to nuclear power plant cooling systems, other than 

those involving safety-related issues, to mitigate adverse impacts under the jurisdiction of State 

or other Federal agencies. Implementation of the provisions of the Clean Water Act, including 

those regarding cooling system operations and design specifications, is the responsibility of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In many cases, the EPA delegates such 

authority to the individual States. To operate a nuclear power plant, licensees must comply with 

the Clean Water Act, including associated requirements imposed by the EPA or the State, as 

Environmental Impact Statements 

10 CFR 51.70(b): The draft environmental 

impact statement  will state how alternatives 

considered in it and decisions based on it will 

or will not achieve the requirements of 

Sections 101 and 102(1) of NEPA. (See also 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 

40 CFR 1502.2(d).) 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-10 

part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting system under 

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and State water quality certification requirements under 

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The EPA or the State, not the NRC, sets the limits of 

effluents and operational parameters in plant-specific NPDES permits. Nuclear power plants 

cannot operate without a valid(b)

 NPDES permit and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

1.7.2 Disposition of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

The NRC will not make a decision or any recommendations on the basis of the information 

presented in this GEIS regarding the disposition of spent nuclear fuel at nuclear power plants. 

Within the context of a license renewal environmental review, the NRC concluded that the 

storage of spent nuclear fuel can be accomplished safely and without significant environmental 

impacts. The radiological impacts from the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel to human health 

during the term of license renewal continue to be well within regulatory limits, and therefore, 

meet the standard for a conclusion of SMALL impact. Nonradiological environmental impacts 

also continue to be SMALL. The overall conclusion for onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel 

during the license renewal term is that the environmental impacts will be SMALL for each plant. 

Within the context of renewal, the NRC concludes that its regulatory requirements for spent 

nuclear fuel provide adequate protection of plant workers, the public, and the environment. 

In 1982, the Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), and on January 7, 1983, 

the President signed it into law. The NWPA defined the Federal Government’s responsibility to 

provide permanent disposal in a deep geologic repository for spent fuel and high-level 

radioactive waste from commercial and defense activities. Under amended provisions (1987) of 

this Act, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has the responsibility to locate, build, and 

operate a repository for such wastes. The NRC has the responsibility to establish regulations 

governing the construction, operation, and closure of the repository, consistent with 

environmental standards established by the EPA. 

 

The 1987 amendments required DOE to evaluate only the suitability of the site at Yucca 

Mountain, Nevada, for a geologic disposal facility. In addition, the amendments outlined a 

detailed approach for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste involving review by the 

President, Congress, State and Tribal governments, NRC, and other Federal agencies. In 

February 2002, after many years of studying the suitability of the site, DOE recommended to the 

President that the Yucca Mountain site be developed as a long-term geologic repository for 

high-level waste. In April 2002, the Governor of Nevada notified Congress of his State’s 

 

(b) A valid NPDES permit is considered to be one that is either current (i.e., within its current effective 

date) or one that has expired but has been “administratively continued” by the permitting authority 

upon the timely submission of an applicant for renewal pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 122.6. 
Introduction 

 1-11 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

objection to the proposed repository. Subsequently, Congress voted to override the objection of 

the State. 

DOE submitted a license application to the NRC for construction authorization for a repository at 

Yucca Mountain in June 2008. Upon acceptance of the application, the NRC started its 

technical evaluation. However, on March 3, 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) filed a 

motion with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) seeking permission to withdraw its 

application for authorization to construct a high-level waste geological repository at Yucca 

Mountain, Nevada. The Board denied that request on June 29, 2010, in LBP-10-11, and the 

parties filed petitions asking the Commission to uphold or reverse this decision. On October 1, 

2010, the Commission directed the staff to perform an orderly closure of its Yucca Mountain 

activities. As part of the orderly closure, the NRC staff prepared three technical evaluation 

reports documenting its work. 

On September 9, 2011, the Commission issued Memorandum and Order CLI-11-07, stating that 

it found itself evenly divided on whether to take the affirmative action of overturning or upholding 

the Board’s June 29, 2010, decision. Exercising its inherent supervisory authority, the 

Commission directed the Board to complete all necessary and appropriate case management 

activities by September 30, 2011. On September 30, 2011, the Board issued a Memorandum 

and Order suspending the proceeding. 

The NRC’s non-sensitive Yucca Mountain-related documents are being preserved and made 

available to the public as part of the NRC staff’s activities to retain the accumulated knowledge 

and experience gained as a result of its Yucca Mountain-related activities. These documents 

can be viewed on the NRC’s public website (http://www.NRC.gov). 

DOE decisions and recommendations concerning the ultimate disposition of spent nuclear fuel 

are ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of this GEIS. 

Further, for the offsite disposal of spent nuclear fuel, the NRC’s Waste Confidence Decision and 

Rule represented the Commission’s generic determination that spent nuclear fuel can continue 

to be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for a period of time after the 

end of the licensed life for operation of a nuclear power plant. This generic determination meant 

that the NRC did not need to consider the storage of spent nuclear fuel after the end of a 

reactor’s licensed life for operation in the NEPA documents that support its reactor and spentfuel storage license application reviews. 

The NRC first adopted the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule in 1984. The NRC amended 

the decision and rule in 1990, reviewed them in 1999, and amended them again in 2010 (49 FR 

34694 (August 31, 1984); 55 FR 38474 (September 18, 1990); 64 FR 68005 (December 6, 

1999); and 75 FR 81032 and 81037 (December 23, 2010)). The NRC made a minor 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-12 

amendment to the rule in 2007 to clarify that it applies to combined licenses (72 FR 49509 

(August 28, 2007)). The Waste Confidence Decision and Rule are codified in the NRC 

regulation 10 CFR 51.23. 

On December 23, 2010, the Commission published in the Federal Register a revision of the 

Waste Confidence Decision and Rule to reflect information gained from experience in the 

storage of spent nuclear fuel and the increased uncertainty in the siting and construction of a 

permanent geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste (75 FR 

81032 and 81037). In response to the 2010 Waste Confidence Decision and Rule, the states of 

New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont, along with several other parties challenged 

the Commission’s NEPA analysis in the decision, which provided the regulatory basis for the 

rule. On June 8, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, in 

New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012), vacated the NRC’s Waste Confidence 

Decision and Rule, after finding that it did not comply with NEPA. 

 

In response to the court’s ruling, the Commission issued CLI-12-16 on August 7, 2012, in which 

the Commission determined that it would not issue licenses that rely upon the Waste 

Confidence Decision and Rule until the issues identified in the court’s decision are appropriately 

addressed by the Commission. CLI-12-16 provided, however, that the decision not to issue 

licenses only applied to final license issuance; all licensing reviews and proceedings should 

continue to move forward. In SRM-COMSECY-12-0016, dated September 6, 2012, the 

Commission directed the NRC staff to proceed with a rulemaking that includes the development 

of a generic EIS to support a revised Waste Confidence Decision and Rule and to publish both 

the EIS and the revised decision and rule in the Federal Register within 24 months (by 

September 6, 2014). The Commission indicated that both the EIS and the revised Waste 

Confidence Decision and Rule should build on the information already documented in various 

NRC studies and reports, including the existing environmental assessment that the NRC 

developed as part of the 2010 Waste Confidence Decision and Rule. The Commission directed 

that any additional analyses should focus on the issues identified in the court’s decision. The 

Commission also directed that the NRC staff provide ample opportunity for public comment on 

both the draft EIS and the proposed Waste Confidence Decision and Rule. 

In accordance with CLI-12-16, the NRC will not approve any site-specific license renewal 

applications until the deficiencies identified in the court’s decision have been resolved. Two 

license renewal GEIS issues that rely, wholly or in part, upon the Waste Confidence Decision 

and Rule are the “onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” and “offsite radiological impacts of spent 

nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal.” Both of these issues were classified as Category 1 

in the 10 CFR Part 51 rule that was promulgated in 1996; the 2009 proposed rule continued the 

Category 1 classification for both of these issues. As part of its response to the New York v. 

NRC decision, the NRC revised these two issues accordingly. Specifically, the NRC revised the 

Category 1 “Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” issue to narrow the period of onsite storage to 
Introduction 

 1-13 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

the license renewal term. In both the 1996 rule (in which this issue was named “onsite spent 

fuel”) and the 2009 proposed rule, the NRC relied upon the 1990 Waste Confidence Decision 

and Rule to make a generic finding that spent nuclear fuel could be stored safely onsite with no 

more than a small environmental impact for the term of the extended license (from approval of 

the license renewal application to the expiration of the operating license) plus a 30 year period 

following the permanent shutdown of the power reactor and expiration of the operating license. 

The 1990 Waste Confidence Decision and Rule provided the basis for the 30 year period 

following the permanent shutdown of the reactor and expiration of the operating license. The 

2010 Waste Confidence Decision and Rule extended this post-reactor shutdown onsite storage 

period from 30 years to 60 years. Given the New York v. NRC decision, and pending the 

issuance of a generic EIS and revised Waste Confidence Decision and Rule (as directed by 

SRM-COMSECY-12-0016), the period of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel following the 

permanent shutdown of the power reactor and expiration of the operating license is now 

excluded from this GEIS issue. As revised, this issue now covers the onsite storage of spent 

fuel for the term of the extended license only. 

Similarly, the NRC revised the Category 1 issue, “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level waste disposal” (this issue was named “offsite radiological impacts (spent 

fuel and high level waste disposal)” in the 1996 rule and GEIS). This issue pertains to the longterm disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, including possible disposal in a deep 

geologic repository. Although the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule did not assess the 

impacts associated with disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in a repository, it did 

reflect the Commission’s confidence, at the time, in the technical feasibility of a repository and 

when that repository could have been expected to become available. Without the analysis in 

the Waste Confidence Decision, the NRC cannot assess how long the spent fuel will need to be 

stored onsite. Therefore, the NRC reclassifies this GEIS issue from a Category 1 issue with no 

assigned impact level to an uncategorized issue with an impact level of uncertain. 

1.7.3 Emergency Preparedness 

The NRC will not make a decision or any recommendations on the basis of information 

presented in this GEIS regarding emergency preparedness at nuclear power plants. Nuclear 

power plant owners, government agencies, and State and local officials work together to create 

a system for emergency preparedness and response that will serve the public in the unlikely 

event of an emergency. The emergency plans for nuclear power plants cover preparations for 

evacuation, sheltering, and other actions to protect residents near plants in the event of a 

serious incident. 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-14 

In the United States, 104 commercial nuclear power reactors are licensed to operate at 65 sites 

in 31 States. For each site, there are onsite and offsite emergency plans to assure that 

adequate protective measures can be taken to protect the public in the event of a radiological 

emergency. Federal oversight of emergency preparedness for licensed nuclear power plants is 

shared by the NRC and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NRC and 

FEMA have a Memorandum of Understanding (44 CFR Appendix A to Part 353), under which 

FEMA has the lead in overseeing offsite planning and response, and the NRC assists FEMA in 

carrying out this role. The NRC has statutory responsibility for the radiological health and safety 

of the public and retains the lead for oversight of onsite preparedness. 

Before a plant is licensed to operate, the NRC must have reasonable assurance that adequate 

protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. The NRC’s 

decision of reasonable assurance is based on licensees complying with NRC regulations and 

guidance. In addition, licensees and area response organizations must demonstrate they can 

effectively implement emergency plans and procedures during periodic evaluated exercises. 

As part of the reactor oversight process, the NRC reviews licensees’ emergency planning 

procedures and training. These reviews include regular drills and exercises that assist 

licensees in identifying areas for improvement, such as in the interface of security operations 

and emergency preparedness. Each plant owner is required to exercise its emergency plan 

with the NRC, FEMA, and offsite authorities at least once every two years to ensure that State 

and local officials remain proficient in implementing their emergency plans. Licensees also selftest their emergency plans regularly by conducting drills. 

FEMA findings and determinations as to the adequacy and capability of implementing offsite 

plans are communicated to the NRC. The NRC reviews the FEMA findings and determinations 

as well as the onsite findings. The NRC then makes a determination on the overall state of 

emergency preparedness. These overall findings and determinations are used by the NRC to 

make radiological health and safety decisions before issuing licenses and in the continuing 

oversight of operating reactors. The NRC has the authority to take action, including shutting 

down any reactor deemed not to provide reasonable assurance of the protection of public health 

and safety. 

The Commission considered the need for a review of emergency planning issues in the context 

of license renewal during its rulemaking proceedings on 10 CFR Part 54, which included public 

notice and comment. As discussed in the statement of consideration for rulemaking 

(56 FR 64966), the programs for emergency preparedness at nuclear power facilities apply to all 

nuclear power facility licensees and require the specified levels of protection from each licensee 

regardless of plant design, construction, or license date. Requirements related to emergency 

planning are in the regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. These 

requirements apply to all operating licenses and will continue to apply to facilities with renewed 

licenses. Through its standards and required exercises, the Commission reviews existing 
Introduction 

 1-15 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

emergency preparedness plans throughout the life of any facility, keeping up with changing 

demographics and other site-related factors. 

Therefore, the Commission has determined that there is no need for a special review of 

emergency planning issues in the context of an environmental review for license renewal 

(NRC 2006). Thus, decisions and recommendations concerning emergency preparedness at 

nuclear plants are ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of license renewal. 

1.7.4 Safeguards and Security 

The NRC requires that nuclear power plants be both safe and secure. Safety refers to 

operating the plant in a manner that protects the public and the environment. Security refers to 

protecting the plant (using people, equipment, and fortifications) from intruders who wish to 

damage or destroy it in order to harm people and the environment. 

Security issues such as safeguards planning are not tied to a license renewal action but are 

considered to be issues that need to be dealt with continuously as a part of a nuclear power 

plant’s current (and renewed) operating license. Security issues are periodically reviewed and 

updated at every operating plant. These reviews continue throughout the period of an operating 

license, whether it is the original or renewed license. If issues related to security are discovered 

at a nuclear plant, they are addressed immediately, and any necessary changes are reviewed 

and incorporated under the operating license (NRC 2006). As such, decisions and 

recommendations concerning safeguards and security at nuclear power plants are ongoing and 

outside the regulatory scope of this GEIS. 

1.7.5 Need for Power 

The NRC will not make a decision or any recommendations on the basis of information 

presented in this GEIS regarding the need for power at nuclear power plants. The regulatory 

authority over licensee economics (including the need for power) falls within the jurisdiction of 

the States and, to some extent, within the jurisdiction of FERC. The proposed rule for license 

renewal published on September 17, 1991 (56 FR 47016), had originally included a cost-benefit 

analysis and consideration of licensee economics as part of the NEPA review. However, during 

the comment period, State, Federal, and licensee representatives expressed concern about the 

use of economic costs and cost-benefit balancing in the proposed rule and the 1996 GEIS. 

They noted that CEQ regulations interpret NEPA to require only an assessment of the 

cumulative effects of a proposed Federal action on the natural and man-made environment and 

that the determination of the need for generating capacity has always been a State 

responsibility. For this reason, the purpose and need for license renewal was defined by the 

Commission in the June 5, 1996, final rule as follows (61 FR 28467): 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-16 

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

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

current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, 

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

(other than NRC) decision-makers. 

10 CFR 51.95(c)(2) states: 

 

The supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for license renewal is not 

required to include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic 

benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar 

as such benefits and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the 

inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to 

mitigation. 

1.7.6 Seismicity and Flooding 

The NRC will not make a decision or any recommendations on the basis of information 

presented in this GEIS regarding seismic risk and flooding at nuclear power plants. The NRC’s 

assessment of seismic and flood hazards for existing nuclear power plants is a separate and 

distinct process from license renewal reviews. Seismic and flood hazard issues are addressed 

by the NRC on an ongoing basis at all licensed nuclear facilities. As such, decisions and 

recommendations concerning seismic risk and flooding at nuclear power plants are outside the 

regulatory scope of this GEIS. Nevertheless, following the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi 

nuclear power plant resulting from the March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and 

subsequent tsunami, the NRC established the Near-Term Task Force as directed by the 

Commission on March 23, 2011, in COMGBJ-11-0002. The Japan Near-Term Task Force 

assessment resulted in the issuance of 10 CFR 50.54 (f) letters on March 12, 2012, directing 

that seismic and flooding reevaluations be conducted at existing nuclear power plants (NRC 

2012). 

1.8 Implementation of the Rule (10 CFR Part 51) 

1.8.1 General Requirements 

The regulatory requirements for conducting a NEPA review for license renewal are similar to the 

NEPA review requirements for other major plant licensing actions. Consistent with the current 

NEPA practice for major plant licensing actions, an applicant is required to submit an 

environmental report that assesses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed 

action, considers alternatives to the proposed action, and evaluates any alternatives for 
Introduction 

 1-17 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

reducing adverse environmental effects. For license renewal, the NRC prepares a draft SEIS to 

the GEIS for public comment and issues a final SEIS after considering public comments on the 

draft. 

1.8.2 Applicant’s Environmental Report 

The applicant’s environmental report must contain an assessment of the environmental impacts 

of renewing a license, the environmental impacts of alternatives, and mitigation alternatives. In 

preparing the analysis of environmental impacts contained in the environmental report, the 

applicant should refer to the information provided in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51. The applicant 

is not required to assess the environmental impacts of Category 1 issues listed in Table B-1 

unless the applicant is aware of new and significant information that would change the 

conclusions in the GEIS. For Category 2 issues listed in Table B-1, the applicant must provide 

a plant-specific assessment of the impacts. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) specifies the areas that must 

be addressed for the Category 2 issues in the environmental report. 

10 CFR 51.45(c) and 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) require the applicant to consider alternatives available 

for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed action. 

This consideration is limited to designated Category 2 issues. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(d), the 

environmental report must include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

Federal, State, and local environmental standards. Also, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) specifically 

excludes from consideration in the environmental report the issues of need for power, the 

economic costs and benefits of the proposed action, economic costs and benefits of alternatives 

to the proposed action, or other issues not related to environmental effects of the proposed 

action and associated alternatives. NRC regulations do not require a discussion of the 

economic costs and benefits of these alternatives in the environmental report for license 

renewal, except as necessary to determine whether an alternative should be included in the 

range of alternatives considered or whether certain mitigative actions are appropriate. The 

analysis should also demonstrate consideration of a range (set) of reasonable alternatives to 

license renewal. In preparing the alternatives analysis, the applicant is not limited to the 

technologies presented in this GEIS. Information provided in the applicant’s environmental 

report will be used in preparing the NRC’s SEIS. 

1.8.3 NRC’s SEIS 

As required by 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the NRC is required to prepare a SEIS to the GEIS for each 

license renewal application. The SEIS will serve as the NRC’s analysis of the environmental 

impacts of license renewal as well as a comparison of these impacts to the environmental 

impacts of alternatives. This document will also present the NRC’s recommendation as to the 

environmental impact of license renewal. SEISs for license renewal do not need to include a 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-18 

discussion of the need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed 

action or of alternatives to the proposed action (10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)). 

1.8.4 Public Scoping and Public Comments 

NRC conducts public scoping meetings in order to inform the public about the license renewal 

process and receive comments on the scope of the NRC’s plant-specific environmental review. 

At the conclusion of the scoping period, NRC reviews and addresses public comments in a 

scoping summary report. In addition, the draft SEIS is issued for public comment (see 

10 CFR 51.73). In both the scoping and the public comment process, the NRC will consider 

comments and will determine whether these comments provide any information that is new and 

significant compared with that previously considered in the GEIS (for Category 1 issues). If the 

comments are determined to provide new and significant information that could change the 

conclusions in the GEIS, these comments will be considered and addressed in the SEIS. 

1.8.5 NRC’s Draft SEIS 

The NRC’s draft SEIS will include its analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed 

license renewal action and the environmental impacts of the alternatives to the proposed action. 

The NRC will utilize and integrate (1) the environmental impacts of license renewal as provided 

in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 for Category 1 issues, (2) the appropriate plant-specific 

analyses of Category 2 issues, and (3) any new and significant information identified in the 

applicant’s environmental report or during the scoping and public comment process to arrive at 

a conclusion regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal. These impacts are 

compared to the environmental impacts of the alternatives presented in the SEIS. 

1.8.6 NRC’s Final SEIS 

The NRC will issue a final SEIS in accordance with 10 CFR 51.91 and 51.93 after considering 

(1) the public comments, (2) the analysis of Category 2 issues, and (3) any new and significant 

information involving Category 1 issues. The NRC will provide a record of its decision regarding 

the environmental impacts of the proposed license renewal action (see 10 CFR 51.102 and 

51.103). All comments on the draft SEIS will be addressed by the NRC in the final SEIS in 

accordance with 10 CFR 51.91(a)(1). Comments will be addressed in the following manner: 

 (a) NRC’s response to a comment regarding the applicability of the analysis of an impact 

codified in the rule (i.e., 10 CFR Part 51) to the plant in question may be a statement 

and explanation of its view that the analysis is adequate including, if applicable, 

consideration of the significance of new information. A commenter dissatisfied with 

such a response may file a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. Procedures for 

the submission of petitions for rulemaking are explained in 10 CFR Part 2. If a 
Introduction 

 1-19 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

commenter is successful in persuading the Commission that the new information does 

indicate that the analysis of an impact codified in the rule is incorrect in significant 

respects (either in general or with respect to the particular plant), then a rulemaking 

proceeding will be initiated. 

 (b) If a commenter provides new information that is relevant to the plant and is also 

relevant to other plants (i.e., generic information) and that information demonstrates that 

the analysis of an impact codified in the rule is incorrect, the NRC will seek Commission 

approval either to suspend the application of the rule on a generic basis with respect to 

the analysis or to delay granting the renewal application (and possibly other renewal 

applications) until the rule can be amended. This GEIS would reflect the corrected 

analysis and any additional consideration of alternatives as appropriate. 

 (c) If a commenter provides new, site-specific information that demonstrates that the 

analysis of an impact codified in the rule is incorrect with respect to the particular plant, 

then the NRC staff will seek Commission approval to waive the application of the rule 

with respect to that analysis in that specific renewal proceeding. The SEIS would reflect 

the corrected analysis as appropriate. 

1.9 Public Comments on the Draft GEIS 

The public comment process for the GEIS was similar to that used for SEISs and other NRC 

NEPA documents. In July 2009, NRC distributed the draft GEIS to Federal, State, and local 

government agencies; American Indian Tribes; environmental interest groups; and members of 

the public who requested copies. As part of the process to solicit public comments on the draft 

GEIS, the NRC: 

• Placed a copy of the draft GEIS into the NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room and on 

its license renewal Web site; 

 

• Sent copies of the draft GEIS to members of the public and environmental interest 

groups, representatives of American Indian Tribes, and Federal, State, and local 

agencies; 

 

• Published a notice of availability of the draft GEIS in the Federal Register 

(74 FR 38239); 

 

• Published a notice of an extension to the comment period from 75 to 165 days 

(74 FR 51522); 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-20 

• Issued public announcements, such as advertisements in local newspapers and 

postings in public places, of the availability of the draft GEIS; 

• Announced and held public meetings in (1) Atlanta, Georgia, on September 15, 2009; 

(2) Newton, Massachusetts, on September 17, 2009; (3) Oak Brook, Illinois, on 

September 24, 2009; (4) Rockville, Maryland, on October 1, 2009; (5) Pismo Beach, 

California, on October 20, 2009; and (6) Dana Point, California, on October 22, 2009, to 

receive public comments on the draft GEIS; 

 

• Issued public service announcements and press releases announcing the issuance of 

the draft GEIS, the public meetings, and instructions on how to comment on the draft 

GEIS; and 

 

• Established several methods for the submittal of comments on the draft GEIS, including 

an e-mail address to receive comments through the Internet. 

During the public comment period, the NRC received a total of 32 comment letters, e-mails, and 

Web submissions in addition to comments received during the public meetings. The NRC 

reviewed public meeting transcripts and comment letters, which have been incorporated by 

reference in this GEIS. The public meeting transcripts and comment letters have also been 

made available online in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) (see GEIS Appendix A). 

 

The NRC used public comments gathered during the meetings and comment period when 

developing the final GEIS. NRC responses to comments are included in GEIS Volume 2, 

Appendix A, Section A.2. Comments were received on a variety of topics, including (1) land use 

and visual impacts; (2) air quality, meteorology, and climatology; (3) soils, geology, and 

seismology; (4) water quality, hydrology, and use; (5) aquatic ecology, terrestrial ecology, and 

threatened and endangered species; (6) historic and cultural resources; (7) socioeconomics; 

(8) human health; (9) uranium fuel cycle and waste management; (10) cumulative impacts; 

(11) alternatives to license renewal; (12) postulated accidents; and (13) decommissioning. In 

addition, comments were received on the overall license renewal process and in opposition to 

nuclear power. Some comments received were editorial in nature or were considered outside of 

the scope of the license renewal environmental review process. 

 

Some of the more frequently mentioned issues and their disposition in the final GEIS are 

described in the following paragraphs. Note that these issues are not presented in any 

particular order. 

 

Seismic issues. Many commenters wanted seismic issues to be included in the rule and 

pointed out the importance of reassessing seismic conditions in determining the safety of 
Introduction 

 1-21 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

operating nuclear power plants. Industry commenters disagreed and argued that seismology 

should not be considered part of the issue of “Impacts of nuclear plants on geology and soils” in 

the proposed rule because it is an ongoing safety issue that is being addressed at all plants. 

The NRC agrees with the commenters that consideration of seismic conditions is an ongoing 

safety issue. Although seismic conditions at nuclear power plants are generically discussed in 

the GEIS as part of the geologic environment, seismology is not identified as a separate issue in 

the GEIS because the NRC considered historical earthquake data for each nuclear power plant 

when that plant was first licensed. The NRC requires all licensees to take seismic activity into 

account in order to maintain safe operating conditions at all nuclear power plants. When new 

seismic hazard information becomes available, the NRC evaluates the new data and models to 

determine if any changes are needed at existing plants regardless of whether or not a plant has 

renewed its license. This reactor oversight process, which includes seismic safety, remains 

separate from license renewal. 

 

Unrelated to license renewal, the NRC completed the Generic Issues Program Safety/Risk 

Assessment Stage for Generic Issue 199 in August 2010, “Implications of Updated Probabilistic 

Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants,” which 

evaluated recent updates to estimates of the seismic hazard in the central and eastern United 

States (NRC 2010a,b). The results of the Generic Issue 199 Safety/Risk Assessment indicated 

that the currently operating nuclear power plants have adequate safety margin for seismic 

issues. The NRC’s assessment indicated that overall seismic risk estimates remain SMALL, 

and adequate protection is maintained. The NRC’s path forward for Generic Issue 199 is 

described in NRC Information Notice 2010–18 (NRC 2010b). It provided notice of NRC’s intent 

to follow the appropriate regulatory process to request that operating nuclear power plants and 

independent spent fuel storage installations provide specific information relating to their facilities 

to enable the NRC staff to complete the appropriate backfit analyses (see 10 CFR 50.109) 

where candidate backfits would be identified and evaluated. NRC then developed a draft 

generic letter to request needed data from power reactor licensees. However, following the 

accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant resulting from the March 11, 2011 Great 

Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the NRC established the Near-Term Task Force 

as directed by the Commission. The Japan Near-Term Task Force assessment resulted in the 

issuance of 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters on March 12, 2012, that addressed GI-199 in its entirety in 

recommendations 2.1 and 2.3 regarding seismic and flooding reevaluations, respectively 

(NRC 2012). The NRC’s Japan Lessons Learned Project Directorate has now assumed the 

work of GI-199, including the evaluation of information received and actions taken by power 

reactor licensees in response to the March 12, 2012 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters. 

The NRC’s assessment of seismic hazards for existing nuclear power plants is a separate and 

distinct process from license renewal reviews. Seismic hazard issues are being addressed by 

the NRC on an ongoing basis at all licensed nuclear facilities. Sections 3.4 and 4.4.1 of the 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-22 

GEIS explain that geologic and seismic conditions were considered in the original design of 

nuclear power plants and are part of the license bases for operating plants. Seismic conditions 

are attributes of the geologic environment that are not affected by continued plant operations 

and refurbishment and are not expected to change appreciably during the license renewal term 

for all nuclear power plants. 

 

Air quality impacts. Several commenters objected to the issue “Air quality (non-attainment 

and maintenance areas)” being listed as a Category 2 issue in the proposed rule. The 

commenters argued that air quality impacts would be SMALL even in worst-case situations 

because licensees are required to operate within State air permit requirements. 

 

The NRC agrees with the commenters. Operating experience has shown that the potential 

impact from emergency generators and boilers on air quality would be SMALL for all plants and, 

given the infrequency and short duration of maintenance testing, would not be an air quality 

concern even at plants located in or adjacent to nonattainment areas. Based on these 

comments, NRC technical staff re-evaluated this issue and determined that air quality impacts 

would be SMALL for all plants, and the issue should be Category 1. The GEIS was revised to 

explain this determination. 

 

In addition, recent analysis has shown that the worst-case emissions from cooling tower drift 

and particulate emissions at operating plants were also SMALL. Air quality impacts from 

vehicle, equipment, and fugitive dust emissions associated with refurbishment would be SMALL 

for most plants, but could be a cause for concern for plants located in or near air quality 

nonattainment or maintenance areas. However, the impacts would be temporary and would 

cease once projects were completed. In addition, operating experience has shown that 

refurbishment activities have not required the large numbers of workers and extended durations 

conservatively predicted and analyzed in the 1996 GEIS, nor have such activities resulted in 

exceedances in the de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Consequently, the NRC agrees with the commenters’ arguments that air 

quality impacts would be SMALL for all plants and should be a Category 1 issue. 

 

Groundwater and soil contamination. Several commenters objected to the new Category 2 

issue, “Groundwater and soil contamination,” in the proposed rule and draft GEIS and asserted 

that contamination from industrial practices is addressed by U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and State regulations that monitor and address these impacts. Specifically, the 

use, storage, disposal, release, and/or cleanup of spilled or leaked solvents, hydrocarbons, and 

other potentially hazardous materials are governed by the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

 
Introduction 

 1-23 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

While classified as a Category 2 issue in the draft GEIS and proposed rule, further consideration 

of the “Groundwater and soil contamination” issue and public comments revealed that the 

potential impacts on groundwater and soil quality from common industrial practices (e.g., the 

use, handling, storage, and disposal of chemicals, petroleum products, waste, and hazardous 

material) can be addressed generically, as industrial practices employed by nuclear power 

plants are not unique but common to all industrial facilities. The NRC concludes that the overall 

impact of industrial practices on groundwater use and quality from past and current operations 

is SMALL for all nuclear power plants and not expected to change appreciably during the 

license renewal term. NRC agrees with the commenters to the extent that clarification was 

needed and that common industrial practices which can cause groundwater or soil 

contamination can be addressed generically as a Category 1 issue. 

 

Further, the final rule and GEIS combine the re-classified “Groundwater and soil contamination” 

issue with the Category 1 “Groundwater use and quality” issue and renames the consolidated 

Category 1 issue as “Groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling system impacts).” 

These issues were consolidated because they both consider the impact of industrial activities 

associated with the continued operations of a nuclear power plant (not directly related to cooling 

system effects) on groundwater use and quality. Consolidating these issues also conforms to 

the resource-based approach used in this revised GEIS and serves to facilitate the license 

renewal environmental review process. 

 

The previous findings for “Groundwater use and quality,” as analyzed in the 1996 GEIS, 

indicated that impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on groundwater use and 

quality would be SMALL, as extensive dewatering is not anticipated, and the application of best 

management practices for handling any materials produced or used during activities would 

reduce impacts. These findings were re-evaluated in the draft GEIS and are retained in this 

final GEIS. 

 

This new consolidated issue also considers the impacts on groundwater, soil, and subsoil from 

the industrial use of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals at nuclear power 

plant sites during the license renewal term, including the impacts resulting from the use of 

wastewater disposal ponds or lagoons (both lined or unlined). Industrial practices at all nuclear 

plants have the potential to contaminate groundwater and soil, especially on sites with unlined 

wastewater and storm water lagoons. Contaminants have been found in groundwater and soil 

samples at some nuclear power plants during previous license renewal environmental reviews. 

 

Any groundwater and soil contamination at operating nuclear power plants is subject to 

characterization and cleanup under EPA and State-regulated remediation and monitoring 

programs. In addition, wastewater disposal ponds and lagoons are subject to discharge 

authorizations under NPDES and related State wastewater discharge permit programs. Each 

operating nuclear power plant must comply with these EPA and State regulatory requirements. 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-24 

As such, each site has an established program for handling chemicals, waste, and other 

hazardous materials. Moreover, nuclear power plant licensees are expected to employ best 

management practices, both in minimizing effluents and in remediation. Thus, this new 

consolidated issue, as explained in the final GEIS and rule, is a Category 1 issue. 

 

Radionuclides in groundwater. Several commenters expressed opposition to the inclusion of 

a new Category 2 issue “Radionuclides released to groundwater,” with an impact estimate of 

SMALL to MODERATE in the proposed rule and draft GEIS. Some commenters indicated that 

the issue category should be changed to Category 1; others suggested that the levels of 

significance should range from SMALL to LARGE. The argument for changing the issue to 

Category 1 was based on the voluntary industry-wide initiative (NEI 07-07, Industry Ground 

Water Protection Initiative—Final Guidance Document; NEI 2007) designed to protect 

groundwater. 

 

This new Category 2 issue evaluates the potential contamination and degradation of 

groundwater resources resulting from inadvertent discharges of radionuclides into groundwater 

from nuclear power plants. Within the past several years, there have been numerous events at 

power reactor sites which involved unknown, uncontrolled, and unmonitored releases of 

radionuclides into the groundwater. The number of these events and the high level of public 

controversy have made this issue one that the NRC believes needs a “hard look” as required by 

NEPA. 

As a voluntary action, NEI 07–07 cannot be enforced by the NRC. As such, no violations can 

be issued against a licensee who fails to comply with the guidance in NEI 07-07. Furthermore, 

the NRC cannot rely on a voluntary initiative as a basis to ensure that the nuclear power 

industry will have adequate information available for the NRC to determine whether a 

documented leak or spill does or does not have an adverse impact on groundwater resources. 

Regarding the magnitude of impact, the NRC bases its determination of SMALL to MODERATE 

impact on a review of existing plants have had inadvertent releases of radioactive liquids. Even 

though the NRC expects impacts for all plants to be within this range, a conclusion of LARGE 

impact would not be precluded for a future license renewal review based on new and significant 

information if the data support such a conclusion. As reflected in the final GEIS and rule, 

“Radionuclides released to groundwater” remains a Category 2 issue. 

 

Radiation exposure to the public. Many commenters identified recent studies that claim an 

association between cancer risk and proximity to nuclear power facilities. 

 

The NRC’s primary mission is to protect the public health and safety and the environment from 

the effects of radiation from nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities. The NRC’s 

regulatory limits for radiological protection are set to protect workers and the public from the 

harmful health effects (i.e., cancer and other biological impacts) of radiation to humans. The 
Introduction 

 1-25 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

limits are based on the recommendations of scientific standards-setting organizations. These 

radiation standards reflect extensive scientific study by national and international organizations. 

The NRC actively participates in and monitors the work of these organizations to remain current 

on the latest trends in radiation protection. If the NRC determines that there is a need to revise 

its radiation protection regulations, it will initiate a separate rulemaking. The models recognized 

by the NRC for use by licensees to calculate dose incorporate conservative assumptions to 

ensure that workers and members of the public are adequately protected from radiation. 

 

On April 7, 2010, the NRC announced that it asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to 

perform a state-of-the-art study on cancer risk for populations surrounding nuclear power 

facilities (ADAMS Accession No. ML100970142). The NAS has a broad range of medical and 

scientific experts who can provide the best available analysis of the complex issues involved in 

discussing cancer risk and commercial nuclear power plants. The NAS is a nongovernmental 

organization chartered by the U.S. Congress to advise the nation on issues of science, 

technology, and medicine. Through the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, it 

carries out studies independently of the government, using processes designed to promote 

transparency, objectivity, and technical rigor. More information on its methods for performing 

studies is available at http://www.nationalacademies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.

 

The NAS study will update the 1990 U.S. National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute 

(NCI) report, “Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities” (Jablon et al. 1991), which 

concluded there was no evidence that nuclear facilities may be linked casually with excess 

death from leukemia or from other cancers in populations living nearby. The study’s objectives 

are to (1) evaluate whether cancer risk is different for populations living near nuclear power 

facilities; (2) include cancer occurrence; (3) develop an approach to assess cancer risk in 

geographic areas that are smaller than the county level; and (4) evaluate the study results in the 

context of offsite doses from normal reactor operations. The study began in the summer of 

2010 and is expected to be completed within three years. A discussion about NRC’s 

sponsorship of this follow-up study is in Section 3.9.1.3 of the GEIS. 

 

Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel, waste disposal, and Yucca Mountain. Please see 

section 1.7.2, “Disposition of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” above. 

Postulated accidents. Numerous comments were received on the NRC’s evaluation and 

classification of postulated accidents. One commenter disagreed with the GEIS’s conclusion 

that environmental impact from design basis accidents (DBAs) is SMALL. Also, several 

commenters disagreed with the GEIS conclusion that the environmental impact from severe 

accidents is SMALL, and further, that the evaluation is not adequate because of its use of 

probability-weighted risk assessments. Their position is that for severe accidents, the revised 

GEIS should also evaluate the consequences of reactor accidents and expand the evaluation to 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-26 

include spent fuel pool accidents and accidents due to age-related plant component 

degradation. In addition, some of the commenters stated that the NRC has gained enough 

information from the many plant licenses it has renewed to make a determination, on a generic 

basis, that the “Severe accidents” issue should be reclassified as Category 1. 

Design Basis Accidents. The NRC does not agree that the GEIS’s evaluation of DBAs is 

incorrect. The NRC evaluates and presents the potential consequences of DBAs in nuclear 

power plant licensing documents and considers them in the GEIS for license renewal. 

In order to receive NRC approval for an initial operating license, an applicant must submit a final 

safety analysis report (FSAR) as part of its application. The FSAR presents the applicable 

design criteria and design information for the proposed reactor, as well as comprehensive data 

on the proposed site. The FSAR also discusses hypothetical reactor accident situations and 

addresses the safety features that prevent and mitigate those accidents. During the initial 

licensing process for a power reactor, the NRC reviews the FSAR to determine whether or not 

the plant design meets the NRC’s regulations. 

At initial licensing, the NRC also considered the environmental impact of DBAs at each 

operating nuclear power plant. DBAs are those events that both the applicant and the NRC 

evaluate to ensure that the plant can withstand normal and abnormal transients (e.g., rapid 

changes in reactor power) without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. Although 

the NRC does not expect that all of these postulated events will occur during the life of the plant, 

the NRC evaluates them to establish the basis for the preventive and mitigative safety systems 

of the facility. The acceptance criteria for DBAs are described in 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic 

Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” and 10 CFR Part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria.” 

Compliance with these regulations provides reasonable assurance of adequate protection of 

public health and safety. 

During operations, the NRC requires that each power plant licensee maintains acceptable 

design and performance criteria in accordance with the NRC regulations, including during any 

license renewal period. Therefore, the calculated releases from DBAs will remain within the 

NRC regulatory limits. 

The 1996 GEIS, in Section 5.2, discusses the impacts of potential accidents. It contains a 

discussion of plant accidents and consequences. This discussion addresses general 

characteristics of design basis (and severe) accidents, characteristics of fission products, 

meteorological considerations, possible exposure pathways, potential adverse health effects, 

avoiding adverse health effects, accident experience and observed impacts, and emergency 

preparedness. This GEIS reexamined the information from the 1996 GEIS and concluded that it 

is still valid. Because the information on DBAs is valid and has not changed, this GEIS does not 

repeat the information from the 1996 GEIS. 
Introduction 

 1-27 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Severe Accidents. The NRC does not agree with the comments that the GEIS evaluation is 

inadequate regarding the impacts from severe accidents because it uses probability-weighted 

risk assessments. Severe accidents (i.e., beyond design-basis accidents) are those that could 

result in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are serious off-site 

consequences. The 1996 GEIS estimated and considered the potential impacts on human 

health and economic factors from full-power severe reactor accidents initiated by internal events 

at different types of nuclear facilities located in different types of settings. That evaluation 

included modeling the release of radioactive materials into the environment and modeling the 

pathways (i.e., exposure to the radioactive plume, inhalation of radioactivity, consumption of 

contaminated food) through which members of the public could potentially be exposed to doses 

of radiation. Based on the calculated doses, the 1996 GEIS reported the consequences 

(i.e., potential early and latent fatalities) from such accidents. In developing a potential impact 

level, however, the NRC took into account the very low probability of such events, as well as 

their potential consequences, and concluded that the likely impact from individual nuclear power 

plants is small. 

In this GEIS, the NRC expanded the scope of the severe accident evaluations and used more 

recent technical information that included both internal and external event core-damage 

frequency, as well as improved severe accident source terms, spent fuel pool accidents, low 

power and reactor shutdown events, new radiation risk-coefficients from the National Academy 

of Sciences, “Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Biological Effects 

of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report,” and risk impacts of reactor power uprates and higher 

fuel burn-up levels. As a result, this GEIS considers updated information in determining the 

potential consequences of a reactor accident. Considering this updated information and that 

severe reactor accidents remain unlikely, this GEIS concludes that the environmental impacts of 

a severe accident remain small. 

The NRC notes, however, that the GEIS is not the primary vehicle the NRC uses to address and 

regulate risks from severe accidents. The NRC’s regulations and regulatory practices employ 

safety standards in the design, construction, and operation of nuclear power plants as well as 

risk models to ensure the public is adequately protected on an on-going basis. The NRC ‘s 

ongoing oversight addresses the public’s risk from nuclear power plant accidents, accounts for 

the effects of proposed changes that may be made as part of power plant operations, and 

considers new information about the facility or its environment when necessary. 

Although the NRC has determined that impacts from severe accidents are small for all facilities, 

the NRC continues to maintain that severe accidents cannot be a Category 1 issue because 

plant-specific mitigation measures vary greatly based on plant designs, safety systems, fuel 

type, operating procedures, local environment, population, and siting characteristics. Thus, 

severe accidents remain a Category 2 issue. Accordingly, the NRC has not changed the 

requirements in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) that an applicant’s environmental report must contain 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-28 

a discussion that considers alternatives to mitigate severe accidents if the NRC has not 

previously considered this issue in an environmental impact statement or environmental 

assessment for the facility. 

Spent Fuel Pool Accidents. The 1996 GEIS included a quantitative analysis of a severe 

accident involving a reactor operating at full power. A qualitative evaluation of SFP accidents is 

presented in Appendix E of this GEIS. Based on this evaluation, this GEIS concludes that the 

environmental impacts from accidents involving SFPs are comparable to those from the reactor 

accidents at full power that were evaluated in the 1996 GEIS, and as such, SFP accidents do 

not warrant separate evaluation. Based on the continued validity of conclusions from the 1996 

GEIS, as affirmed by the Commission (see following paragraph), this GEIS does not contain a 

quantitative evaluation of SFP accidents. 

The issue of an accident involving the spent fuel was specifically addressed by the NRC in 

response to two Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM), PRM-51-10 and PRM-51-12, submitted by the 

Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2006 and the Attorney General of 

California in 2007, respectively (collectively, the Petitioners). The Petitioners challenged the 

1996 GEIS Category 1 classification for this issue.(c) The Petitioners requested that the NRC 

initiate a rulemaking concerning the environmental impacts of the high-density storage of spent 

nuclear fuel in spent fuel pools (SFPs). The Petitioners asserted that ‘‘new and significant 

information’’ showed that the NRC incorrectly characterized the environmental impacts of highdensity spent fuel storage as ‘‘insignificant’’ in the 1996 GEIS for the renewal of nuclear power 

plant licenses. Specifically, the Petitioners asserted that spent fuel stored in high-density SFPs 

is more vulnerable to a zirconium fire than the NRC concluded in its NEPA analysis. 

On August 8, 2008 (73 FR 46204), the Commission denied the petitions, stating: 

Based upon its review of the petitions, the NRC has determined that the studies 

upon which the Petitioners rely do not constitute new and significant information. 

The NRC has further determined that its findings related to the storage of spent 

nuclear fuel in pools, as set forth in NUREG-1437 and in Table B-1, of 

Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, remain valid. Thus, the NRC has 

met and continues to meet its obligations under NEPA. For the reasons 

discussed previously, the Commission denies PRM-51-10 and PRM-51-12.(d)

 

 

(c) The details of the petitions and the NRC’s evaluations of those petitions are available to the public 

through the ADAMS electronic reading room (at www.nrc.gov using ADAMS accession number 

ML073310115) and in the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID [NRC2006-0022] (PRM-51-10), and [NRC-2007-0019] (PRM-51-12)). 

(d) 73 FR 46204, 46212 (August 8, 2008). The NRC decision to deny the two rulemaking petitions was 

upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. New York v. the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, 589 F.3d 551 (2nd Cir. 2009). 
Introduction 

 1-29 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Based on the continued validity of conclusions from the 1996 GEIS, and as affirmed by the 

Commission in its denial of PRM-51-10 and PRM-51-12, the NRC concludes that the onsite 

storage of spent fuel is properly classified as Category 1. 

Aging-Related Degradation. Issues related to age-related plant component degradation are 

addressed in the NRC’s safety evaluation of the plant’s license renewal application. The 

regulations covering the safety review for license renewal are in 10 CFR Part 54. 

The 1996 GEIS discusses the potential effects of age on the physical plant and notes that such 

deterioration could result in an increased likelihood of component or structure failure that could 

increase the rate of plant accidents. The GEIS notes that the NRC requires an applicant for 

license renewal address the issue of age-related degradation by identifying, in an integrated 

plant assessment process, those passive, long-lived structures and components that are 

susceptible to age-related degradation and whose functions are necessary to ensure that the 

facility’s current licensing basis will be maintained in the license renewal period. The GEIS 

found that the safety evaluation performed by the NRC as part of the license renewal process 

provides reasonable assurance that age-related degradation will be managed and adequate 

protection of the health and safety of the public will be maintained during the license renewal 

period. Therefore, the 1996 GEIS concluded “the probability of any radioactive releases from 

accidents will not increase over the license renewal period.” Based on nuclear power plants’ 

continued compliance with 10 CFR Part 54 to manage age-related degradation, this GEIS did 

not alter or revise this conclusion. 

 

Climate change. Several commenters discussed the need to include a discussion of the 

effects of climate change on plant operations and the effect of continued operations during the 

license renewal period on environmental resources affected by climate change. 

 

Like other Federal agencies, the NRC has begun to evaluate the effects of greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions and its implications for global climate change in its environmental reviews for 

both new reactor and license renewal applications. Changes in climate have the potential to 

affect air and water resources, ecological resources, and human health, and should be taken 

into account when evaluating cumulative impacts over the license renewal term. 

Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule and during the public comment period, the 

Commission issued a memorandum and order concerning two combined license applications for 

new reactor units at the Tennessee Valley Authority Bellefonte site in Alabama and the Duke 

Energy Carolinas Lee site in South Carolina (CLI–09–21, November 3, 2009). The 

memorandum and order stated: 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-30 

[B]ecause the Staff is currently addressing the emerging issues surrounding 

greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews required for the licensing of 

nuclear facilities, we believe it is prudent to provide the following guidance to the 

Staff. We expect the Staff to include consideration of carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental reviews for major licensing 

actions under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Staff’s analysis for 

reactor applications should encompass emissions from the uranium fuel cycle as 

well as from construction and operation of the facility to be licensed. The Staff 

should ensure that these issues are addressed consistently in agency NEPA 

evaluations and, as appropriate, update Staff guidance documents to address 

greenhouse gas emissions.(e)

Presently, insufficient data exists to support an impact level on a generic basis. The NRC only 

has direct emission data for a handful of facilities. Although some States have varying reporting 

requirements, GHG emissions reporting nationwide is in its infancy. The EPA promulgated its 

GHG emissions reporting rule on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). In accordance with this rule, 

the first industry reporting date was March 31, 2011.(f)

 Moreover, the 25,000 annual metric ton 

reporting threshold EPA established in the above final rule are not an indication of what EPA 

considers to be a significant (or insignificant) level of GHG emissions on a scientific basis, but a 

threshold chosen by EPA for policy evaluation purposes.(g)

In order to comply with the Commission’s direction in CLI–09–21 and in response to the 

comments received, a new section, “GHG Emissions and Climate Change” (Chapter 4, 

Section 4.12.3.2), summarizing the potential cumulative impacts of GHG emissions and global 

climate change, has been added to the final GEIS. The NRC will also include within each SEIS 

a plant-specific analysis of any impacts caused by GHG emissions over the course of the 

license renewal term as well as any cumulative impacts caused by potential climate change 

upon the affected resources during the license renewal term. The final rule was not revised to 

include any reference to GHG emissions or climate change. 

 

Recent advances in (replacement power alternatives. Several commenters asserted that 

much of the information describing replacement power alternatives did not reflect the state-of-

 

(e) In the matter of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Combined License Application for William States Lee III 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2); in the matter of Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear 

Power Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI–09–21 (NRC November 3, 2009). 

(f) 74 FR 56260, 56267 (October 30, 2009), codified at 40 CFR 98.3(b) (“The annual GHG report must 

be submitted no later than March 31 of each calendar year for GHG emissions in the previous 

calendar year”). 

(g) EPA concluded for policy evaluation purposes, the 25,000 metric ton threshold more effectively 

targets large industrial emitters and suppliers, covers approximately 85 percent of U.S. emissions, 

and minimizes the burden on smaller facilities. 
Introduction 

 1-31 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

the-science. In some cases, commenters noted facts and events that occurred after the 

publication date of the draft GEIS. 

 

The NRC has updated the final GEIS to incorporate the latest information on replacement power 

alternatives, but it is inevitable that rapidly evolving technologies will outpace information 

presented in the GEIS. Incorporation of this information is more appropriately made in the 

context of plant-specific license renewal reviews, rather than in the GEIS. As with renewable 

energy technologies, energy policies are evolving rapidly. While the NRC acknowledges that 

legislation, technological advancements, and public policy can underlie a fundamental paradigm 

shift in energy portfolios, the NRC cannot make decisions based on anticipated or speculative 

changes. Instead, the NRC considers the status of alternatives and energy policies when 

conducting plant-specific environmental reviews. The introduction to GEIS Section 2.3.4 has 

been revised to clarify NRC’s approach to evaluating replacement power alternatives. 

 

Emergency preparedness and security. Many commenters expressed concern with 

emergency preparedness, evacuation, and safety and security planning at nuclear power plants. 

Commenters stated that these concerns were not adequately covered in the draft GEIS and 

should be included in the scope of plant-specific license renewal supplements to the GEIS. 

 

As explained in GEIS Section 1.7.3, emergency preparedness and planning are part of a 

nuclear power plant’s current operating license. Before a nuclear power plant is licensed to 

operate, the NRC must have “reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can 

and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency” (10 CFR 50.47). Therefore, the 

Commission determined that decisions and recommendations concerning emergency 

preparedness at nuclear plants are ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of license 

renewal. 

 

The Commission considered the need for a review of emergency planning issues in the context 

of license renewal during its rulemaking proceedings on 10 CFR Part 54, “Requirements for 

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” which included public notice and 

comment. As discussed in the Statement of Consideration for rulemaking (56 FR 64966; 

December 13, 1991), the programs for emergency preparedness at nuclear power facilities 

apply to all nuclear power facility licensees and require the specified levels of protection from 

each licensee regardless of plant design, construction, or license date. NRC requirements 

related to emergency planning are in the regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 

10 CFR Part 50, “Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization 

Facilities.” These requirements apply to all operating licenses and will continue to apply to 

facilities with renewed licenses. Through its standards and required exercises, the Commission 

reviews existing emergency preparedness plans throughout the life of any facility, keeping up 

with changing demographics and other site-related factors. 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-32 

Further, the NRC actively reviews its regulatory framework to ensure that the emergency 

preparedness regulations are current and effective. The agency began a major review of its 

emergency preparedness framework in 2005, including a comprehensive review of the 

emergency preparedness regulations and guidance, the issuance of generic communications 

regarding the integration of emergency preparedness and security, and outreach efforts to 

interested persons to discuss emergency preparedness issues. In 2011, these activities 

culminated in the issuance of a final rule that enhances a nuclear power plant’s response to 

possible hostile action events by making drill and exercise programs more challenging, 

changing the criteria for declaring emergencies, and taking additional steps to protect workers. 

The rule also includes other new requirements such as when updates to evacuation time 

estimates are required. 

 

As explained in GEIS Section 1.7.4, security issues are not tied to a license renewal action but 

are considered to be issues that need to be dealt with continuously as a part of the current (and 

renewed) operating license. If issues related to security are discovered at a nuclear plant, they 

are addressed immediately, and any necessary changes are reviewed and incorporated under 

the current operating license (NRC 2006). For example, after the terrorist attacks of 

September 2001, the NRC issued security-related orders and guidance to nuclear power plants. 

These orders and guidance included interim measures for emergency planning. Nuclear 

industry groups and Federal, State, and local government agencies assisted in the prompt 

implementation of these measures and participated in drills and exercises to test these new 

planning elements. The NRC reviewed licensees’ commitments to address these requirements 

and verified their implementation through inspections to ensure public health and safety. 

In summary, the issue of security (and risk from terrorist acts against nuclear power plants) is 

not unique to facilities requesting license renewal. The NRC routinely assesses threats and 

other information provided by other Federal agencies and sources. The NRC also ensures that 

licensees meet their security requirements through its ongoing regulatory process (routine 

inspections) as a current and generic regulatory issue that affects all nuclear power plants. 

Therefore, as discussed in the Statements of Consideration for the 10 CFR Part 54 rulemaking, 

the Commission has determined that there is no need for a special review of security issues in 

the context of an environmental review for license renewal. 

Fukushima earthquake and tsunami. On March 11, 2011, a massive earthquake off the east 

coast of Honshu, Japan, produced a devastating tsunami that struck the coastal town of 

Fukushima. The six-unit Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant was directly impacted by 

these events. The resulting damage caused the failure of several of the units’ safety systems 

needed to maintain cooling water flow to the reactors. As a result of the loss of cooling, the fuel 

overheated, and there was a partial meltdown of the fuel contained in several of the reactors. 

Damage to the systems and structures containing reactor fuel resulted in the release of 

radioactive material to the surrounding environment. 
Introduction 

 1-33 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

In response to the earthquake, tsunami, and resulting reactor accidents at Fukushima Dai-ichi 

(hereafter referred to as the “Fukushima events”), the Commission directed the staff to convene 

an agency taskforce (Japan Near-Term Task Force) of senior leaders and experts to conduct a 

methodical and systematic review of the relevant NRC regulatory requirements, programs, and 

processes, including their implementation, and to recommend whether the agency should make 

near-term improvements to its regulatory system. As part of the short-term review, the taskforce 

concluded that, while improvements are expected to be made as a result of the lessons learned 

from the Fukushima events, the continued operation of nuclear power plants and licensing 

activities for new plants do not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety (NRC 2011). 

During the time that the taskforce was conducting its review, groups of individuals and nongovernmental organizations petitioned the Commission to suspend all licensing decisions in 

order to conduct a separate, generic NEPA analysis to determine whether the Fukushima 

events constituted “new and significant information” under NEPA that must be analyzed as part 

of environmental reviews. The Commission found the request premature and noted, “In short, 

we do not know today the full implications of the [Fukushima] events for U.S. facilities.”(h)

 

However, the Commission found that if “new and significant information comes to light that 

requires consideration as part of the ongoing preparation of application-specific NEPA 

documents, the agency will assess the significance of that information, as appropriate.”(i)

 The 

Federal courts of appeal and the Commission have interpreted NEPA such that an EIS must be 

updated to include new information only when that new information provides “a seriously 

different picture of the environmental impact of the proposed project from what was previously 

envisioned.”(j)

 

In the context of the GEIS, the Fukushima events are considered a severe accident (i.e., a type 

of accident that may challenge a plant’s safety systems at a level much higher than expected) 

and more specifically, a severe accident initiated by an event external to the plant. The 1996 

GEIS concluded that risks from severe accidents initiated by external events (such as an 

earthquake) could have potentially high consequences but found that external events are 

adequately addressed through a consideration of a severe accident initiated by an internal event 

(such as a loss of cooling water). Therefore, an applicant for license renewal need only analyze 

 

(h) Union Electric Co. d/b/a Ameren Missouri (Callaway Plant, Unit 2), CLI-11-05, 74 NRC __, __ (slip op. 

at 30) (Sept. 9, 2011). 

(i) Id. at 30-31. 

(j) Id. at 31 (quoting Hydro Resources, Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), 

CLI-99-22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999) (citing Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 

373 (1989))). The Commission also noted that it can modify a facility’s operating license outside of a 

renewal proceeding and made clear that “it will use the information from these activities to impose 

any requirement it deems necessary, irrespective of whether a plant is applying for or has been 

granted a renewed operating license.” Id. at 26-27. 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-34 

the environmental impacts from an internal event in order to adequately characterize the 

environmental impacts from either type of event. Prior to the Fukushima events, this GEIS 

examined more recent and up-to-date information regarding external events and concluded that 

the analysis in the 1996 GEIS remains valid. 

Meanwhile, the Japan Near-Term Task Force assessment resulted in the issuance of 

10 CFR 50.54(f) letters on March 12, 2012, to address seismic and flooding reevaluations (NRC 

2012). As of the publication date of this GEIS, the NRC’s evaluation of the consequences of the 

Fukushima events is ongoing under the direction of the NRC’s Japan Lessons Learned Project 

Directorate. As such, the NRC will continue to evaluate the need to make improvements to 

existing regulatory requirements based on the task force report and additional studies and 

analyses of the Fukushima events as more information is learned. To the extent that any 

revisions are made to NRC regulatory requirements, they would be made applicable to nuclear 

power reactors regardless of whether or not they have a renewed license. Therefore, no 

additional analyses have been performed in this GEIS as a result of the Fukushima events. In 

the event that the NRC identifies information from the Fukushima events that constitutes new 

and significant information with respect to the environmental impacts of license renewal, the 

NRC will discuss that information in its site-specific SEISs to the GEIS, as it does with all such 

new and significant information. 

1.10 Changes from the Draft GEIS 

 

In response to public comments on the proposed rule (74 FR 38117, July 21, 2009) and draft 

GEIS and as a result of information that was unavailable at the time of the issuance of the draft 

GEIS, the final GEIS contains revisions and new information. Volume 2, Appendix A, 

Section A.2 presents the comments received during the public comment period on the proposed 

rule and draft GEIS and NRC’s responses to those comments. A brief discussion of the most 

important changes is provided in this section. 

 

1.10.1 General Overview of Rule-Related Changes 

 

Based on public comments and direction from the Commission, a number of the environmental 

impact issues identified in Table B-1 of the proposed rule and the associated technical basis for 

the findings in the draft GEIS were re-evaluated for the final GEIS and rule. Some of these 

environmental impact issues are discussed in the Section 1.9, “Public Comments on the Draft 

GEIS.” These changes are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 in this final GEIS and are briefly 

summarized as follows: 

 

• “Air quality (non-attainment and maintenance areas)” issue was changed from a 

Category 2 to a Category 1 issue and renamed, “Air quality impacts (all plants).” 
Introduction 

 1-35 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

 

• “Groundwater and soil contamination,” was changed from a Category 2 to a Category 1 

issue and consolidated with “Groundwater use and quality” into a single renamed 

Category 1 issue, “Groundwater contamination and use.” 

 

• “Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms” issues were reorganized to separate out 

several Category 1 thermal impact issues (grouped together with a Category 2 thermal 

impact issue in the proposed rule) to create a new separate combined Category 1 issue, 

“Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all plants),” which also includes the previously 

separate “Stimulation of aquatic nuisance species (e.g., shipworms)” Category 1 thermal 

impact issue. Like Category 1 issues had been grouped together within the larger 

context of the Category 2 issue in the proposed rule to facilitate the environmental 

review process consistent with the resource-based approach in this GEIS. 

 “Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms” issues were reorganized to 

separate out a single impingement and entrainment Category 1 issue (grouped with 

other impingement and entrainment issues in the proposed rule) to create a new 

separate Category 1 issue, “Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton ( all plants).” 

Like impingement and entrainment issues had been grouped together within the larger 

context of the Category 2 issue, “Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms 

(plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)” in the proposed rule to 

facilitate the environmental review process consistent with the resource-based approach 

in this GEIS. 

• The NRC revised the Category 1 “Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel”(k) issue to narrow 

the period of onsite storage to the license renewal term as a result of the 2012 D.C. 

Circuit decision in New York v. NRC, and the Commission’s subsequent direction. As 

described in section 1.7.2, “Disposition of spent nuclear fuel,” above, pending the 

issuance of a generic EIS and revised Waste Confidence Decision and Rule, the period 

of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel following the permanent shutdown of the power 

reactor and expiration of the operating license is now excluded from this GEIS issue. As 

revised, this issue now covers the onsite storage of spent fuel for the term of the 

extended license only; it remains classified as a Category 1 issue. 

• The “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal” 

issue(l) was determined to be a Category 1 issue in the 1996 GEIS, but given the 2012 

 

(k) The issue was named “On-site spent fuel” in the 1996 rule and GEIS. 

(l) The issue was named “Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level waste disposal)” in the 

1996 rule and GEIS. 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-36 

D.C. Circuit decision in New York v. NRC, and the Commission’s subsequent direction, 

the NRC reclassified the issue to uncategorized in the final GEIS. As the NRC has now 

determined that this issue is uncategorized, pending further action by the Commission to 

address the issues raised in New York v. NRC, an applicant is not required to conduct a 

plant-specific assessment of the environmental impacts associated with this issue in its 

environmental report. 

As a result, 59 environmental impact issues were determined to be Category 1 and would not 

require additional plant-specific analysis unless new and significant information is identified 

during a plant-specific license renewal environmental review that would change the conclusions 

in the GEIS. Of the remaining 19 issues, 17 were determined to be Category 2, and two are 

uncategorized. These 78 issues are evaluated in the final GEIS. No environmental issues 

evaluated in the 1996 GEIS were eliminated, but certain issues have been consolidated or 

grouped due to the related nature of the impacts. 

 

1.10.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 

 

A discussion of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change has been added to the final 

GEIS. 

 

1.10.3 Miscellaneous Revisions and Editorial Changes 

 

Several sections in the final GEIS were revised to reflect the availability of more recent 

information or to include corrections, fix erroneous information, improve the presentation, and to 

make other editorial changes. Sections of the GEIS were also revised in response to the Plain 

Writing Act of 2010, which directs Federal agencies to write all new publications, forms, and 

publicly distributed documents in a clear, concise, organized manner and to follow other best 

practices appropriate to writing for the public. None of these revisions and editorial changes 

affect the assessment of environmental impacts to the 78 environmental issues addressed in 

the final GEIS. 
Introduction 

 1-37 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

1.11 Lessons Learned 

 

As previously discussed, the NRC reviewed and reevaluated the impacts of license renewal on 

the 92 environmental issues addressed in the 1996 GEIS. Over 40 nuclear plants (70 reactor 

units) have since undergone license renewal environmental reviews. Lessons learned and 

knowledge gained from these license renewal environmental reviews have provided a 

significant source of new information for this GEIS revision. 

 

The purpose of this review and reevaluation was to determine if the findings presented in the 

1996 GEIS remain valid. In doing so, the NRC considered the need to modify, add, group, or 

delete any of the 92 issues in the 1996 GEIS. After this review and reevaluation, the NRC 

carried forward 78 impact issues for detailed consideration in this GEIS revision. The issues 

identified in the 1996 GEIS have served to accurately categorize most environmental impacts 

associated with license renewal, and there have been no cases where new and significant 

information called into question the original findings of the GEIS. There have been a number of 

instances where new (but not significant) information was discovered during a license renewal 

review. In most cases, the new information identified did not fit into one of the 92 environmental 

issues addressed in the 1996 GEIS but still warranted review in the plant-specific SEIS. For 

example, the environmental review for license renewal at the D.C. Cook plant in Michigan 

considered the effects of sanitary sewage lagoons on groundwater quality as a new issue. The 

review for the Oyster Creek plant considered the effects of a small dam built to impound water 

for fire-fighting purposes. The license renewal environmental review process established in 

10 CFR Part 51 has proven to be robust because it allows new information and lessons learned 

to be addressed in subsequent plant-specific license renewal environmental reviews. 

1.12 New Organization of the GEIS 

This GEIS revision adopts the NRC’s standard format for EISs as established in 10 CFR 

Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A. Consequently, the organizational structure of this GEIS is quite 

different from that of the 1996 GEIS. The 1996 GEIS presented impacts organized around plant 

systems (e.g., cooling systems, transmission lines) and activities (e.g., refurbishment). This 

GEIS takes a more typical NEPA resource-based approach to presenting impacts where all 

components of the proposed action and alternatives are presented for each resource area. The 

following list describes the contents of each chapter of GEIS: 

• Chapter 2 presents brief descriptions of the proposed action (including nuclear plant 

operations, refurbishment, and termination of operations and decommissioning) during 

the license renewal term and summary of impacts; the no-action alternative; and 

replacement power alternatives. 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-38 

• Chapter 3 presents a general description of the affected environment in the vicinity of 

operating commercial nuclear power plants in the United States. Included are 

descriptions of nuclear power plant facilities and operations followed by general 

descriptions of existing conditions in the following topical areas: (1) land use and visual 

resources; (2) meteorology, air quality, and noise; (3) geologic environment; (4) water 

resources (surface water and groundwater resources); (5) ecological resources 

(terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, special status species and habitats); (6) historic 

and cultural resources; (7) socioeconomics; (8) human health (radiological and 

nonradiological hazards); (9) environmental justice; and (10) waste management. 

• Chapter 4 presents the environmental consequences associated with the proposed 

action (license renewal) and replacement power alternatives (including the effects of 

construction and operations) on each of the topical areas presented in Chapter 3. 

Impacts common to all alternatives (including the environmental consequences of fuel 

cycles and terminating power plant operations), cumulative impacts, and resource 

commitments associated with the proposed action are also discussed. 

• Chapter 5 presents a list of the preparers of this GEIS, their affiliations, authorship 

responsibilities, and qualifications. 

• Chapter 6 provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and persons receiving copies of 

the GEIS. 

• Chapter 7 provides for a glossary of terms used in the GEIS. 

1.13 References 

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

Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders.” 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing 

of Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 
Introduction 

 1-39 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site 

Criteria.” 

40 CFR Part 98. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 98, 

“Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting.” 

40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, 

“EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” 

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

Part 1502, “Environmental Impact Statement.” 

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

Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

44 CFR Appendix A to Part 353. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Appendix A to Part 353, 

“Memorandum of Understanding between Federal Emergency Management Agency and 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” 

49 FR 34694. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Waste Confidence Decision. August 31, 

1984. 

55 FR 38474. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Update and Final Revision of Waste 

Confidence Decision. September 18, 1990. 

56 FR 47016. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Environmental Review for Renewal of 

Operating Licenses; Draft Rule. September 17, 1991. 

56 FR 64943–64967. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nuclear Power Plant License 

Renewal; Final Rule. December 13, 1991. 

 

61 FR 28467. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Environmental Review for Renewal of 

Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; Final Rule. June 5, 1996. 

64 FR 68005. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Waste Confidence Decision Review: 

Status. December 6, 1999. 

72 FR 49509. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Update and Final Revision of Waste 

Confidence Decision (72 FR 49352). August 28, 2007. 
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 1-40 

73 FR 46204. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Attorney General of Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts, The Attorney General of California; Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking. 

August 8, 2008. 

 

74 FR 38117. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Revisions to Environmental Review for 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; Proposed Rule. July 31, 2009. 

 

74 FR 38239. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Notice of Availability of the Draft Revision 

to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Revision 1, 

NUREG–1437 and Public Meetings. July 31, 2009. 

74 FR 51522. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Revisions to Environmental Review for 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; Proposed rule: Extension of Comment 

Period. October 7, 2009. 

 

74 FR 56260. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases: Final Rule. October 30, 2009. 

 

75 FR 81032–81037. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Consideration of Environmental 

Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation: Final Rule. 

December 23, 2010. 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 USC 2011 et seq. 

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

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). 

42 USC 9601. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 7 USC 136 et seq. 

Jablon, S., Z. Hrubec, and J.D. Boice Jr. 1991. “Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear 

Facilities: A Survey of Mortality Nationwide and Incidence in Two States.” Journal of the 

American Medical Association 265(11):1403–1408. 

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

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2007. Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative—Final 

Guidance Document. NEI 07-07 (Final). Washington D.C. August. Available URL: 

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0726/ML072610036.pdf. 

 
Introduction 

 1-41 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). 42 USC 10101 et seq. 

Plain Writing Act of 2010. 5 USC 301. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 42 USC 6901 et seq. 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 15 USC (C. 53) 2601-2692. 

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

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

ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

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

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

Report.” In Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 

Main Report. NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession 

No. 040690720. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. Frequently Asked Questions on License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-1850. Washington, D.C. March 2006. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML061110022. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Safety/Risk Assessment Results for 

Generic Issue 199, Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central 

and Eastern United States on Existing Plants. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 

Washington, D.C. August. ADAMS Accession No. ML100270582. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Generic Issue 199, Implications of 

Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on 

Existing Plants. Information Notice 2010-18. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, D.C. September 2. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML101970221. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2011. Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor 

Safety in the 21st Century, The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima 

Dai-ichi Accident.” July 12, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML111861807. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2012. Request for Information Pursuant to 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1,2.3, and 

9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident. 

March 12, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML12053A340. 

 

 2-1 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

The proposed action considered in this generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) is the 

renewal of commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses. Although the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) decision-making authority is limited to deciding whether to 

renew a nuclear power plant’s operating license, the NRC’s implementation of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the 

NRC to consider the environmental impacts of 

potential alternatives to renewing a plant’s 

operating license. In plant-specific 

environmental reviews, the NRC compares the 

impacts of renewing the operating license and 

the impacts from continued plant operations to 

the environmental impacts of alternatives. This 

process allows the NRC to determine whether 

the environmental impacts of license renewal 

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

would be unreasonable. If the NRC decides not to renew the operating license of a nuclear 

power plant, energy-planning decision makers will then have to find alternative means to 

address energy needs. Alternatives to license renewal include other means of generating 

electricity, as well as offsetting demand using conservation and energy efficiency measures 

(demand-side management) or purchasing sufficient power to replace the capacity supplied by 

the existing nuclear power plant. 

If the NRC renews the operating license, the 

decision on whether or not to continue nuclear 

plant operations will be made by the licensee 

and State or other Federal (non-NRC) decision 

makers. This decision may be based on 

economic, reliability, operational, policy, and 

environmental objectives. 

A full range of replacement power generation 

alternatives are evaluated in the GEIS, 

including fossil-fueled generation, new nuclear 

power, and renewable energy sources. 

Conservation and energy efficiency, as well as 

power purchasing, are also considered as alternatives to license renewal. Section 2.1 

describes the proposed action, including power plant operations during the license renewal 

Contents of Chapter 2 

• Proposed Action (Section 2.1) 

• No-Action Alternative (Section 2.2) 

• Replacement Power Alternatives 

(Section 2.3) 

• Comparison of Alternatives (Section 2.4) 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

Considered in the GEIS 

• Not renewing the operating licenses of 

commercial nuclear power plants 

(no-action alternative). 

• Replacing existing nuclear generating 

capacity using other energy sources 

(including fossil fuel, new nuclear, and 

renewable energy). 

• Offsetting generation capacity using 

conservation and energy efficiency 

(demand-side management) or purchased 

power. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-2 

term, refurbishment, and other activities associated with license renewal. Most of these 

activities would be the same as or similar to those occurring during the current license term. 

Termination of nuclear power plant operations would occur at or before the end of the license 

renewal term, and decommissioning activities would commence after operations have ceased. 

Impacts of the proposed action are presented in Section 2.1.4, including each of the 78 impact 

issues, their significance (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, as defined in Section 1.5), and 

whether the impact designation would apply to all plants. Section 2.2 describes the no-action 

alternative (not renewing the operating license), and Section 2.3 presents replacement power 

alternatives capable of replacing the existing nuclear power capacity, including fossil fuel, new 

nuclear, renewable energy, conservation and energy efficiency, and purchased power. The 

NRC has not reached any generic conclusions regarding the impacts for alternatives to license 

renewal and will consider such impacts (as well as the future state of technology and, possibly, 

other reasonable alternatives) in future site-specific supplemental environmental impact 

statements (SEISs). Finally, Section 2.4 presents a summary comparison of the impacts of the 

proposed action and the alternatives. 

2.1 Proposed Action 

As stated in Section 1.2, the proposed action is the renewal of commercial nuclear power plant 

operating licenses. For NRC to determine whether the license should be renewed, an applicant 

is required to perform certain analyses to demonstrate that the nuclear power plant could 

effectively manage the effects of aging and continue safe operations beyond its current 

licensing period. These analyses include an assessment of the effects of potential age-related 

degradation on certain long-lived, passive systems, structures, and components. This requires 

applicants to describe the conditions under which the plant would operate during the license 

renewal term. A description of normal power plant operations during the license renewal term is 

provided in Section 2.1.1. 

Applicants for license renewal may perform certain refurbishment activities (replacement of 

major components and systems) to continue operating beyond the current license term. These 

activities are described in Section 2.1.2, and impacts are generically discussed in Chapter 4. 

Section 2.1.3 provides an overview of the termination of nuclear power plant operations and 

decommissioning process. Impacts associated with termination of operations and the 

decommissioning of nuclear and other power plants are discussed in Section 4.11.2. 

2.1.1 Plant Operations during the License Renewal Term 

This section describes plant operations, routine maintenance, and refueling operations during 

the license renewal term. It also provides an overview of the aging management reviews 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-3 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

required for license renewal applications. During the license renewal term, commercial nuclear 

power plants would continue to operate in the same manner as they had during the original 

license term. All nuclear reactors currently operating in the United States are light water 

reactors, of which there are two basic types—pressurized water reactors and boiling water 

reactors. A brief description of these reactors and the baseline conditions during their operation 

are presented in Chapter 3. 

The types of activities that are conducted at nuclear power plants can be classified as: 

• Reactor operations; 

• Waste management (processing, storage, packaging, and offsite shipment of wastes); 

• Security (includes site security personnel); 

• Office and clerical work (management, public relations, and support staff); 

• Laboratory analysis; 

• Surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance (personnel involved in equipment testing, 

inspections, and monitoring activities); and 

• Refueling and other outages (usually involves additional workers brought on site during 

the outage). 

These activities are expected to continue during the license renewal term. Certain systems, 

structures, and components such as the reactor pressure vessel, reactor containment building, 

and piping are expected to operate into the license renewal term. Title 10, Part 54, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 54) places certain requirements on licensees to make sure 

that such systems, structures, and components continue to operate safely. In the 1996 GEIS, 

the incremental aging management activities implemented to allow operation of a nuclear power 

plant beyond the original 40-year license term were assumed to fall under one of two broad 

categories: (1) surveillance, monitoring, inspection, testing, trending, and recordkeeping 

actions, most of which are repeated at regular intervals, and (2) major refurbishment actions, 

which usually occur infrequently and possibly only once in the life of the plant for any given item. 

Refurbishment activities are discussed in the following section. 

The NRC finds that the approaches to environmental impacts from refurbishment activities 

contained in the 1996 GEIS (NRC 1996) are valid and conservative. The approaches yield 

environmental impacts that are likely greater than—or at least equal to—the actual impacts 

during the license renewal term. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-4 

2.1.2 Refurbishment and Other Activities Associated with License Renewal 

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC assumed that licensees would need to conduct major refurbishment 

activities to ensure the safe and economic operation of nuclear plants beyond the current 

license term. Activities included replacement and repair of major systems, structures, and 

components. Replacement activities included steam generators and pressurizers for 

pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and recirculation piping systems for boiling water reactors 

(BWRs). It was assumed that many nuclear plants would also undertake construction projects 

to replace or improve power plant infrastructure. Such projects could include construction of 

new parking lots, roads, storage buildings, structures, and other facilities. 

The number of systems, structures, and components involved in refurbishment and the 

frequency and duration of each activity would vary. In many circumstances, refurbishment 

activities (e.g., steam generator and vessel head replacement) have already taken place during 

the current operating license term at a number of nuclear plants. These activities have been 

conducted for economic, reliability, or efficiency reasons during refueling or maintenance 

outages. In addition, very few applications have identified any refurbishment activities 

associated with license renewal. The NRC acknowledged in the 1996 GEIS that licensees may 

undertake refurbishment activities for reasons of safety, economics, reliability, or efficiency (i.e., 

not just to support license renewal). 

Impacts from refurbishment activities outside of license renewal are assumed to have been 

accounted for in annual site evaluation reports, environmental operating reports, and 

radiological environmental monitoring program reports. Detailed analyses of environmental 

impacts have not been performed for refurbishment actions in this GEIS revision because these 

actions would vary at each nuclear plant. Instead, the impacts of typical activities during the 

license renewal term, including refurbishment activities, are generically addressed in each 

resource area in Chapter 4. Refurbishment activities at nuclear power plants proposed by 

license renewal applicants in their environmental report will continue to be addressed in plantspecific environmental reviews. 

2.1.3 Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning 

after the License Renewal Term 

The impacts of decommissioning are described in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power 

Reactors, NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002a). The majority of the activities associated with plant 

operations would cease with reactor shutdown. Some activities (e.g., security and oversight of 

spent nuclear fuel) would remain unchanged, while others (waste management, office and 

clerical work, laboratory analysis, and surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance) would 

continue at reduced or altered levels. Systems dedicated to reactor operations would cease; 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-5 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

however, impacts from their physical presence may continue if not removed after reactor 

shutdown. For sites with more than one unit, shared systems may operate at reduced 

capacities. Impacts associated with dedicated systems that remain in place or shared systems 

that continue to operate at normal capacities would remain unchanged. 

Termination of nuclear power plant operations would result in the cessation of activities 

necessary to maintain the reactor, as well as a significant reduction in plant workforce. It is 

assumed that the termination of operations would not immediately lead to the dismantlement of 

the reactor or other infrastructure. For sites with just one unit, some facilities could remain in 

operation to ensure the site is maintained in safe shutdown condition. 

The NRC has developed regulations and guidance for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, 

including nuclear power plants. These regulations are found in 10 CFR 50.82 (Termination of 

License), Subpart E to 10 CFR Part 20 (Radiological Criteria for License Termination), and the 

guidance document Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance, NUREG-1757 

(NRC 2002b). 

The decommissioning process for a nuclear power plant begins with the licensee informing the 

NRC that it intends to decommission the plant. The licensee then prepares a decommissioning 

plan and submits it to the NRC. If the plan is acceptable, the NRC then conducts a detailed 

technical review and evaluates the plan from safety and environmental perspectives. As part of 

the safety evaluation, the NRC prepares a safety evaluation report (SER) to document the 

methods used in the evaluation and the conclusions reached. For the environmental evaluation, 

the NRC prepares an environment impact statement or an environmental assessment, 

depending on the scope of the proposed work. At the end of the detailed technical review, the 

NRC determines whether to approve the decommissioning plan. Upon approval, the NRC 

amends the existing license of the plant to allow decommissioning to proceed. Once the 

decommissioning plan is approved and the license amendment is issued, the licensee 

implements the plan. The NRC then conducts inspections to verify compliance with the plan. 

At the completion of decommissioning, which may take up to 60 years to complete 

(10 CFR 50.82(a)(3)), the licensee conducts a final status survey to demonstrate compliance 

with criteria established in the decommissioning plan. The NRC verifies the survey by one or 

more of the following: a quality assurance/quality control review, side-by-side or split sampling, 

and independent confirmatory surveys. When the NRC confirms that the criteria in the 

decommissioning plan for releasing the site have been met, the NRC either terminates or 

amends the license, depending on the intended use of the site. 

At the end of the decommissioning process, the site of a nuclear power plant and any remaining 

structures on the site can be released for unrestricted or restricted use. The radiological criteria 

for releasing sites for unrestricted use are given in 10 CFR 20.1402. The criteria for restricted 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-6 

conditions and alternate criteria that the NRC may approve under certain conditions are listed in 

10 CFR 20.1403 and 10 CFR 20.1404, respectively. 

2.1.4 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

In evaluating the impacts of the proposed action, 78 impact issues were identified: 70 impact 

issues were associated with continued operations and refurbishment; 2 with postulated 

accidents; 1 with the termination of nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning; 4 with 

the uranium fuel cycle; and 1 with cumulative impacts. For all issues, the focus of the 

evaluation was on the incremental effects of license renewal relative to the no-action alternative. 

Impact significance levels and categories are defined in Section 1.5. 

A summary of the environmental impacts of the proposed action are presented in Table 2.1-1. 

The technical basis for the impact determinations presented in this table are found in Chapter 4 

of this GEIS in Sections 4.2 through 4.13. 

Table 2.1-1. Summary of Impacts Associated with License Renewal under the Proposed Action 

Issue Impact 

(Table B-1 Finding) 

Land Use 

Onsite land use Small (Category 1). Changes in onsite land use from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal term 

would be a small fraction of the nuclear power plant site and would 

involve only land that is controlled by the licensee.

Offsite land use Small (Category 1). Offsite land use would not be affected by 

continued operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal. 

Offsite land use in transmission line 

right-of-ways (ROWs) 

Small (Category 1). Use of transmission line ROWs from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would 

continue with no change in land use restrictions. 

Visual Resources 

Aesthetic impacts Small (Category 1). No important changes to the visual 

appearance of plant structures or transmission lines are expected 

from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-7 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 2.1-1. (cont.) 

Issue Impact 

(Table B-1 Finding) 

Air Quality 

Air quality impacts (all plants) Small (Category 1). Air quality impacts from continued operations 

and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to 

be small at all plants. Emissions resulting from refurbishment 

activities at locations in or near air quality nonattainment or 

maintenance areas would be short-lived and would cease after these 

refurbishment activities are completed. Operating experience has 

shown that the scale of refurbishment activities has not resulted in 

exceedance of the de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants, and 

best management practices including fugitive dust controls and the 

imposition of permit conditions in State and local air emissions 

permits would ensure conformance with applicable State or Tribal 

implementation plans. 

Emissions from emergency diesel generators and fire pumps and 

routine operations of boilers used for space heating would not be a 

concern, even for plants located in or adjacent to nonattainment 

areas. Impacts from cooling tower particulate emissions even under 

the worst-case situations have been small. 

Air quality effects of transmission lines Small (Category 1). Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is 

insignificant and does not contribute measurably to ambient levels of 

these gases. 

Noise 

Noise impacts Small (Category 1). Noise levels would remain below regulatory 

guidelines for offsite receptors during continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal. 

Geologic Environment 

Geology and soils Small (Category 1). The effect of geologic and soil conditions on 

plant operations and the impact of continued operations and 

refurbishment activities on geology and soils would be small for all 

nuclear power plants and would not change appreciably during the 

license renewal term.

Surface Water Resources 

Surface water use and quality (noncooling system impacts) Small (Category 1). Impacts are expected to be small if best 

management practices are employed to control soil erosion and 

spills. Surface water use associated with continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal would not increase 

significantly or would be reduced if refurbishment occurs during a 

plant outage. 

Altered current patterns at intake and 

discharge structures 

Small (Category 1). Altered current patterns would be limited to the 

area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These 

impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-8 

Table 2.1-1. (cont.) 

Issue Impact 

(Table B-1 Finding) 

Surface Water Resources (cont.) 

Altered salinity gradients Small (Category 1). Effects on salinity gradients would be limited to 

the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These 

impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Altered thermal stratification of lakes Small (Category 1). Effects on thermal stratification would be 

limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge 

structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear 

power plants. 

Scouring caused by discharged cooling 

water 

Small (Category 1). Scouring effects would be limited to the area in 

the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts 

have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Discharge of metals in cooling system 

effluent 

Small (Category 1). Discharges of metals have not been found to 

be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling-towerbased heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily 

mitigated at other plants. Discharges are monitored and controlled 

as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit process. 

Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes, 

and minor chemical spills 

Small (Category 1). The effects of these discharges are regulated 

by Federal and State environmental agencies. Discharges are 

monitored and controlled as part of the NPDES permit process. 

These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Surface water use conflicts (plants with 

once-through cooling systems) 

Small (Category 1). These conflicts have not been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants with once-through heat 

dissipation systems. 

Surface water use conflicts (plants with 

cooling ponds or cooling towers using 

makeup water from a river) 

Small or moderate (Category 2). Impacts could be of small or 

moderate significance, depending on makeup water requirements, 

water availability, and competing water demands.

Effects of dredging on surface water 

quality 

Small (Category 1). Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in 

the vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to maintain barge 

shipping has not been found to be a problem for surface water 

quality. Dredging is performed under permit from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from other State or local agencies.

Temperature effects on sediment 

transport capacity 

Small (Category 1). These effects have not been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to 

be a problem. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-9 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 2.1-1. (cont.) 

Issue Impact 

(Table B-1 Finding) 

Groundwater Resources 

Groundwater contamination and use 

(non-cooling system impacts) 

Small (Category 1). Extensive dewatering is not anticipated from 

continued operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal. Industrial practices involving the use of solvents, 

hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals, and/or the use of 

wastewater ponds or lagoons have the potential to contaminate site 

groundwater, soil, and subsoil. Contamination is subject to State or 

Environmental Protection Agency regulated cleanup and monitoring 

programs. The application of best management practices for 

handling any materials produced or used during these activities 

would reduce impacts. 

Groundwater use conflicts (plants that 

withdraw less than 100 gallons per 

minute [gpm]) 

Small (Category 1). Plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not 

expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts. 

Groundwater use conflicts (plants that 

withdraw more than 100 gallons per 

minute [gpm]) 

Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Plants that withdraw more 

than 100 gpm could cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby 

groundwater users. 

Groundwater use conflicts (plants with 

closed-cycle cooling systems that 

withdraw makeup water from a river) 

Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Water use conflicts could 

result from water withdrawals from rivers during low-flow conditions, 

which may affect aquifer recharge. The significance of impacts 

would depend on makeup water requirements, water availability, and 

competing water demands. 

Groundwater quality degradation 

resulting from water withdrawals 

Small (Category 1). Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear 

power plants would not contribute significantly to groundwater quality 

degradation. 

Groundwater quality degradation 

(plants with cooling ponds in salt 

marshes) 

Small (Category 1). Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could 

degrade groundwater quality. However, groundwater in salt 

marshes is naturally brackish and thus, not potable. Consequently, 

the human use of such groundwater is limited to industrial purposes.. 

Groundwater quality degradation 

(plants with cooling ponds at inland 

sites) 

Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Inland sites with closedcycle cooling ponds could degrade groundwater quality. The 

significance of the impact would depend on cooling pond water 

quality, site hydrogeologic conditions (including the interaction of 

surface water and groundwater), and the location, depth, and pump 

rate of water wells. 

Radionuclides released to groundwater Small or moderate (Category 2). Leaks of radioactive liquids from 

plant components and pipes have occurred at numerous plants. 

Groundwater protection programs have been established at all 

operating nuclear power plants to minimize the potential impact from 

any inadvertent releases. The magnitude of impacts would depend 

on site-specific characteristics. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-10 

Table 2.1-1. (cont.) 

Issue Impact 

(Table B-1 Finding) 

Terrestrial Resources 

Effects on terrestrial resources (noncooling system impacts) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Impacts resulting from 

continued operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal may affect terrestrial communities. Application of best 

management practices would reduce the potential for impacts. The 

magnitude of impacts would depend on the nature of the activity, the 

status of the resources that could be affected, and the effectiveness 

of mitigation. 

Exposure of terrestrial organisms to 

radionuclides 

Small (Category 1). Doses to terrestrial organisms from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are 

expected to be well below exposure guidelines developed to protect 

these organisms. 

Cooling system impacts on terrestrial 

resources (plants with once-through 

cooling systems or cooling ponds) 

Small (Category 1). No adverse effects to terrestrial plants or 

animals have been reported as a result of increased water 

temperatures, fogging, humidity, or reduced habitat quality. Due to 

the low concentrations of contaminants in cooling system effluents, 

uptake and accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of wildlife 

exposed to the contaminated water or aquatic food sources are not 

expected to be significant issues.

Cooling tower impacts on vegetation 

(plants with cooling towers) 

Small (Category 1). Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or 

increased humidity associated with cooling tower operation have the 

potential to affect adjacent vegetation, but these impacts have been 

small at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to 

change over the license renewal term. 

Bird collisions with plant structures and 

transmission lines 

Small (Category 1). Bird collisions with cooling towers and other 

plant structures and transmission lines occur at rates that are 

unlikely to affect local or migratory populations and the rates are not 

expected to change. 

Water use conflicts with terrestrial 

resources (plants with cooling ponds or 

cooling towers using makeup water 

from a river) 

Small or moderate (Category 2). Impacts on terrestrial resources 

in riparian communities affected by water use conflicts could be of 

moderate significance. 

Transmission line ROW management 

impacts on terrestrial resources 

Small (Category 1). Continued ROW management during the 

license renewal term is expected to keep terrestrial communities in 

their current condition. Application of best management practices 

would reduce the potential for impacts. 

Electromagnetic fields on flora and 

fauna (plants, agricultural crops, 

honeybees, wildlife, livestock) 

Small (Category 1). No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields 

on terrestrial flora and fauna have been identified. Such effects are 

not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-11 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 2.1-1. (cont.) 

Issue Impact 

(Table B-1 Finding) 

Aquatic Resources 

Impingement and entrainment of 

aquatic organisms (plants with oncethrough cooling systems or cooling 

ponds) 

Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). The impacts of 

impingement and entrainment are small at many plants, but may be 

moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and 

cooling-pond cooling systems, depending on cooling system 

withdrawal rates and volumes and the aquatic resources at the site. 

Impingement and entrainment of 

aquatic organisms (plants with cooling 

towers) 

Small (Category 1). Impingement and entrainment rates are lower 

at plants that use closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers because 

the rates and volumes of water withdrawal needed for makeup are 

minimized. 

Entrainment of phytoplankton and 

zooplankton (all plants) 

Small (Category 1). Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 

has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license 

renewal term.

Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms 

(plants with once-through cooling 

systems or cooling ponds) 

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

associated with thermal discharges are localized and are not 

expected to affect overall stability of populations or resources. The 

magnitude of impacts, however, would depend on site-specific 

thermal plume characteristics and the nature of aquatic resources in 

the area. 

Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms 

(plants with cooling towers) 

Small (Category 1). Thermal effects associated with plants that use 

cooling towers are expected to be small because of the reduced 

amount of heated discharge. 

Infrequently reported thermal impacts 

(all plants) 

Small (Category 1). Continued operations during the license 

renewal term are expected to have small thermal impacts with 

respect to the following: 

 

Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear 

plants with once-through cooling systems, has not endangered fish 

populations or been found to be a problem at operating nuclear 

power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds, and is not 

expected to be a problem. 

Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating 

nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem. 

Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to 

affect the larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms. 

Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at 

some operating nuclear power plants but has not been a problem 

and is not expected to be a problem. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-12 

Table 2.1-1. (cont.) 

Issue Impact 

(Table B-1 Finding) 

Aquatic Resources (cont.)

Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated 

at the single nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system 

where previously it was a problem. It has not been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or 

cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem. 

Effects of cooling water discharge on 

dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, 

and eutrophication 

Small (Category 1). Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small 

number of operating nuclear power plants with once-through cooling 

systems but has been mitigated. Low dissolved oxygen was a 

concern at one nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling 

system but has been mitigated. Eutrophication (nutrient loading) and 

resulting effects on chemical and biological oxygen demands have 

not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants. 

Effects of nonradiological contaminants 

on aquatic organisms 

Small (Category 1). Best management practices and discharge 

limitations of NPDES permits are expected to minimize the potential 

for impacts to aquatic resources during continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal. Accumulation of 

metal contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power 

plants, but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy 

condenser tubes with those of another metal. 

Exposure of aquatic organisms to 

radionuclides 

Small (Category 1). Doses to aquatic organisms are expected to be 

well below exposure guidelines developed to protect these aquatic 

organisms. 

Effects of dredging on aquatic 

resources 

Small (Category 1). Dredging at nuclear power plants is expected 

to occur infrequently, would be of relatively short duration, and would 

affect relatively small areas. Dredging is performed under permit 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from other 

State or local agencies. 

Water use conflicts with aquatic 

resources (plants with cooling ponds or 

cooling towers using makeup water 

from a river) 

Small or moderate (Category 2). Impacts on aquatic resources in 

stream communities affected by water use conflicts could be of 

moderate significance in some situations. 

Effects on aquatic resources (noncooling system impacts) 

Small (Category 1). Licensee application of appropriate mitigation 

measures is expected to result in no more than small changes to 

aquatic communities from their current condition. 

Impacts of transmission line ROW 

management on aquatic resources 

Small (Category 1). Licensee application of best management 

practices to ROW maintenance is expected to result in no more than 

small impacts to aquatic systems. 

Losses from predation, parasitism, and 

disease among organisms exposed to 

sublethal stresses 

Small (Category 1). These types of losses have not been found to 

be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not 

expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-13 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 2.1-1. (cont.) 

Issue Impact 

(Table B-1 Finding) 

Special Status Species and Habitats 

Threatened, endangered, and protected 

species and essential fish habitat 

(Category 2). The magnitude of impacts on threatened, 

endangered, and protected species, critical habitat, and essential 

fish habitat would depend on the occurrence of listed species and 

habitats and the effects of power plant systems on them. 

Consultation with appropriate agencies would be needed to 

determine whether special status species or habitats are present and 

whether they would be adversely affected by continued operations 

and refurbishment associated with license renewal. 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

Historic and cultural resources (Category 2). Continued operations and refurbishment associated 

with license renewal are expected to have no more than small 

impacts on historic and cultural resources located onsite and in the 

transmission line ROW because most impacts could be mitigated by 

avoiding those resources. The National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) requires the Federal agency to consult with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and appropriate Native 

American Tribes to determine the potential effects on historic 

properties and mitigation, if necessary. 

Socioeconomics 

Employment and income, recreation 

and tourism 

Small (Category 1). Although most nuclear plants have large 

numbers of employees with higher than average wages and salaries, 

employment, income, recreation, and tourism, impacts from 

continued operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal are expected to be small. 

Tax revenues Small (Category 1). Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local 

jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, payments in lieu of 

tax (PILOT), or tax payments on energy production. The amount of 

tax revenue paid during the license renewal term as a result of 

continued operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal is not expected to change. 

Community services and education Small (Category 1). Changes resulting from continued operations 

and refurbishment associated with license renewal to local 

community and educational services would be small. With little or no 

change in employment at the licensee’s plant, value of the power 

plant, payments on energy production, and PILOT payments 

expected during the license renewal term, community and 

educational services would not be affected by continued power plant 

operations. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-14 

Table 2.1-1. (cont.) 

Issue Impact 

(Table B-1 Finding) 

Socioeconomics (cont.) 

Population and housing Small (Category 1). Changes resulting from continued operations 

and refurbishment associated with license renewal to regional 

population and housing availability and value would be small. With 

little or no change in employment at the licensee’s plant expected 

during the license renewal term, population and housing availability 

and values would not be affected by continued power plant 

operations. 

Transportation Small (Category 1). Changes resulting from continued operations 

and refurbishment associated with license renewal to traffic volumes 

would be small. 

Human Health 

Radiation exposures to the public Small (Category 1). Radiation doses to the public from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are 

expected to continue at current levels, and would be well below 

regulatory limits. 

Radiation exposures to plant workers Small (Category 1). Occupational doses from continued operations 

and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to 

be within the range of doses experienced during the current license 

term, and would continue to be well below regulatory limits. 

Human health impact from chemicals Small (Category 1). Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting 

from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal are expected to be minimized by the licensee implementing 

good industrial hygiene practices as required by permits and Federal 

and State regulations. Chemical releases to the environment and 

the potential for impacts to the public are expected to be minimized 

by adherence to discharge limitations of NPDES and other permits. 

Microbiological hazards to the public 

(plants with cooling ponds or canals or 

cooling towers that discharge to a river) 

Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). These organisms are not 

expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly at 

plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals that discharge into 

rivers. Impacts would depend on site-specific characteristics. 

Microbiological hazards to plant 

workers 

Small (Category 1). Occupational health impacts are expected to 

be controlled by continued application of accepted industrial hygiene 

practices to minimize worker exposures as required by permits and 

Federal and State regulations. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-15 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 2.1-1. (cont.) 

Issue Impact 

(Table B-1 Finding) 

Human Health (cont.) 

Chronic effects of electromagnetic 

fields (EMFs) 

Uncertain. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not uncovered consistent 

evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. EMFs are 

unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals and 

ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be forced 

and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because the state of the 

science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human 

health impacts is possible. 

Physical occupational hazards Small (Category 1). Occupational safety and health hazards are 

generic to all types of electrical generating stations, including nuclear 

power plants, and are of small significance if the workers adhere to 

safety standards and use protective equipment as required by 

Federal and State regulations. 

Electric shock hazards Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Electrical shock potential 

is of small significance for transmission lines that are operated in 

adherence with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Without 

a review of conformance with NESC criteria of each nuclear power 

plant’s in-scope transmission lines, it is not possible to determine the 

significance of the electrical shock potential. 

Postulated Accidents 

Design-basis accidents Small (Category 1). The NRC staff has concluded that the 

environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are of small 

significance for all plants. 

Severe accidents Small (Category 2). The probability-weighted consequences of 

atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to 

groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe 

accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate 

severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not 

considered such alternatives. 

Environmental Justice 

Minority and low-income populations (Category 2). Impacts to minority and low-income populations and 

subsistence consumption resulting from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal will be addressed in 

plant-specific reviews. See NRC Policy Statement on the Treatment 

of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing 

Actions (69 FR 52040, August 24, 2004). 

Waste Management 

Low-level waste storage and disposal Small (Category 1). The comprehensive regulatory controls that 

are in place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors 

ensure that the radiological impacts to the environment would remain 

small during the license renewal term. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-16 

Table 2.1-1. (cont.) 

Issue Impact 

(Table B-1 Finding) 

Waste Management (cont.) 

Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel Small (Category 1). The expected increase in the volume of spent 

fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be safely 

accommodated onsite during the license renewal term with small 

environmental effects through dry or pool storage at all plants. 

Offsite radiological impacts of spent 

nuclear fuel and high-level waste 

disposal 

Uncertain impact (Uncategorized). The generic conclusion on 

offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste 

is not being finalized pending the completion of a generic 

environmental impact statement on waste confidence. 

Mixed-waste storage and disposal Small (Category 1). The comprehensive regulatory controls and the 

facilities and procedures that are in place ensure proper handling 

and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic 

materials for the public and the environment at all plants. License 

renewal would not increase the small, continuing risk to human 

health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The 

radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term 

disposal of mixed waste from any individual plant at licensed sites 

are small. 

Nonradioactive waste storage and 

disposal 

Small (Category 1). No changes to systems that generate 

nonradioactive waste are anticipated during the license renewal 

term. Facilities and procedures are in place to ensure continued 

proper handling, storage, and disposal, as well as negligible 

exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all 

plants. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts (Category 2). Cumulative impacts of continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal must be considered 

on a plant-specific basis. Impacts would depend on regional 

resource characteristics, the resource-specific impacts of license 

renewal, and the cumulative significance of other factors affecting 

the resource. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-17 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 2.1-1. (cont.) 

Issue Impact 

(Table B-1 Finding) 

Uranium Fuel Cycle 

Offsite radiological impacts—individual 

impacts from other than the disposal of 

spent fuel and high-level waste 

Small (Category 1). The impacts to the public from radiological 

exposures have been considered by the Commission in Table S-3 of 

this part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts to individuals 

from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases including radon-222 

and technetium-99 would remain at or below the NRC’s regulatory 

limits. 

Offsite radiological impacts—collective 

impacts from other than the disposal of 

spent fuel and high-level waste 

(Category 1). There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective 

doses to the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of 

estimating health effects on the basis of collective doses may not be 

meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and operated to 

meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. The 

Commission concludes that the collective impacts are acceptable. 

The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently 

large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of 

extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. 

Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of 

significance for the collective impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, this 

issue is considered Category 1. 

Nonradiological impacts of the uranium 

fuel cycle 

Small (Category 1). The nonradiological impacts of the uranium 

fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating license for any 

plant would be small. 

Transportation Small (Category 1). The impacts of transporting materials to and 

from uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, the public, and the 

environment are expected to be small. 

Termination of Nuclear Power Plant 

Operations and Decommissioning

Termination of plant operations and 

decommissioning 

Small (Category 1). License renewal is expected to have a 

negligible effect on the impacts of terminating operations and 

decommissioning on all resources. 

2.2 No-Action Alternative 

The no-action alternative represents a decision by the NRC not to renew the operating license 

of a nuclear power plant beyond the current operating license term. At some point, all nuclear 

plants will terminate operations and undergo decommissioning. Under the no-action alternative, 

plant operations would terminate at or before the end of the current license term. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-18 

Not renewing the license and ceasing operation under the no-action alternative may lead to a 

variety of potential outcomes, but these would be essentially the same regardless of whether 

operations cease at the expiration of the original operating license or at the expiration of a 

renewed license. Expiration of a license will require the reactor to ultimately undergo 

decommissioning, which will occur under a separate NRC license. Termination of nuclear 

power plant operations would result in the total cessation of electrical power production. The 

no-action alternative, unlike the other alternatives, does not expressly meet the purpose and 

need of the proposed action, as it does not provide a means of delivering baseload power to 

meet future electric system needs. No action on its own would likely create a need for 

replacement power; that need could be met by installation of additional generating capacity, 

adoption or expansion of energy conservation and energy efficiency programs (including 

demand-side management), purchased power, or some combination of these options. 

2.3 Replacement Power Alternatives 

The following sections describe alternatives identified by the NRC as capable of meeting the 

purpose and need of the proposed action (license renewal) or replacing the power generated by 

a nuclear power plant. A reasonable alternative must be commercially viable on a utility scale 

and operational prior to the expiration of the reactor’s operating license, or expected to become 

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

operating license. As technologies improve, the NRC expects that some alternatives not 

currently viable may become viable at some time in the future. The NRC will make that 

determination during plant-specific license renewal reviews. The amount of replacement power 

generated must equal the baseload capacity previously supplied by the nuclear plant and 

reliably operate at or near the nuclear plant’s demonstrated capacity factor.(a) 

Should the need arise to replace the generating capacity of a nuclear reactor, power could be 

provided by a suite of alternatives and combinations of alternatives, including expanding the 

capacities of one or more existing power generating plants within a region, delaying the 

scheduled retirement of one more existing plants, or purchasing an equivalent amount of power. 

The number of possible combinations of alternatives that could replace the generating capacity 

of a nuclear power plant is potentially unlimited. Based on this, the NRC has only evaluated 

individual alternatives rather than combinations of alternatives in this GEIS. However, 

combinations of alternatives may be considered during plant-specific license renewal reviews. 

The following sections describe alternative means of generating electricity or otherwise 

addressing electrical loads that could serve to replace the power produced by an existing 

 

(a) The capacity factor is the ratio of the amount of electric energy produced by an electric generator 

over a given period of time to the amount of electric energy the same generator would have produced 

had it operated at its full, rated capacity over the same period of time. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-19 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

nuclear power plant. These alternatives must be commercially viable on a utility scale and 

operational prior to the expiration of the reactor’s operating license or be expected to become 

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

operating license. As discussed in Chapter 1, the NRC does not engage in energy-planning 

decisions and makes no judgment as to which energy alternatives evaluated would be the most 

likely alternative in any given case. 

The NRC relies on many sources of information to determine which alternatives are available 

and commercially viable. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) maintains the official energy statistics of the Federal Government. Along 

with information from other sources, the NRC commonly uses information from EIA reports, 

including the Electric Power Annual, Annual Energy Review, Renewable Energy Annual, 

Renewable Energy Trends in Consumption and Electricity, Annual Energy Outlook, and 

Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook to identify alternatives to the proposed action 

(license renewal). The NRC will often consider the existing portfolio of electric generating 

technologies in the State or utility service area in which a reactor(s) is located, along with State 

and Federal policies that may promote or oppose certain alternatives. The NRC may also use 

EIA’s State Energy Profiles as well as State, regional, and, in some cases, utility- or systemlevel assessments of energy resources and projections to identify alternatives for consideration. 

 

In 2008, annual electric power generation decreased for the first time since 2001, dropping by 

0.9 percent from 4,157 million megawatt-hours (MMWh) in 2007 to 4,119 MMWh in 2008. 

Generation by conventional sources dropped (coal by 1.5 percent, natural gas by 1.5 percent, 

and nuclear by 0.03 percent), while generation from all renewable sources except wood and 

wood-derived fuels increased. Wind energy represented the greatest change, increasing 

60.7 percent from 34.5 MMWh in 2007 to 55.4 MMWh in 2008. Contributions to total electricity 

production in 2008 included: coal 1,985,801 MMWh (48.2 percent), petroleum 46,242 MMWh 

(1.1 percent), natural gas 882,981 MMWh (21.4 percent), other gases 11,707 MMWh 

(0.3 percent), nuclear 806,208 MMWh (19.6 percent), conventional hydroelectric 

254,831 MMWh (6.0 percent), other renewables 126,212 MMWh (3.1 percent), and other 

miscellaneous sources 11,692 MMWh (0.3 percent) (DOE/EIA 2010a). 

 

In the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2050 (DOE/EIA 2010b), the EIA 

projects a continued but modest nationwide increase in energy consumption and generating 

capacity throughout the 2050 forecast period. Reflecting the economic downturn that began in 

late 2007, total electricity generation dropped by 3 percent over the previous year. 

Nevertheless, despite gains in energy efficiency and advancements in energy conservation 

(including demand-side management programs), moderate growth in energy consumption 

(14 percent from 2008 to 2035, an annual growth rate of 0.5 percent) is forecasted, as is an 

increased reliance on renewable energy technologies. To meet the projected growth in demand 

and overcome the expected loss of 45 gigawatts (GW) of capacity from scheduled retirements, 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-20 

the EIA estimates that 250 GW of new generating capacity will be required between 2009 and 

2035. Natural gas is expected to account for 46 percent of this new capacity, together with 

37 percent from renewables, 12 percent from coal, and 3 percent from nuclear plants. 

In the following sections, the NRC presents a variety of alternatives to license renewal. In 

Chapter 4, NRC compares the environmental impacts of alternatives to the environmental 

impacts of license renewal. 

2.3.1 Fossil Fuel Alternatives 

The EIA indicates that fossil fuels will likely continue to provide the bulk of commercial electric 

power generation through 2050. The EIA projects that natural-gas-fired (combined-cycle or 

combustion turbine technology) generation will account for the largest single share of new 

generating capacity (37 percent) (DOE/EIA 2010b). The growth rate for coal production will be 

markedly reduced from previous years. Projections for the amount of electricity produced from 

coal in the future vary widely across planning scenarios, due primarily to cost uncertainties 

associated with anticipated future environmental regulations such as cap-and-trade regulations 

for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) and regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). In the reference case, EIA projects coal-generated 

electricity to grow by only 12 percent, but to nevertheless be responsible for the largest share of 

electricity produced over the forecast period, dropping from 48 percent in 2008 to 44 percent in 

2035 (DOE/EIA 2010b). 

Advanced coal technologies will likely become increasingly important as regulations on power 

plant emissions evolve. Technologies often referred to as “clean coal technologies,” which 

include coal cleaning processes, coal gasification technologies, improved combustion 

technologies, and improved devices for capturing pollutants, will play an important role. 

Emissions controls and advanced combustion technologies will likely play an increasingly 

important role for other fossil-fuel power generating systems as well. 

GHG controls may be required for future fossil fuel power plants. Though nationwide GHG 

limitations do not yet exist, regional-, State-, and local-level initiatives have begun to restrict CO2

and other GHG emissions or to implement GHG-emissions-trading schemes. Fossil fuel 

alternatives—especially those burning coal, the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels—have 

the greatest exposure to risk from carbon regulation, and, in some areas, State-level permitting 

authorities have denied permits for new coal plants. 

The technology needed for capture and removal of GHGs in fossil fuel emissions (primarily CO2) 

will require additional development to become commercially viable. The infrastructure 

necessary to remove GHGs on a scale sufficient to support utility-scale power generation does 

not presently exist, though it is the subject of ongoing research. Citing performance guarantees 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-21 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

by equipment manufacturers, DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) estimated 

that control technologies can remove up to 90 percent of CO2 from waste gases at pulverized 

coal power plants, albeit with significant performance penalties. Consequences may include a 

reduction in overall thermal efficiency from 39.1 to 27.2 percent and a near doubling of the 

levelized cost of the electricity produced (NETL 2007). Additional costs would be incurred in 

cleaning the captured CO2 to pipeline specifications and delivering it by pipeline to appropriate 

geologic repositories for permanent sequestration. 

2.3.2 New Nuclear Power Plant Alternatives 

The last nuclear power plant to come on line in the United States was Watts Bar in 1996. Since 

then, nuclear power generating capacity has only been increased through power uprates at 

existing plants. The EIA projects that nuclear capacity will increase from 100.6 GW in 2008 to 

112.9 GW in 2035, including 4.0 GW of expansions at existing plants and 8.4 GW of new 

capacity (DOE/EIA 2010b). 

Currently, four nuclear reactor designs have been certified, and seven additional designs are 

undergoing review. Certified designs include the 1,300 megawatt-electric (MWe) 

U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A), the 1,300 MWe System 

80+ Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix B), the 600 MWe AP600 Design (10 CFR Part 52 

Appendix C), and the 1,100 MWe AP1000 Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D). 

Certification activities for other designs are ongoing, as are reviews of applications for early site 

permits (ESPs) and combined licenses (COLs). An ESP is not a license to build a nuclear 

power plant; however, it initiates a process to assess whether the proposed site is suitable for 

the construction of a nuclear power plant. The issuance of a COL authorizes the applicant to 

construct and operate a nuclear power facility at a specific site. On February 10, 2012, the NRC 

issued two COLs to Southern Nuclear Operating Company to construct and operate two new 

AP1000 reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Waynesboro, GA 

(77 FR 12332). On March 30, 2012, the NRC issued two COLs to South Carolina 

Electric & Gas and Santee Cooper to construct and operate two new AP1000 reactors at the 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station site in Jenkinsville, South Carolina (77 FR 21593). 

2.3.3 Renewable Energy Alternatives 

The NRC considers the following renewable energy alternatives for possible replacement 

power: hydroelectric, geothermal, wind (both land-based and offshore), biomass (energy crops, 

agricultural crop residues, and urban wood and forest wastes), refuse-derived biomass 

(municipal solid waste, refuse-derived fuel, and landfill gas), solar (thermal), solar (photovoltaic), 

and ocean wave and current. Combinations of renewable energy alternatives may be 

considered during plant-specific license reviews. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-22 

Few renewable energy alternatives are currently commercially employed in ways that could 

provide total replacement power for a nuclear power plant. However, this is likely to change. 

One of the major reasons for this is energy storage technologies are rapidly gaining in 

importance. As the amounts of power from variable renewable energy sources such as wind 

and solar increase, energy storage capability becomes an essential tool for temporally 

decoupling generation and demand. Energy storage can enhance the overall efficiency and 

value of intermittent renewable energy technologies as sources of reliable baseload power. 

Some energy storage options can also help to maintain grid stability through improved 

frequency management, and some may improve the usage and integration of smart grid 

technologies. Energy storage technologies are not generation sources but rather are 

complementary technologies that can take many forms, among them, electrochemical energy of 

batteries and capacitors, potential energy of pumped water and compressed air, kinetic energy 

of flywheels, and thermal energy of molten salt. 

 

Most energy storage technologies are in the early stages of development, with very few 

examples of utility-scale application. The NRC has elected not to evaluate energy storage 

technologies as discrete alternatives to a nuclear reactor because they do not directly generate 

electricity, but NRC nevertheless intends to give appropriate consideration to the influence that 

energy storage technologies can have on its evaluations of the environmental impacts of 

alternative generating technologies in future license renewal reviews. 

 

The EIA projects that total renewable electric generating capacity will increase sharply through 

2035, primarily due to extensions of Federal investment and production tax credits in the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the promulgation of State Renewable 

Portfolio Standards (RPS),(b)

 anticipation of a National Renewable Energy Standard (RES), and 

advancements and efficiency improvements in renewable energy technologies. Nonhydroelectric renewable generation will account for 41 percent of this increase, with wind and 

biomass representing the largest portions of the projected increase. Wind is expected to 

increase from 1.3 percent of total generation in 2008 to 4.1 percent in 2035, while biomass 

grows from 0.9 percent in 2008 to 5.5 percent in 2035, with the majority of growth expected after 

2015. Co-firing of biomass-derived fuels with fossil fuels is expected to represent a major 

portion of the projected increase. Growth in geothermal facilities is limited to only a few 

geographic areas with high-value geothermal resources, and widespread implementation of 

solar technologies is limited. Overall, renewable generation is expected to grow from a 

9 percent share of total electricity production in 2008 to a 17 percent share in 2035 

(DOE/EIA 2010b). 

 

(b) As of January 2010, 30 States and the District of Columbia have promulgated an enforceable RPS or 

other laws and an additional five States have nonbinding renewable energy goals (DOE/EIA 2010b). 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-23 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Environmental impacts of construction and operation of renewable energy alternatives are quite 

different from those of non-renewable alternatives. The NRC presents these impacts in 

Chapter 4. In general, however, resource areas with the greatest range of impacts include air 

quality, hydrology, and land use. Air quality impacts from hydroelectric, wind, solar, and ocean 

wave and ocean current generation methods would be negligible; however, biomass-fueled 

energy, for example, would emit air pollutants, some of them hazardous. Some geothermal 

technologies may also be sources of hazardous air pollutants. All renewable energy 

alternatives would rely on modest amounts of water, but those that would rely on conventional 

steam cycles to power turbine generators (biomass, geothermal, solar thermal) would have 

higher water demands, some which are comparable to those of non-renewable alternatives. All 

renewable energy alternatives would require land, although land requirements would be 

negligible for offshore wind and ocean wave and ocean current alternatives. Solar and 

conventional hydroelectric generators, for example, would require significant amounts of land. 

Brief overviews of renewable energy alternatives are provided in the following paragraphs. 

 

2.3.3.1 Hydroelectric Energy 

Currently, there are approximately 2,000 operating hydroelectric facilities in the United States. 

Hydroelectric technology operates by capturing the energy of flowing water and directing it to a 

turbine and generator to produce electricity. There are two fundamental hydropower facility 

designs: “run-of-the-river” facilities that simply redirect the natural flow of a river, stream, or 

canal through a hydroelectric facility, and “store-and-release” facilities that block the flow of the 

river by using dams that cause the water to accumulate in an upstream reservoir. 

As of 2010, hydropower provided 80 percent of commercial electricity generated by all 

renewable alternatives (DOE/EIA 2010b). EIA projects that hydropower will remain the largest 

renewable energy source through the year 2035, growing by an annualized average of 

0.7 percent over the period (DOE/EIA 2010b). However, the potential for future construction of 

large dams has diminished due to increased public concerns over flooding, habitat alteration 

and loss, and destruction of natural river courses. Additional demands for river water have also 

reduced water flow. 

Large hydroelectric facilities constructed on major rivers can have peak power capacities as 

high as 10,000 MWe. However, river flow conditions and other circumstances and factors 

(e.g., spawning periods of anadromous fish) often require dam operators to divert river flow 

around power-generating turbines over various periods of time, thereby reducing the amount of 

power generated. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-24 

2.3.3.2 Geothermal Energy 

Geothermal energy is energy in the form of heat contained below the earth’s surface in 

hydrothermal zones (hot water or steam trapped in an aquifer), hot and dry geologic formations 

(referred to as hot dry rock or engineered geothermal systems [EGS]), or in geopressurized 

resources (hot brine aquifers existing under pressure). Thus far, hydrothermal sources are the 

only geothermal energy resources that have been in commercial use. Geothermal energy 

facilities have demonstrated capacity factors of 90 to 98 percent (DOE/EERE 2010). 

The technical approaches to exploiting geothermal energy resources are quite similar. First, 

crews drill wells down to the heated resources. Next, the wells raise hot water or steam to the 

surface where the heat energy can be used to generate electricity. EGS differs in that crews 

must first fracture a hot, dry rock formation and then inject a heat transfer fluid (typically water). 

They then recover the heated fluid from the formation through the well and then use the heated 

fluid to produce steam—and subsequently electricity—in a conventional steam turbine generator 

(STG). 

Most domestic geothermal resources exist in the western United States (see Figure D.10-16, 

Appendix D). To date, the greatest amount of electricity produced by geothermal technologies 

has occurred in California. In 2007, 13,000 GWh were produced by 43 geothermal plants 

located throughout that state, which, together with an additional 440 GWh of geothermal power 

produced in neighboring States and exported to California, represented approximately 

4.5 percent of the electricity consumed in California over that period. The contribution of 

geothermal energy to electricity production in California has remained stable in recent years at 

12,907 GWh in both 2008 and 2009 (4.2 percent and 4.4 percent, respectively, of total annual 

electricity consumed in California) (CEC 2010). 

 

Geothermal reservoir mapping in the western States suggests there is still significant untapped 

potential. In 2008, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service projected 

that 11 western States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming), Alaska, and Hawaii have the potential for 

approximately 5,540 MWe of additional commercial power generation development by 2015, 

with an additional potential of 6,660 MWe forecasted by 2025. Such capacity expansions would 

result in 110 additional geothermal power plants by 2015 and an additional 132 by 2025, with 

most expansions occurring in northern Nevada, California, and Idaho (BLM and FS 2008).(c) 

California State-level efforts identified 4,800 MWe of untapped geothermal resources capable of 

electricity production (CGEC 2010). 

 

(c) In California, approximately 13,969,825 ac (5,657,791 ha) of the high-value geothermal resources lie 

beneath BLM-administered lands; an additional 13,467,992 ac (5,454,537 ha) are beneath National 

Forest System land administered by the Forest Service (BLM and FS 2008). 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-25 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessments of geothermal capacities in the western States 

are also high. According to USGS, the 13 States listed above have 241 identified moderatetemperature (194–302°F [90–150°C]) and high-temperature (greater than 302°F [150°C]) 

geothermal resources with a power generating capacity potential of 9,057 MWe from identified 

geothermal resources, an additional mean generation capacity potential of 30,033 MWe from 

undiscovered geothermal resources,(d) and an additional 517,800 MWe from the application of 

EGS technology (USGS 2008). The USGS determined that California has the largest identified 

resource capacity (59.67 percent of identified resources), followed by Nevada (15.36 percent). 

California and Nevada also have the two largest shares of undiscovered resources with 

37.8 percent and 14.5 percent, respectively. Nevada and California have the largest number of 

geothermal facilities under various stages of development with 60 projects in Nevada 

representing 3,323 MWe of additional capacity and 32 projects in California representing 

1,939 MWe of additional capacity (GEA 2010). 

Using current technologies (which, according to USGS, included EGS, where appropriate) and 

the exploitation of both identified and yet undiscovered resources, the USGS estimates that 

California and Nevada have the potential for additional geothermal power development on 

private and public lands of 9,282 MWe and 2,551 MWe, respectively (95 percent probability of 

development) (USGS 2008). 

From a national perspective, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 both promote expanded reliance on geothermal energy, providing both tax 

incentives and DOE funding for technological research, development, and demonstration 

(RD&D). DOE anticipated that geothermal energy will rapidly increase in the near term, 

especially with technological advancements in EGS and a Federal production tax credit (PTC) 

of 2.0 cents/kWh in place (DOE/EERE 2010).(e)

 

2.3.3.3 Wind Energy 

Wind resources exist throughout the United States and in offshore areas but are most prevalent 

in the upper Midwest and in western States (see Figure D.10-17 for wind resource distributions 

in the United States and in offshore areas, respectively). The most favorable resources for 

land-based wind farms are in rural or remote areas. If transmission facilities do not already 

exist, additional development costs and environmental impacts would result from the 

construction of electric transmission lines. 

 

(d) Here, “undiscovered” means that existing conditions suggest accessible geothermal reservoirs are 

likely to be present, but exploration has yet to confirm the value or extent of such resources. 

(e) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 extended the PTC through 2013. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-26 

Early wind turbine designs required the turbine’s rotor to spin at very high speeds to produce 

power. This resulted in bird collisions and a considerable amount of aerodynamic noise. 

Advances in wind technology allow wind turbines to efficiently generate electricity at lower rotor 

speeds. Improvements in blade aerodynamics and advancements in power train components 

permit wind turbines to capture energy from lower wind speeds using slower blade rotations. At 

the current stage of wind energy technology development, wind resources of Category 3 or 

better(f)

 are required to produce utility-scale amounts of electricity. Land-based wind turbines 

have individual capacities as high as 3 MW, with the 1.67-MW turbine being the most popular 

size that was installed in 2008 (offshore wind turbines have capacities as high as 5 MW). 

Modern wind turbines have rotor diameters greater than 300 feet (100 meters) on towers that 

are hundreds of feet tall. The capacity factors of wind farms are primarily dependent on the 

constancy of the wind resource, and while offshore wind farms can have relatively high capacity 

factors due to high-quality winds throughout much of the day (resulting primarily from differential 

heating of land and sea areas), land-based wind farms typically have capacity factors lower than 

40 percent. For maximum performance, turbines must be well separated from each other and 

from other ground features that could introduce turbulence, so utility-scale wind farms are 

typically spread across large areas. Remaining portions of land among wind turbine 

installations can be used for other purposes (typically agriculture), although some limitations 

exist for ground-intrusive activities that could affect buried power conductors and other buried 

components. 

Offshore wind turbines are identical in appearance and function to their land-based 

counterparts. Typically, power is delivered from each turbine by underwater cable to a landbased substation. Currently no offshore wind farms exist in the United States, although some 

have been proposed. Offshore wind farms are operational in Europe, and are typically located 

on the outer continental shelf. 

2.3.3.4 Biomass Energy 

Biomass energy can be generated from a wide variety of fuels, including municipal solid waste 

(MSW), refuse-derived fuel, landfill gas, urban wood wastes, forest residues, agricultural crop 

residues and wastes, energy crops. Definitions of materials that qualify as biomass may vary in 

different States or regions depending on regulatory schemes or RPSs. 

 

(f) By industry convention, wind resource values are categorized on the basis of the power density 

expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2

) and speed of the prevailing wind at an elevation of 

160 feet (50 meters), and range from Category 1 with wind power densities of 200–300 W/m2

(typically existing with constant wind speeds between 12.5 and 14.3 miles per hour (mi/hr) 

[5.8-6.4 meters per second (m/s)]) through Category 7 with power densities of 800–1,800 W/m2

 (wind 

speeds of 19.7–24.8 mi/hr [8.8–11.1 m/s]). Category 3 wind has a power density of 300–400 W/m2

with wind speeds of 15.7–16.8 mi/hr (7.0–7.5 m/s). 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-27 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Biomass resources are widely available throughout the United States (see Figure D.10-18). 

Biomass energy conversion is accomplished using a wide variety of technologies, some of 

which are similar in appearance and operation to fossil fuel plants, and include directly 

combusting biomass in a boiler or incinerator to produce steam, co-firing biomass along with 

fossil fuels (primarily coal) in boilers to produce steam, producing synthetic liquid fuels that are 

subsequently combusted, gasifying biomass to produce gaseous fuels that are subsequently 

combusted, and anaerobically digesting biomass to produce biogas. Synthetic fuel production, 

biomass gasification, and anaerobic digestion technologies have not been used to produce 

utility-scale electricity. Biogas is often consumed in combined heat and power plants with 

relatively small power generating capacities. To date, wood has been the most widely used 

biomass fuel for electricity generation, while coal-biomass co-firing and MSW combustion are 

also commercially feasible. While it is technically feasible to operate a biomass combustion 

plant on MSW or refuse-derived fuel, source material may not be reliable or consistent. Of the 

nearly 1,000 operating biomass power plants, the majority directly combust biomass while only 

a small number co-fire with coal (NREL 2006). 

MSW combustors use one of three types of technologies: mass burn, modular, or refusederived fuel. Mass burning is currently the method used most frequently in the United States 

and involves no (or little) sorting, shredding, or separation. Consequently, toxic or hazardous 

components present in the waste stream are combusted, and toxic constituents are exhausted 

to the air or become part of the resulting solid wastes. Currently, approximately 87 waste-toenergy plants operate in 25 States, processing 28.7 million tons of trash annually and operating 

at capacity factors greater than 90 percent to generate approximately 2,720 MWe, or an 

average of 31.3 MWe per plant (IWSA 2007). 

Landfill gas is another potential source of biomass energy for electric power production. 

Landfills in which organic materials are disposed represent the largest source of methane in the 

United States. Landfill gas composition varies depending on the type of waste. EPA estimates 

that every million tons of MSW buried in anaerobic conditions in sanitary landfills can produce 

approximately 432,000 cubic feet (12,200 cubic meters) per day of landfill gas. Landfill gas can 

be recovered from closed landfill cells and burned for electricity production in reciprocating 

internal combustion engines ranging in capacity from 100 kW to 3 MW, in turbines with 

capacities of 800 kW to 10.5 MW, or in microturbines with capacities of 30 kW to 250 kW 

(EPA 2010). 

 

Collecting landfill gas is a relatively straightforward process that involves placing recovery wells 

and simple gas collection systems. Of the approximately 2,300 operating or recently closed 

landfills in the United States, 427 landfills are currently equipped with gas collection systems. In 

2006, landfills produced enough gas to generate 10 billion kWh of electricity. An additional 

560 landfills could be adapted to landfill gas-to-energy production (see Figure D.10-22). Since 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-28 

gas is produced continuously, landfill gas-to-energy plants can have capacity factors greater 

than 90 percent and can be relied upon as a source of baseload power. 

2.3.3.5 Solar Power 

Solar power technologies that are commercially viable for the production of electricity include 

solar thermal and photovoltaic. Solar thermal systems or concentrating solar power (CSP) 

systems are designed to concentrate the sun’s heat energy by as much as 10,000 times to 

generate high-temperatures. Photovoltaic (PV) systems use semiconductors in solar cells that 

convert photons of solar energy to direct current (DC) electricity. Some PV designs also use 

concentrating devices to enhance power production by increasing the energy reaching a given 

solar cell. In recent years, solar power has enjoyed strong growth in many parts of the world. 

There is great interest in deploying these systems in the United States, especially in those 

portions of the six southwestern States with high-value solar resources (California, Nevada, 

Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona), on lands controlled by the U.S. Department of 

Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and in States with solar “set-asides” in their 

RPSs. 

 

Although the highest-value solar resources exist in the desert regions of the Southwest, solar 

resources of adequate quality to support utility-scale solar energy facilities are located in other 

parts of the country as well. Although both PV and CSP technologies have experienced 

technological advancements and enjoyed growth, including especially rapid growth of PV 

technologies in Germany, CSP appears to have a greater near-term potential to serve as 

baseload power. This is primarily because of currently existing opportunities to store thermal 

energy captured in a solar field for delayed production of electricity over time periods coincident 

with peak loads, irrespective of whether those peak load periods coincide with high-value 

incident solar radiation.(g) 

 

While CSP relies on direct normal insolation (DNI), PV can respond to direct as well as reflected 

or refracted sunlight. Solar intensity varies throughout the lower 48 States, making the use of 

PV technology feasible—to varying extents—throughout the country. Nonetheless, the highest 

DNI values are found in the southwestern States, making that geographic region the preferred 

location for CSP facilities (see Figure D.10-26). 

 

 

(g) Work is proceeding to equip PV systems with battery or fuel cell storage capabilities, thus improving 

the dispatchability of power; however, these technologies are in their infancy and are not currently 

being deployed at the utility scale in the United States. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-29 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

CSP Technologies 

Three CSP technologies have been developed for utility-scale power production: parabolic 

trough, power tower, and the Stirling heat engine. The parabolic trough and power tower both 

concentrate the sun’s heat by reflecting it onto a container of heat-transfer fluid. The fluid, 

typically a high-boiling-point synthetic oil, is heated to temperatures as high as 1472F (800C) 

before being circulated to a conventional tube-type heat exchanger to make steam to drive a 

conventional STG. The Stirling heat engine concentrates the sun’s heat on a closed container 

of hydrogen or helium gas, which expands to drive a piston whose linear motion is converted to 

angular momentum to drive a generator. Both parabolic trough and power tower facilities are 

operational at the utility scale. 

 

CSP facilities can use molten salt to store heat for steam production at night and during cloudy 

periods, but to do so and still maintain their nameplate capacities, such CSP facilities must 

increase the size of the solar field. A CSP facility with six hours of thermal storage (considered 

to be the current practical limit) and operating at a capacity factor of approximately 48 percent 

would require a solar field over 3.5 times as large as the field size required to generate power at 

the facility’s nameplate rating, or a “solar multiple” of 3.5 (SDRREG 2005). Thus, a 400-MWe 

CSP plant with six hours of thermal storage operating at an effective capacity factor of 

48 percent would have a solar field of roughly 7,000 acres (2,833 hectares). 

Both parabolic trough and power tower facilities use conventional steam cycles and thus have 

cooling demands similar to fossil-fuel power plants of equivalent capacities and overall thermal 

efficiencies. 

PV Technologies 

Various materials exhibit the “photovoltaic effect” and are capable of producing electricity from 

incident photons of solar energy. Solar cells have been developed using silicon (single crystal, 

polycrystalline, and amorphous silicon) and a variety of compounds such as cadmium telluride, 

copper-indium-gallium-selenide, and gallium arsenide. Among the silicon-based solar cells, 

single crystals exhibit the highest efficiency, but polycrystalline cells now represent the majority 

of the PV market. Although more expensive to produce, high-performance, multi-junction cells 

offer greater energy-conversion efficiencies and are currently the subject of most research into 

utility-scale applications. Many solar cell materials are now being manufactured as thin films, 

which have lower efficiencies than other types of PV technologies but typically can be made at 

lower cost. Unlike CSP technologies, PV systems do not require cooling water, although they 

may have substantial land requirements. Schematics of PV power systems appear in 

Figures D.10-24 and D.10-25. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-30 

2.3.3.6 Ocean Wave and Current Energy 

A variety of ocean wave energy technologies have been considered. Point absorbers and 

attenuators allow waves to interact with a floating buoy. The wave motion is converted into 

mechanical energy to drive a generator. Overtopping devices trap some portion of an incident 

wave at a higher elevation than the average height of the surrounding sea surface, while 

terminators allow waves to enter a tube, compressing air that is then used to drive a generator. 

In general, technologies that harness the energy of ocean waves are in their infancy and have 

not been used at utility scale. These technologies may become commercially viable in the near 

future. A point absorber facility, for example, has been proposed off the coast of Oregon. 

Similarly, feasibility studies and prototype tests for wave energy capture devices have been 

conducted for locations off the coasts of Hawaii, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, and Maine. 

Ocean current energy technology is also in its infancy. Existing prototypes capture ocean 

current energy with submerged turbines that are similar to wind turbines. Although the functions 

of ocean turbines and wind turbines are similar (both derive power from moving fluids), ocean 

turbines have substantially greater power generating capacity since the energy contained in 

moving water is approximately 800 times greater than air. In relatively constant currents with 

average velocities of 3.5 miles per hour (mph) (5.6 kilometers per hr [km/h]) or variable tidal 

currents averaging 5.8 mph (9.3 km/h), ocean turbines can produce sufficient capacity factors 

for baseload demand (MMS 2007). Various ocean turbine designs are undergoing research, 

development, and demonstration. 

2.3.4 Non-Generation Alternatives 

As discussed in Section 2.3.1, various electric power generating technologies can be employed 

to replace the power provided by a nuclear power plant in a particular region of the country. 

The preceding sections have identified those technologies that the NRC considers to be viable 

candidates as alternatives. However, in addition to these generating options, alternatives that 

do not include the introduction of new electricity generating capacity also exist. Two such 

alternatives are purchased power from within or outside of a region, as well as energy 

conservation and energy efficiency measures (collectively, part of a range of demand-side 

management measures). 

2.3.4.1 Purchased Power 

Bulk electricity purchases currently take place within geographic regions established by the 

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the authorized Electric Reliability 

Organization (ERO) for the United States. Also, interconnections exist between NERC regions 

that allow for power exchanges between the regions when necessary to satisfy short-term 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-31 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

demand. The NRC recognizes the possibility that replacement power may be imported from 

outside a nuclear power plant’s service area, which may or may not require importing power 

from another region. In most instances, importing power from distant generating sources would 

have little or no measurable environmental impact in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant; 

however, it could cause environmental impacts where the power is generated or anywhere 

along the transmission route. Importing power from outside a particular region or purchasing it 

from a generator in the same region are possible sources of replacement power. 

Many factors influence power purchasing decisions, with respect to both technical feasibility and 

cost. The existing transmission grid may 

not support every possible power transfer 

agreement. 

Incremental power transfer capacities 

have been established between grid 

segments both within and across NERC 

regions, and modest amounts of power 

routinely transfer across those points. 

Such capabilities were established to 

ensure overall grid stability and reliability 

under both routine and non-routine 

conditions. In contrast, long-term 

transfers of utility-scale power from 

outside of a given power plant’s region 

may require modification of one or more 

existing transmission grid segments 

(as well as modifications to substations 

and power synchronization equipment) 

and could require construction of new 

transmission line segments. New 

transmission lines may be required for 

long-term purchased power from within 

the same NERC region, but the need for 

new transmission lines is highly situationdependent. Further, efforts by 

transmission operators to provide a price 

signal for transmission congestion through locational-marginal pricing would, over the long run, 

provide an incentive for power purchases closer to the existing power plant or construction of 

new capacity nearer the existing power plant. In general, the more geographically distant the 

exporting source, the greater the likelihood that new or modified interconnecting transmission 

North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

For the purpose of ensuring continued reliability of electric 

service, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) authorized 

the creation of an independent, international Electric 

Reliability Organization (ERO) and directed the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to establish rules 

for the ERO as well as a process for certification. In July 

2006, FERC approved the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) application to become 

the ERO for the United States. 

Established in 1968, NERC is a regulatory organization 

that develops and enforces reliability standards; monitors 

the bulk power system; assesses future adequacy; audits 

owners, operators, and users for preparedness; and 

educates and trains industry personnel. NERC is 

composed of eight Regional Reliability Councils (RRCs), 

each responsible for a specific geographic area. RRC 

membership typically includes investor-owned utilities; 

Federal power agencies; rural electric cooperatives; 

State, municipal, and provincial utilities; Canadian Crown 

corporations (only for some RRCs); independent power 

producers; power marketers; and end-use customers. 

These entities account for virtually all bulk electricity (i.e., 

electricity provided at 100 kV or higher) supplied in the 

United States, Canada, and a portion of Baja California 

Norte, Mexico. NERC’s proposal to delegate 

enforcement authority for reliability standards to eight 

regional entities is pending before the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-32 

line segments would be necessary. Power purchase agreements would also be used in 

emergency situations or to alleviate a capacity shortfall in the near term. 

2.3.4.2 Conservation and Energy Efficiency Measures (Demand-Side Management 

Programs) 

The need for alternative or replacement power can precipitate or invigorate conservation and 

energy efficiency efforts designed to either reduce electricity demand at the retail level or alter 

the shape of the electricity load. All such efforts are broadly categorized as demand-side 

management (DSM), although DSM can also include measures that increase energy 

consumption or cause consumers to switch from fuels like natural gas to electricity. 

Conservation and energy efficiency measures may be championed by the same company that 

operates a nuclear power plant when that company also serves retail customers. In other 

cases, the measures may be offered by other load-serving entities, State-based programs, thirdparty service providers and aggregators, or even transmission operators. Programs include, but 

are not limited to, incentives for equipment upgrades, improved codes and standards, rebates or 

rate reductions in exchange for allowing a utility to control or curtail the use of high-consumption 

appliances (like air conditioners) or equipment, training in efficient operation of building heating 

and lighting systems, direct payments in consideration for avoided consumption, or use of price 

signals to shift consumption away from peak times. 

Data contained in the latest EIA Electric Power Annual Report (DOE/EIA 2010a) show that total 

peak load reductions due to DSM programs was 32,741 MW in 2008, an 8.2 percent increase 

from DSM savings of 2007. While the total costs of all DSM programs rose 22.9 percent from 

2003 to 2008, peak load reductions over that period increased by an annualized growth rate of 

6.17 percent. 

EIA data show that historically, residential electricity consumers have been responsible for the 

majority of peak load reductions achieved by conservation and energy efficiency programs. 

However, participation in most conservation programs is voluntary, and the existence of a 

program does not guarantee that reductions in electricity demand would occur. Nevertheless, 

energy conservation programs in general can result in significant reductions in demand. Recent 

legislative actions in some States requiring the establishment of programs such as “net 

metering” and technological advances to the electric transmission network, the “smart grid,” 

have facilitated greater degrees of participation in energy conservation programs, especially 

among residential customers. 

Conservation and energy efficiency programs may reduce overall environmental impacts 

associated with energy production. In a 2008 staff report, FERC outlined the results of the 2008 

FERC Demand Response and Advanced Metering Survey (FERC 2008). Nationwide, 

approximately eight percent of retail electricity customers are enrolled in some type of demand-
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-33 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

response program. The potential demand-response resource contribution from all 

U.S. demand-response programs is estimated to be close to 41,000 MW, or about 5.8 percent 

of U.S. peak demand. A national assessment of demand response potential as required by 

Section 529 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was published by FERC in 

June 2009 (FERC 2009). The survey evaluated potential energy savings in five- and ten-year 

horizons for four development scenarios: Business As Usual, Expanded Business As Usual, 

Achievable Participation, and Full Participation, each representing successively greater 

demand-response program opportunities and successively increasing levels of customer 

participation. The greatest savings would be realized under the Full Participation scenario, with 

peak demand reductions of 188 GW by the year 2019, a 20 percent reduction of the anticipated 

peak load without any demand-response programs in place. Under the Achievable Participation 

scenario, reflecting a more realizable voluntary customer participation level of 60 percent, peak 

demand would be reduced by 138 GW by 2019, a 14 percent reduction. 

While the energy conservation or energy efficiency potential in the United States is substantial, 

the NRC staff is aware of no cases where an energy efficiency or conservation program has 

been implemented expressly to replace or offset a large, baseload generation station. While the 

potential to replace a large baseload generator may exist in some locations, it is more likely that 

conservation and energy efficiency programs will not be evaluated in site-specific license 

renewal reviews as stand-alone alternatives but may play an important role in the evaluation of 

a combination of alternatives. 

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives 

This section provides a summary comparison of the environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and alternatives. Tables 2.4-1 through 2.4-5 provide an overview of the findings of the 

impact analyses (presented in Chapter 4) for the proposed action and alternatives, including the 

no-action alternative, replacement power alternatives (fossil energy, nuclear energy, and 

renewable energy), energy conservation, and power purchases. Impacts related to construction 

(Table 2.4-1), operations (Table 2.4-2), postulated accidents (Table 2.4-3), termination of 

nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning (Table 2.4-4), and the fuel cycle 

(Table 2.4-5) are provided. In each of these tables, important aspects of each alternative that 

serve as the basis of the assessment are identified as well as the magnitude of the anticipated 

impact in each resource area. Impacts are evaluated and compared in a general fashion. More 

detailed analyses incorporating relevant site-specific factors (as well as the future state of 

technology and, possibly, other reasonable alternatives) will be provided in each site-specific 

SEIS prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of renewing a nuclear power plant’s 

operating license. 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-34

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Table 2.4-1. Environmental Impacts of Construction under the Proposed Action and Alternatives Assessment Basis and Nature of Impacts Proposed Action(a) No-Action Alternative Fossil, Nuclear, and Renewable Energy Alternatives Energy Conservation Power Purchases Only minor construction projects (likely refurbishments) are associated with the proposed action. Original plant construction is not part of the proposed action. No construction at the plant sites would occur if license renewal is denied. Construction could occur in other areas if new power plants or transmission facilities are needed to replace lost capacity. (Impacts from replacement power are addressed in the columns to the right.) Major construction projects would be required to build replacement fossil, nuclear, or renewable energy generation capacity. Impacts would vary according to the specific alternative technology selected and site- specific resource conditions that would be reviewed under separate environmental review processes, depending on the activity’s location and proponent. Impacts at brownfield sites would be smaller than at greenfield sites. Power may also be replaced by a portfolio of alternative technologies; in such cases, impacts would be additive among portfolio components, occurring at each facility commensurate with the technology and the amount of replacement power it provides. Little or no construction would be associated with energy conservation programs implemented to offset lost generation capacity. No construction would occur if available excess capacity is sufficient to offset losses. Construction could occur in those instances where expansions of the capacity of the alternative generation source to meet power purchase agreements or modifications to the transmission grid were required to bring the imported power to the load centers affected by reactor 

retirement. 

(a) Refer to Table 2.1-1 for a more detailed presentation of the impacts of construction (likely refurbishments) under the proposed action. These impacts are discussed in 

detail in Chapter 4.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

 2-35 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table 2.4-2. Environmental Impacts of Operations under the Proposed Action and Alternatives Assessment Basis and Nature of Impacts Proposed Action(a) No-Action Alternative Fossil, Nuclear, and Renewable Energy Alternatives Energy Conservation Power Purchases Continued operations under the proposed action would be comparable to what has occurred during the current license term. Termination of plant operations would occur sooner than under the proposed action. After plant shutdown, some systems would remain in operation but at reduced levels. Operational impacts could occur in other areas if new power plants are needed to replace lost capacity. (Impacts from replacement power are addressed in the columns to the right.) Operation of a new fossil energy, nuclear, or renewable energy facility would introduce new impacts to the facility site and vicinity. Impacts would vary according to site- specific resource conditions that would be reviewed under separate NEPA assessments. If lost power capacity is replaced with a portfolio of alternatives, impacts would be additive, occurring at each of the facilities within the portfolio based on the nature of the technology employed and commensurate with the amount of power produced. Impacts at brownfield sites may be less than at greenfield sites. Fossil energy alternatives would have similar operational impacts on the proposed action, nuclear, and some renewable alternatives (e.g., biomass), but would produce more air emissions. Nuclear energy alternatives would have similar operational impacts as fossil and some renewable technologies but would produce fewer air emissions than fossil and biomass technologies. Renewable technologies differ greatly in terms of operational impacts. No new operational impacts are likely from energy conservation programs implemented to offset lost generation capacity. Existing operational impacts from current generation sources may be lessened if greater load reductions result. Impacts would occur in areas where purchased power is produced. Impact magnitude would be incremental and reflective of the type of generating technology employed and the increase in the amount of power required to satisfy the power purchasing agreement. (a) Refer to Table 2.1-1 for a more detailed presentation of the impacts of operations under the proposed action. These impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-36

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Table 2.4-3. Impacts of Postulated Accidents under the Proposed Action and Alternatives Assessment Basis and Impact Magnitude Proposed Action(a) No-Action Alternative Fossil, Nuclear, and Renewable Energy Alternatives Energy Conservation Power Purchases Postulated accidents associated with continued operations under the license renewal term include design- basis accidents and severe accidents. The impacts take into consideration the low probability of an accident occurring. Design-basis accidents would have a small impact. Severe accidents would likely have larger consequences than design basis accidents; however, the 

probability-weighted consequences (i.e., the probability of occurrence of the accident multiplied by the consequence if the accident occurred) would be SMALL for all plants. 

Plant shutdown would occur sooner than under the proposed action. A reduction in accident risk would also occur sooner. Impacts could occur in other areas if new power plants are needed to replace lost capacity. (Impacts from replacement power are addressed in the columns to the right.) 

Accidents associated with fossil energy facilities would have short-term, localized effects. Accidents associated with 

nuclear energy would be similar to those of the proposed action. Accidents associated with biomass facilities would be comparable to those of fossil energy facilities. Accidents associated with hydropower (e.g., dam collapse) could have large, far-reaching effects. Accidents associated with coal combustion residue handling and storage could also have 

large, far-reaching effects. Impacts from accidents associated with other renewable energy technologies would be localized and generally inconsequential. 

No accidents are associated with energy conservation measures aside from occupational hazards for those who install or implement them. 

Impacts would occur in areas where purchased power is produced. Nature and magnitude of the impact would depend on the technology used to produce the power and characteristics of the plant site. If power is purchased from existing generating facilities with excess capacity, little change in impact would be expected. Additional impacts may result from required expansions or modifications of transmission infrastructures. 

(a) Refer to Table 2.1-1 for a more detailed presentation of the impacts of accidents under the proposed action. These impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.1.2. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

 2-37 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table 2.4-4. Impacts of Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning under the Proposed Action and Alternatives Assessment Basis and Nature of Impacts Proposed Action(a) No-Action Alternative Fossil, Nuclear, and Renewable Energy Alternatives Energy Conservation Power Purchases Termination of plant operations and decommissioning eventually would occur regardless of implementation of the proposed action. The proposed action would not contribute substantially to the impacts from the termination of plant operations and decommissioning. The no-action alternative would not contribute to the impacts of termination of plant operations and decommissioning. Impacts would occur in other areas if new power plants are needed to replace lost capacity.

(Impacts from 

replacement power are addressed in the columns to the right.) 

Termination of plant operations and decommissioning of a fossil, nuclear, or renewable energy facility would result in short-term impacts during facility dismantlement and longer-term waste management impacts. Impacts would vary according to site-specific resource conditions. The NRC staff’s analysis assumes that dams would remain in place for flood control after hydroelectric power generation ceases. Impacts at brownfield sites may be less than at greenfield sites. 

No termination of operations and decommissioning impacts are anticipated to result from energy conservation programs implemented to offset lost generation capacity. 

Because existing facilities would be used to produce purchased power, no termination of operations and decommissioning impacts would be associated with this alternative. 

(a) Refer to Table 2.1-1 for a more detailed presentation of the impacts of decommissioning under the proposed action. These impacts are discussed in detail in 

Section 4.12.2. 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-38

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Table 2.4-5. Impacts of the Fuel Cycle under the Proposed Action and Alternatives Assessment Basis and Nature of Impacts Proposed Action(b) No-Action Alternative Fossil, Nuclear, and Renewable Energy Alternatives Energy Conservation Power Purchases During the license renewal term, the proposed action would result in the need for continued mining and milling of uranium; fuel fabrication; and storage, transport, and disposal of radioactive and other wastes. The no-action alternative would result in a reduced need for nuclear fuel and a reduction in impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle. Impacts associated with other fuel cycle(s) would occur if new power plants are needed to replace lost capacity. (Impacts from 

replacement power are addressed in the columns to the right.) 

The fuel cycle of fossil energy alternatives includes the extraction of coal (mining) or natural gas (drilling and fracking); fuel clean-up; transport of extracted fuel; and storage, transport, and disposal of combustion waste. Impacts would depend on characteristics of extraction sites and fuels. The nuclear energy alternatives would have similar impacts to the proposed action. Of renewables, only certain biomass technologies (e.g., crop residues, forest products) have a fuel cycle per se. Biomass projects that involve growing, harvesting, and processing of plant materials would have impacts associated with producing and transporting biomass fuel and storage and disposal of combustion waste. Impacts would depend on the nature of the biomass being produced, the characteristics of areas used to 

produce fuel, and the technology used to convert the biomass to 

energy. 

There is no fuel cycle associated with energy conservation. 

The fuel cycle impacts associated with power purchases would depend on the mix of generating sources that are used to produce purchased power. 

(a) Refer to Table 2.1-1 for a more detailed presentation of the impacts of operations under the proposed action. These impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.1. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-39 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Further, each site-specific SEIS must analyze the impacts of the proposed action (license 

renewal) as well as a range of reasonable alternatives to provide replacement power. 

According to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, reasonable alternatives 

comprise “those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and 

using common sense” (46 FR 18026). Replacement power alternatives may require the 

construction of a new power plant and possibly the modification of the electric transmission grid. 

The new power plants would also have operational impacts that may or may not be equivalent 

in nature and/or extent to the operational impacts of the reactor for which license renewal is 

sought. Conversely, license renewal does not require major construction and operational 

impacts would not change beyond what is currently being experienced. Other alternatives that 

would not have construction or operational impacts include conservation and energy efficiency, 

delayed retirement, repowering, and purchased power.

Operational impacts of license renewal are comparable to replacement power alternatives and 

some renewable energy alternatives in some resource areas (e.g., socioeconomics), but quite 

different in other resource areas (air emissions, fuel cycle, land use, and water consumption). 

Some renewable energy alternatives (wind, ocean wave, and ocean current alternatives) have 

very few operational impacts, while others (biomass combustion and conventional hydropower) 

can have considerable operational impacts. Some renewable energy alternatives (wind and 

solar) have relatively low but regionally variable capacity factors while others (e.g., conventional 

hydropower and geothermal) can exhibit capacity factors at or near those of a nuclear power 

plant. 

The proposed action and alternatives differ in other respects, including the consequences of 

accidents. The proposed action and new nuclear energy alternatives all may have lowprobability but potentially high-consequence accidents in comparison to non-nuclear 

alternatives. 

Termination of nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning impacts at existing nuclear 

power plant sites would eventually occur regardless of a decision to renew their licenses. Thus 

in this analysis, those impacts are not attributed to the proposed action, and the effects of the 

proposed action on the impacts from the termination of nuclear power plant operations and 

decommissioning are SMALL in all resource areas. Impacts from the decommissioning of a 

new nuclear power reactor would be similar to that of the existing reactor but would occur under 

a separate licensing action, including a separate NEPA assessment. 

Fuel cycle impacts have been evaluated for license renewal and were found to be SMALL for all 

resource areas, except for offsite radiological impacts – collective impacts from other than the 

disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste, which are acceptable (See section 4.12.1.1, 

“Uranium Fuel Cycle” for information on this issue). Fossil-fueled alternatives may have larger 

fuel cycle impacts (mostly associated with land disturbance at fuel extraction sites), while other 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-40 

alternatives have no fuel-cycle impacts (renewable alternatives such as wind, wave, current, or 

solar alternatives do not have fuel cycles). 

2.5 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Producing and Utilization Facilities.” 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

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

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

46 FR 18026. Council on Environmental Quality. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning 

CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. March 23, 1981. 

69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions. August 24, 2004. 

77 FR 12332. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 

and 4; Issuance of Combined Licenses and Limited Work Authorizations and Record of 

Decision. February 29, 2012. 

77 FR 21593. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 

and 3 Combined Licenses and Record of Decision. April 10, 2012. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. P.L. No. 111-5. 

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2010. California Energy Almanac: California Power 

Plants Overview, California’s Major Sources of Energy, California Electricity Sector Overview, 

California Electrical Energy Generation, 2009 Total California In-State Power Generation, 

California Major Utilities’ Resource Mix for 2006, California Electricity Statistics and Data. 

Available URL: http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/index.html (Accessed June 7, 

2010). 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-41 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

 

California Geothermal Energy Collaborative (CGEC). 2010. Geothermal Resources. Available 

URL: http://cgec.ucdavis.edu/pages/resources.html (Accessed June 22, 2010). 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, as amended. P.L. No. 110-149. 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended. P.L. No. 109-58. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2008. 2008 Assessment of Demand 

Response & Advanced Metering. Staff report. December. Available URL: 

http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/12-08-demand-response.pdf (Accessed December 16, 

2009). 

 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2009. A National Assessment of Demand 

Response Potential. Staff report prepared by The Brattle Group, Freeman, Sullivan, & Co., and 

Global Energy Partners, LLC. June. Available URL: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/ 

indus-act/demand-response/dr-potential.asp (Accessed December 16, 2009). 

 

Geothermal Energy Association (GEA). 2010. “Figure 4: Developing Projects by State.” In: 

U.S. Geothermal Power Production and Development Update—Special NYC Forum Edition. 

January. Available URL: http://www.geo-energy.org/reports.aspx (Accessed 

December 1, 2010). 

 

Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA). 2007. The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-toEnergy Plants. Available URL: http://www.energyrecoverycouncil.org/userfiles/file/ 

IWSA_2007_Directory.pdf (Accessed June 21, 2010). 

Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2007. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Alternative Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer 

Continental Shelf. Available URL: http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/eis/guide/index.cfm (Accessed 

February 13, 2012). 

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2007. Cost and Performance Baseline for 

Fossil Energy Plants, Vol. 1, Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity. DOE/NETL 

2007/1281, Final Report, U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Original Issue 

May), Revision 1. August. Available URL: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/ 

2007/07057-DOE_Issues_Plant_Performance_Repor.html (Accessed August 16, 2010). 

 

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

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470 et seq. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 2-42 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2006. Power Technologies Energy Data 

Book, Fourth Edition. Technical Report NREL/TP-620-39728, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Golden, Colorado. August. Available URL: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39728.pdf 

(Accessed October 18, 2007). 

San Diego Regional Renewable Energy Group (SDRREG). 2005. Potential for Renewable 

Energy in the San Diego Region. August. Available URL: http://www.renewablesg.org 

(Accessed July 28, 2008). 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Department of Agriculture Forest Service (BLM and FS). 

2008. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Geothermal Leasing in the 

Western United States. FES 08-44. October. Available URL: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/ 

prog/energy/geothermal/geothermal_nationwide/Documents/Final_PEIS.html (Accessed 

June 23, 2010). 

 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy, Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2010a. Electric 

Power Annual 2008. DOE/EIA-0348(2008). Washington, D.C. November 23. Available URL: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html (Accessed August 16, 2010). 

 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2010b. Annual 

Energy Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2035. DOE/EIA-0383(2010), Washington, D.C. 

Available URL: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/index.html (Accessed August 16, 2010). 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE/EERE). 

2010. Federal Interagency Geothermal Activities, Geothermal Technologies Program. 

Washington, D.C. January. Available URL: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/ 

ngap.html (Accessed June 28, 2010). 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Landfill Methane Outreach Program. 

June 18. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/lmop/ (Accessed June 21, 2010). 

 

U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2008. Assessment of Moderate- and High-Temperature 

Geothermal Resources of the United States. Fact Sheet 2008-3082. Available URL: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3082/ (Accessed June 24, 2010). 

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. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

 2-43 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. November. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning 

Guidance. NUREG-1757, Vols. 1 and 2. Washington, D.C. 

 

 3-1 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

3 Affected Environment 

For purposes of the evaluation in this 

generic environmental impact statement 

(GEIS) revision, the “affected 

environment” is the environment that 

currently exists at and around operating 

U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. 

Because existing conditions are at least 

partially the result of past construction 

and operations at the plants, the impacts 

of these past and ongoing impacts and 

how they have shaped the environment 

are summarized here. Thus, it is this 

existing environment that comprises the 

environmental baseline against which 

potential environmental impacts of 

license renewal are evaluated. The 

impacts of license renewal that are 

presented in Section 4 are incremental 

to these baseline conditions, which 

include the effects of past and present 

actions at the plants. 

3.1 Description of 

Nuclear Power Plant 

Facilities and 

Operations 

3.1.1 External Appearance and Settings 

Nuclear power plants contain a number of buildings or structures. Among them are containment 

or reactor building(s), turbine building(s), auxiliary buildings, vent stacks, meteorological 

tower(s), and cooling systems, particularly cooling towers. A plant site layout also includes 

large parking areas, security fencing, switchyards, water intake and discharge facilities, and 

transmission lines (see Section 3.1.6). While reactor, turbine, and auxiliary buildings are often 

clad or painted in colors that are intended to reduce or mitigate their visual presence, the 

Contents of Chapter 3 

• Current nuclear power plant facilities and 

operations (Section 3.1) 

• Existing conditions at operating nuclear power 

plants (including the impacts of past construction 

and operational effects) in the following 

environmental resource areas: 

- Land Use and Visual Resources 

(Section 3.2) 

- Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise 

(Section 3.3) 

- Geologic Environment (Section 3.4) 

- Water Resources (Section 3.5) 

- Ecological Resources (Section 3.6) 

- Historic and Cultural Resources 

(Section 3.7) 

- Socioeconomics (Section 3.8) 

- Human Health (Section 3.9) 

- Environmental Justice (Section 3.10) 

- Waste Management and Pollution Prevention 

(Section 3.11) 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-2 

heights of many of the structures, coupled with red and/or white safety lights, make plants 

visible from many directions. Typical heights of plant facilities are as follows: reactor buildings 

are 300 ft (90 m), turbine buildings are 100 ft (30 m), stacks are 300 ft (90 m), meteorological 

towers are 200 ft (60 m), natural draft cooling towers are higher than 500 ft (150 m), and 

mechanical draft cooling towers are 100 ft (30 m) tall. In addition, condensation from cooling 

towers is generally visible for many miles. Transmission line towers are between 70 ft (20 m) 

and 170 ft (50 m) in height, depending on the voltage being carried. 

There are two types of power reactors used in the United States—boiling water reactors 

(BWRs) and pressurized water reactors (PWRs). All nuclear power plant sites are generally 

similar in terms of the types of facilities they contain. All plant sites contain a nuclear steam 

supply system. In addition, there are a number of common structures necessary for plant 

operation. However, the layout of buildings and structures varies considerably among the sites. 

For example, control rooms may be located in the auxiliary building, in a separate control 

building, or in a radwaste and control building. The following list describes typical structures 

located on most sites. 

• Containment or reactor building. The containment or reactor building in a PWR is a 

massive concrete or steel structure that houses the reactor vessel, reactor coolant piping 

and pumps, steam generators, pressurizer, pumps, and associated piping. The reactor 

building structure of a BWR generally includes a containment structure and a shield 

building. The reactor containment building is a massive concrete or steel structure that 

houses the reactor vessel, the reactor coolant piping and pumps, and the suppression 

pool. It is located inside a somewhat less substantive structure called the shield 

building. The shield building for a BWR also generally contains the spent fuel pool and 

the new fuel pool. 

The reactor containment building for both PWRs and BWRs is designed to withstand 

natural disasters, such as tornados, hurricanes, and earthquakes. The containment 

building’s ability to withstand such events and to contain the effects of accidents initiated 

by system failures constitutes the principal protection against releasing radioactive 

material to the environment. 

• Fuel building. For PWRs, the fuel building has a fuel pool that is used to store and 

service spent fuel and prepare new fuel for insertion into the reactor. This building is 

connected to the reactor containment building by a transfer tube or channel that is used 

to move new fuel into the reactor and move spent fuel out of the reactor for storage. 

• Turbine building. The turbine building houses the turbine generators, condenser, 

feedwater heaters, condensate and feedwater pumps, waste-heat rejection system, 

pumps, and equipment that support those systems. In BWRs, primary coolant is 
Affected Environment 

 3-3 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

circulated through these systems, thereby causing them to become slightly 

contaminated. In PWRs, primary coolant is not circulated through the turbine building 

systems. However, it is not unusual for portions of the turbine building to become mildly 

contaminated because of leaks from the primary system into the secondary side during 

power generation at PWRs. 

• Auxiliary buildings. Auxiliary buildings house support systems, such as the ventilation 

system, emergency core cooling system, laundry facilities, water treatment system, and 

waste treatment system. An auxiliary building may also contain the emergency diesel 

generators and, in some PWRs, the fuel storage facility. The facility’s control room is 

often located in the auxiliary building. 

• Diesel generator building. Often a separate building houses the emergency diesel 

generators if they are not located in the auxiliary building. The emergency diesel 

generators do not become contaminated or activated. 

• Pump houses. Various pump houses for circulating water, standby service water, or 

makeup water may be onsite. 

• Cooling towers. Cooling towers are structures designed to remove excess heat from the 

condenser without dumping the heat directly into water bodies, such as lakes or rivers. 

There are two principal types of cooling towers: mechanical draft towers and natural 

draft towers. Most nuclear plants that have once-through cooling do not have cooling 

towers associated with them. However, seven facilities with once-through cooling also 

have cooling towers that are used to reduce the temperature of the water before it is 

released to the environment. 

• Radwaste facilities. Radioactive waste facilities may be contained in an auxiliary 

building or located in a separate solid radwaste building. For example, the radwaste 

storage facility may be a separate building. 

• Ventilation stack. Many older nuclear power plants, particularly BWRs, have ventilation 

stacks to discharge gaseous waste effluents and ventilation air directly to the outside. 

These stacks can be 300 ft (90 m) tall or higher and contain monitoring systems to 

ensure that radioactive gaseous discharges are below fixed release limits. Radioactive 

gaseous effluents are treated and processed before being discharged out the stack. 

• Switchyard and transmission lines. Plant sites also typically contain a large switchyard, 

where the electric voltage is stepped up and fed into the regional power distribution 

system. Electricity generated at the plant is carried off the site by transmission lines. 

Only those transmission lines that connect the plant to the switchyard where electricity is 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-4 

fed into the regional power distribution system (encompassing those lines that connect 

the plant to the first substation of the regional electric power grid) and power lines that 

feed the plant from the grid during outages are considered within the regulatory scope of 

license renewal environmental review and this GEIS. 

• Administrative, training, and security buildings. Normally, the administrative, training, 

and security buildings are located outside the radiation protection zones; no radiological 

contamination is present; and radiation exposures are at general background levels. 

• Independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs). An ISFSI is designed and 

constructed for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials 

associated with spent fuel storage. ISFSIs may be located at the site of a nuclear power 

plant or at another location. The most common design for an ISFSI, at this time, is a 

concrete pad with dry casks containing spent fuel bundles. ISFSIs are used by 

operating plants that require increased spent fuel storage capability because their spent 

fuel pools have reached capacity (see Section 3.11.1.2). 

Nuclear power plant site areas range from 84 ac (34 ha) to 30,000 ac (12,000 ha), with most 

sites encompassing 500 to 2,000 ac (200 to 800 ha). Larger land use areas are associated with 

plant cooling systems that include reservoirs, artificial lakes, and buffer areas. 

Nuclear power plant sites are located in a range of political jurisdictions, including towns, 

townships, service districts, counties, parishes, and States. At more than 50 percent of the 

sites, the population density within a 50-mi (80 km) radius is fewer than 200 persons per square 

mile (77 persons per square kilometer), and at more than 80 percent of the sites, the density 

within 50 mi (80 km) is fewer than 500 persons per square mile (193 persons per square 

kilometer). Within the 50-mi (80-km) radius, State, Federal, and Native American lands are 

present to various extents. Typically, nuclear plant sites and their surrounding areas consist of 

flat to rolling countryside in wooded or agricultural areas. See Appendix C for summary 

descriptions of the characteristics of nuclear power plant sites and their surroundings. 

3.1.2 Nuclear Reactor Systems 

In the United States, all of the currently operating reactors used for commercial power 

generation are conventional (thermal) light water reactors (LWRs) that use water as a 

moderator and coolant. The two types of LWRs are PWRs and BWRs. Of the 104 operating 

LWRs, 69 are PWRs and 35 are BWRs (Figure 3.1-1 and Table 3.1-1). They are located at 

65 sites in 31 States (NRC 2007a). Some of the reactors have undergone power uprates 

increasing their power levels. Uprate information is incorporated into Table 3.1-1, and other 

reactors are likely to undergo similar power uprates in the future. 
Affected Environment

 3-5 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure 3.1-1. Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-6

Affected Environment Table 3.1-1. Characteristics of Operating U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants(a) Plant Unit Year Operating License Granted Year License Expires Net Capacity (MWe) Reactor Type(b) Condenser Flow Rate (103 gpm) Total Site Area (acres) Nearest City 2000 Population within 50 mi Arkansas Nuclear One 1 2 1974 1978 2034 2038 843 995 PWR PWR 657 422 1,164 Little Rock, AR 267,664 

Beaver Valley Power Station 

1 2 

1976 1987 

2036 2047 

892 846 

PWR PWR 

480 453 Pittsburgh, PA 3,274,451 

Braidwood Station 1 

2 

1987 1988 

2026 2027 

1,178 1,152 

PWR PWR 

730 4,457 Joliet, IL 4,272,003 

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 

1 2 3 

1973 1974 1976 

2033 2034 2036 

1,065 1,104 1,115 

BWR BWR BWR 

734 840 Huntsville, AL 872,478 

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 

1 2 

1976 1974 

2036 2034 

938 937 

BWR BWR 

675 1,200 Wilmington, 

NC 

361,872 

Byron Station 1 

2 

1985 1987 

2025 2027 

1,164 1,136 

PWR PWR 

632 1,398 Rockford, IL 1,300,282 

Callaway Plant 1 1984 2024 1,190 PWR 530 5,228 Columbia, MO 491,072 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

1 2 

1974 1976 

2034 2036 

873 862 

PWR PWR 

1,200 2,108 Washington, 

D.C. 

3,919,397 

Catawba Nuclear Station 

1 2 

1985 1986 

2043 2043 

1,129 1,129 

PWR PWR 

660 391 Charlotte, NC 2,041,465 

Clinton Power Station 1 1987 2026 1,065 BWR 569 14,000 Decatur, IL 789,754 Columbia Generating Station 

1 1984 2023 1,131 BWR 550 1,089 Spokane, WA 360,573 

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 

1 2 

1989 1993 

2029 2033 

1,200 1,150 

PWR PWR 

1,030 7,669 Fort Worth, TX 1,431,094 

Cooper Nuclear Station 1 1974 2034 830 BWR 631 1,251 Lincoln, NE 156,157 Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant 

3 1977 2016 838 PWR 680 4,700 Gainesville, FL 1,273,146 

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 

1 2 

1974 1977 

2034 2037 

1,009 1,060 

PWR PWR 

800 650 South Bend, IN 1,447,303 
Affected Environment

 3-7 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table 3.1-1. (cont.) Plant Unit Year Operating License Granted Year License Expires Net Capacity (MWe) Reactor Type(b) Condenser Flow Rate (103 gpm) Total Site Area (acres) Nearest City 2000 Population within 50 mi Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 1 1977 2017 893 PWR 480 733 Toledo, OH 2,617,550 Diablo Canyon Power Plant 1 2 1984 1985 2024 2025 1,122 1,118 PWR PWR 863 750 Santa Barbara, CA 836,031 Dresden Nuclear Power Station 2 3 1969 1971 2029 2031 867 867 BWR BWR 940 (once- through); 630 (mechanical draft cooling tower) 2,500 Joliet, IL 7,337,564 Duane Arnold Energy Center 1 1974 2034 640 BWR 290 500 Cedar Rapids, IA 613,736 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant 1 2 1977 1981 2037 2041 851 860 PWR PWR 635 1,850 Columbus, GA 393,639 Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant 2 1985 2025 1,122 BWR 837 1,120 Detroit, MI 7,803,464 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 1 1974 2034 852 BWR 353 702 Syracuse, NY 914,668 Fort Calhoun Station 1 1973 2033 478 PWR 360 660 Omaha, NE 852,717 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 1969 2029 498 PWR 340 488 Rochester, NY 1,250,000 Grand Gulf Nuclear Station 1 1984 2024 1,297 BWR 572 2,100 Jackson, MS 357,525 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant 1 1987 2046 900 PWR 483 10,744 Raleigh, NC 2,035,797 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 1 2 1974 1978 2034 2038 876 883 BWR BWR 556 2,240 Savannah, GA 366,508 Hope Creek Generating Station 1 1986 2046 1,061 BWR 552 740 Wilmington, DE 5,999,588 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-8

Affected Environment Table 3.1-1. (cont.) Plant Unit Year Operating License Granted Year License Expires Net Capacity (MWe) Reactor Type(b) Condenser Flow Rate (103 gpm) Total Site Area (acres) Nearest City 2000 Population within 50 mi Indian Point Energy Center 2 3 1973 1976 2013 2015 1,020 1,025 PWR PWR 840 239 White Plains, NY 16,806,454 

Kewaunee Power Station 

 1973 2033 556 PWR 420 900 Green Bay, WI 1,585,415 

LaSalle County Station 1 

2 

1982 

1984 

2022 2023 

1,118 1,120 

BWR BWR 

645 3,060 Joliet, IL 1,498,644 

Limerick Generating Station 

1 2 

1985 

1990 

2024 2030 

1,134 1,134 

BWR BWR 

450 595 Reading, PA 7,651,537 

McGuire Nuclear Station 

1 2 

1981 1983 

2041 2043 

1,100 1,100 

PWR PWR 

675 577 Charlotte, NC 2,425,097 

Millstone Power Station 

2 3 

1975 1986 

2035 2045 

884 

1,227 

PWR PWR 

523 907 

500 New Haven, CT 2,868,207 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 

 1970 2030 572 BWR 292 1,250 Minneapolis, MN 2,740,995 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station 

1 2 

1968 1987 

2029 2046 

621 

1,140 

BWR BWR 

250 580 

900 Syracuse, NY 914,668 

North Anna Power Station 

1 2 

1978 

1980 

2038 2040 

981 973 

PWR PWR 

940 1,043 Richmond, VA 1,614,983 

Oconee Nuclear Station 

1 2 3 

1973 

1973 1974 

2033 2033 2034 

846 846 846 

PWR 

PWR PWR 

680 510 Greenville, S.C. 1,226,479 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

 1969 2029 619 BWR 115 800 Atlantic City, PA 4,243,462 

Palisades Nuclear Plant 

 1972 2031 778 PWR 98 432 Kalamazoo, MI 1,287,558 

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 

1 2 3 

1985 1986 1987 

2045 2046 2047 

1,335 1,335 1,235 

PWR PWR PWR 

560 4,050 Phoenix, AZ 1,781,095 

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 

2 3 

1973 1974 

2033 2034 

1,112 1,112 

BWR BWR 

750 620 Lancaster, PA 5,270,600 
Affected Environment

 3-9 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table 3.1-1. (cont.) Plant Unit Year Operating License Granted Year License Expires Net Capacity (MWe) Reactor Type(b) Condenser Flow Rate (103 gpm) Total Site Area (acres) Nearest City 2000 Population within 50 mi Perry Nuclear Power Plant 1 1986 2026 1,261 BWR 545 1,100 Euclid, OH 4,923,662 Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station 1 1972 2012 685 BWR 156 140 Boston, MA 4,629,116 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1 2 1970 1972 2030 2033 512 514 PWR PWR 350 1,260 Green Bay, WI 1,622,052 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 1 2 1973 1974 2033 2034 551 545 PWR PWR 294 560 Minneapolis, MN 2,731,953 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station 1 2 1972 1972 2032 2032 867 869 BWR BWR 970 817 Davenport, IA 656,527 River Bend Station 1 1985 2025 989 BWR 508 3,300 Baton Rouge, LA 866,314 H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant 2 1970 2030 710 PWR 448 6,020 Columbia, SC 809,582 St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 1 2 1976 1983 2036 2043 839 839 PWR PWR 491 1,130 West Palm Beach, FL 1,180,000 Salem Nuclear Generating Station 1 2 1976 1981 2036 2040 1,174 1,130 PWR PWR 1,100 700 Wilmington, DE 5,975,864 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 2 3 1 1982 1983 1967 2022 2023 2007 1,070 1,080 PWR PWR 797 797 84 Oceanside, CA 7,521,699 Seabrook Station 1 1990 2030 1,295 PWR 399 889 Lawrence, MA 6,932,660 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 1 2 1980 1981 2020 2021 1,148 1,126 PWR PWR 522 525 Chattanooga, TN 954,430 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 1 2 1988 1989 2027 2028 1,280 1,280 PWR PWR 907 12,350 Galveston, TX 402,902 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 1 1982 2042 966 PWR 485 2,245 Columbia, SC 1,032,330 Surry Power Station 1 2 1972 1973 2032 2033 799 799 PWR PWR 840 840 Newport News, VA 2,387,353 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-10

Affected Environment Table 3.1-1. (cont.) Plant Unit Year Operating License Granted Year License Expires Net Capacity (MWe) Reactor Type(b) Condenser Flow Rate (103 gpm) Total Site Area (acres) Nearest City 2000 Population within 50 mi Susquehanna Steam Electric Station 1 2 1982 1984 2042 2044 1,149 1,140 BWR BWR 968 1,173 Wilkes-Barre, PA 1,684,794 

Three Mile Island 1 1974 2034 786 PWR 430 814 Harrisburg, PA 2,466,679 Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 

3 4 

1972 1973 

2032 2033 

693 693 

PWR PWR 

624 2,400 Miami, FL 7,490,123 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 

1 1973 2032 510 BWR 360 125 Holyoke, MA 1,513,282 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

1 2 

1987 1989 

2047 2049 

1,109 1,127 

PWR PWR 

510 3,169 Augusta, GA 670,000 

Waterford Steam Electric Station 

3 1985 2024 1,150 PWR 975 3,000 New Orleans, LA 2,072,270 

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 

1 1996 2035 1,123 PWR 410 1,170 Chattanooga, TN 1,044,454 

Wolf Creek Generating Station 

1 1985 2045 1,166 PWR 500 9,818 Topeka, KS 176,301 

(a) The 1996 GEIS included a number of nuclear plants that are not being considered for license renewal and are not included in this table. They include the following plants: 

Bellefonte: Never finished; mothballed in 1988. Big Rock: Shut down in 1997; decommissioning complete in August 2006. Stored spent fuel is still onsite. Haddam (Connecticut Yankee): Shut down in 1996; decommissioned in 2004. Stored spent fuel is still onsite. Maine Yankee: Closed in 1997; decommissioned in 2005. Stored spent fuel is still onsite. Millstone, Unit 1: Shut down in 1995; awaiting decontamination and dismantlement as part of decommissioning. Rancho Seco: Shut down in 1989; still undergoing decommissioning. Shoreham: Fully decommissioned in 1994; it never produced power. Trojan: Closed in 1992; decommissioning completed in 2006. Stored spent fuel is still onsite. Watts Bar, Unit 2: Construction halted in 1988, but approval to complete construction was approved in August 2007. Construction was to begin in 2007, with operation beginning in 2013. Yankee Rowe: Shutdown in 1992; decommissioning completed in 2006. Zion: Shut down in 1998, has been placed in safe storage (SAFSTOR), and decommissioning will begin in 2013.

(b) PWR = pressurized-water reactor; BWR = boiling-water reactor. 
Affected Environment 

 3-11 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

The nuclear fuel used in both types of reactors is uranium enriched to 2 to 5 percent in the 

uranium-235 isotope. The fuel is in the form of cylindrical uranium dioxide (UO2) pellets, 

approximately 0.4 in. (1 cm) in diameter and 0.4 to 0.6 in. (1 to 1.5 cm) in height. The fuel 

pellets are stacked and sealed inside a hollow cylindrical fuel rod made of zircaloy, an alloy of 

zirconium. The fuel rods, also called fuel pins or fuel elements, are approximately 12 ft (3.6 m) 

long. They are bundled into fuel assemblies that generally consist of 15  15 or 17  17 rods for 

PWRs and 8  8 or 10  10 rods for BWRs. When new fuel is loaded into the reactors or spent 

fuel is removed from reactors, the fuel is handled as intact assemblies. Similarly, when spent 

fuel is stored onsite awaiting shipment offsite, the fuel assemblies remain intact. 

Fission reactions that occur inside the fuel, primarily by the uranium-235 isotopes, are the 

source of thermal energy generated in a nuclear reactor. This energy is transferred to the 

coolant, which is ordinary water, circulating in the primary coolant system in LWRs. The vessel, 

which encloses the reactor, is part of the primary coolant system. 

In PWRs, water is heated to a high temperature under pressure inside the reactor 

(Figure 3.1-2). The water is then pumped in the primary circulation loop to the steam generator. 

Within the steam generator, water in the secondary circulation loop is converted to steam that 

drives the turbines. The turbines turn the generator to produce electricity. The steam leaving 

the turbines is condensed by water in the tertiary loop and returned to the steam generator. The 

tertiary loop water flows to cooling towers where it is cooled by evaporation, or it is discharged 

directly to a body of water, such as a river, lake, or other heat sink (see Section 3.1.3). The 

tertiary loop is open to the atmosphere, but the primary and secondary cooling loops are not. 

Figure 3.1-2. Pressurized Water Reactor (NRC 2002a)
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-12 

BWRs generate steam directly within the reactor vessel (Figure 3.1-3). The steam passes 

through moisture separators and steam dryers and then flows to the turbines. Because it 

generates steam directly in the reactor vessel, the power generation system contains only two 

heat transfer loops. The primary loop transports the steam from the reactor vessel directly to 

the turbines, which generate electricity. The secondary coolant loop removes excess heat from 

the primary loop in the condenser. From the condenser, the primary condensate proceeds into 

the feedwater stage, and the secondary coolant loop removes the excess heat and discharges it 

to the receiving water body. As is the case for PWRs, the coolant water from the condenser is 

pumped to cooling towers or it is discharged directly to a water body. 

3.1.3 Cooling Water Systems 

The predominant use of water at a nuclear power plant is for removing excess heat generated in 

the reactor. The volumetric flow rate of water used for condenser cooling is a function of 

several factors, including the power rating of the plant and the increase in cooling water 

temperature from the intake to the discharge. The larger the plant, the greater the quantity of 

waste heat to be dissipated, and the greater the flow rate of cooling water required. 

Table 3.1-2 shows some types of cooling systems used at the existing nuclear power plant 

sites. There are two major types of cooling systems for operating plants: once-through cooling 

Figure 3.1-3. Boiling Water Reactor (NRC 2002a) 
Affected Environment 

 3-13 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

Plant State Cooling System Cooling Water Source 

Coastal or Estuarine Environment 

Diablo Canyon California Once-through Pacific Ocean 

San Onofre Nuclear California Once-through Pacific Ocean 

Millstone Connecticut Once-through Long Island Sound 

Crystal River Florida Once-through Gulf of Mexico 

St. Lucie Florida Once-through Atlantic Ocean 

Turkey Point Florida Cooling canal Biscayne Bay 

Calvert Cliffs Maryland Once-through Chesapeake Bay 

Pilgrim Massachusetts Once-through Cape Cod Bay 

Seabrook New Hampshire Once-through Atlantic Ocean 

Hope Creek New Jersey Natural draft cooling towers Delaware River 

Oyster Creek New Jersey Once-through Barnegat Bay 

Salem New Jersey Once-through Delaware River 

Indian Point New York Once-through Hudson River 

Brunswick North Carolina Once-through Cape Fear River 

South Texas Texas Cooling pond Colorado River 

Surry Virginia Once-through James River 

Great Lakes Environment 

Cook Michigan Once-through Lake Michigan 

Fermi Michigan Natural draft cooling towers Lake Erie 

Palisades Michigan Mechanical draft cooling towers Lake Michigan 

FitzPatrick New York Once-through Lake Ontario 

Ginna New York Once-through Lake Ontario 

Nine Mile Point New York Unit 1: Once-through 

Unit 2: Natural draft cooling towers 

Lake Ontario 

Davis-Besse Ohio Natural draft cooling towers Lake Erie 

Perry Ohio Natural draft cooling towers Lake Erie 

Kewaunee Wisconsin Once-through Lake Michigan 

Point Beach Wisconsin Once-through Lake Michigan 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-14 

Table 3.1-2. (cont.) 

Plant State Cooling System Cooling Water Source 

Freshwater Riverine or Impoundment Environment 

Browns Ferry Alabama Once-through (helper towers) Tennessee River 

Farley Alabama Mechanical draft cooling towers Chattahoochee River 

Palo Verde Arizona Mechanical draft cooling towers Phoenix City Sewage 

Arkansas Arkansas Unit 1: once-through 

Unit 2: natural draft cooling towers 

Lake Dardanelle 

Hatch Georgia Mechanical draft cooling towers Altamaha River 

Vogtle Georgia Natural draft cooling towers Savannah River 

Braidwood Illinois Cooling pond Kankakee River 

Byron Illinois Natural draft cooling towers Rock River 

Clinton Illinois Once-through (cooling pond) Salt Creek 

Dresden Illinois Cooling pond and optional 

mechanical draft cooling tower or 

once-through including residence 

time in pond and optional cooling 

towers 

Kankakee River 

LaSalle Illinois Cooling pond Illinois River 

Quad Cities Illinois Once-through Mississippi River 

Duane Arnold Iowa Mechanical draft cooling towers Cedar River 

Wolf Creek Kansas Cooling pond Coffey County Lake 

River Bend Louisiana Mechanical draft cooling towers Mississippi River 

Waterford Louisiana Once-through Mississippi River 

Monticello Minnesota Once-through and mechanical 

draft cooling towers 

Mississippi River 

Prairie Island Minnesota Once-through and mechanical 

draft cooling towers 

Mississippi River 

Grand Gulf Mississippi Natural draft cooling towers Mississippi River 

Callaway Missouri Natural draft cooling towers Missouri River 

Cooper Nebraska Once-through Missouri River 

Fort Calhoun Nebraska Once-through Missouri River 

Harris North Carolina Natural draft cooling towers Buckhorn Creek 

McGuire North Carolina Once-through Lake Norman 

Beaver Valley Pennsylvania Natural draft cooling towers Ohio River 

Limerick Pennsylvania Natural draft cooling towers Schuylkill River 
Affected Environment 

 3-15 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 3.1-2. (cont.) 

Plant State Cooling System Cooling Water Source 

Peach Bottom Pennsylvania Unit 2: Once-through 

Unit 3: Once-through (mechanical 

draft cooling towers) 

Conowing Pond 

Susquehanna Pennsylvania Natural draft cooling towers Susquehanna River 

Three Mile Island Pennsylvania Natural draft cooling towers Susquehanna River 

Catawba South Carolina Mechanical draft cooling towers Lake Wylie 

Oconee South Carolina Once-through Lake Keowee 

H.B. Robinson South Carolina Cooling pond Lake Robinson 

Summer South Carolina Cooling pond Monticello Reservoir 

Sequoyah Tennessee Once-through and natural draft 

cooling towers 

Chickamauga Lake 

Watts Bar Tennessee Natural draft cooling towers Chickamauga Lake 

Comanche Peak Texas Once-through Squaw Creek Reservoir 

Vermont Yankee Vermont Once-through and mechanical 

draft cooling towers 

Connecticut River 

North Anna Virginia Once-through Lake Anna 

Columbia Washington Mechanical draft cooling towers Columbia River 

and closed-cycle cooling. In a once-through cooling system, circulating water for condenser 

cooling is obtained from a nearby source of water, such as a lake or river, passed through the 

condenser tubes, and returned at a higher temperature to the same water body (Figure 3.1-4a). 

Flow through the condenser for a 1,000-MWe plant during operations is typically 250,000 to 

900,000 gpm (16 to 57 m3

/s) (NRC 1996). The waste heat is dissipated to the atmosphere 

mainly by evaporation from the water body and, to a much smaller extent, by conduction, 

convection, and thermal radiation loss. 

In a closed-cycle system at an operating plant, the cooling water is recirculated through the 

condenser after the waste heat is removed by dissipation to the atmosphere, usually by 

circulating the water through large cooling towers constructed for that purpose (Figure 3.1-4b). 

The average for makeup water withdrawals for a 1000-MWe plant during operations is typically 

about 14,000 to 18,000 gpm (0.9 to 1.1 m3

/s) (NRC 1996). Recirculating cooling systems 

consist of natural draft or mechanical draft cooling towers, cooling ponds, lakes, reservoirs, or 

canals. Because the predominant cooling mechanism associated with closed-cycle systems is 

evaporation, much of the water used for cooling is consumed and is not returned to the water 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-16 

Figure 3.1-4. Schematic Diagrams of Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Systems 
Affected Environment 

 3-17 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

source. Blowdown (water that is periodically rinsed from the cooling system to remove 

impurities and sediment that may degrade performance) is typically released to a receiving body 

of surface water next to the plant. 

Several nuclear plants use combination cooling systems that may be used in different 

configurations, especially during different times of the year (Figure 3.1-4c). Cooling towers may 

be included in a once-through system to cool the effluent prior to release to the receiving body 

of water. These are referred to as helper towers. Peach Bottom (NRC 2003d) has helper 

mechanical draft cooling towers that can receive up to 60 percent of the heated discharge, with 

the remainder of the water discharged as part of a traditional once-through system. Monticello 

(NRC 2006f) uses once-through cooling in the winter but has mechanical draft cooling towers 

for closed-cycle cooling in the summer. Dresden (NRC 2004a) is similar in that it relies on a 

cooling pond system in the fall, winter, and spring, but in summer switches to a once-through 

system that includes residence time in the cooling pond and also typically the use of helper 

mechanical draft cooling towers. Browns Ferry (NRC 2005a) uses mechanical draft cooling 

towers in helper mode. Vermont Yankee (NRC 2007f) is capable of operating in one of three 

modes: once-through, combined, or completely closed. The mode of operation is selected by 

the licensee to limit the thermal discharge to the Connecticut River to ensure compliance with 

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. In the 

combined mode, the plant operates both the closed cycle and the open (once-through) cycle 

systems, with the proportion of water running through each system varying depending on the 

temperature increase in the river water due to discharge from the plant. 

All existing sites with two or three reactor units use the same cooling system for all units, except 

for two sites: Arkansas Nuclear One in Arkansas and Nine Mile Point in New York. These two 

sites use once-through cooling for one unit and closed-cycle for the other. Other cooling system 

types might be added to existing sites if new units are constructed.

For each type of cooling system, the configurations of the water intake and discharge structures 

vary to accommodate the source water body and minimize any impact to the aquatic 

ecosystem. The intake structures generally are located along the shoreline of the body of water 

and are equipped with fish-protection devices. The discharge structures are usually jets or 

diffusers and designed to promote rapid mixing of the effluent stream with the receiving body of 

water. Discharges of condenser cooling water (once-through systems) and blowdown water 

(closed-cycle systems) containing biocides and other chemicals used for corrosion control and 

other water treatment purposes are authorized by the States or the EPA under NPDES permits, 

which establish limits, as necessary, based on flow rates, chemical concentrations, and thermal 

changes. 

In addition to removing heat from the reactor of an operating facility, cooling water is also 

provided to the service water system and to the auxiliary cooling water system. Service water is 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-18 

special-purpose water that may or may not be treated for use. The auxiliary cooling water 

systems include emergency core cooling systems, the containment spray and cooling system, 

the emergency feedwater system, the component cooling water system, and the spent fuel pool 

water systems. The volumetric flow rate of water required for these systems is usually less than 

15 percent of the volume required for condenser cooling in once-through cooling. In closedcycle cooling, the additional water needed is usually less than 5 percent of that needed for 

condenser cooling (NRC 1996). 

In addition to surface water sources, some nuclear power plants use groundwater as a source 

for service, makeup, or potable water. Only Grand Gulf uses groundwater as a source of 

makeup water to the condenser cooling system. This plant employs a Ranney well collection 

system to draw groundwater from the Mississippi River alluvial aquifer. 

3.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems 

During the fission process, a large inventory of radioactive fission products builds up within the 

fuel. Virtually all of the fission products are contained within the fuel pellets. The fuel pellets are 

enclosed in hollow metal rods (cladding), which are hermetically sealed to further prevent the 

release of fission products. However, a small fraction of the fission products escape from the 

fuel rods and contaminate the reactor coolant. The primary system coolant also has radioactive 

contaminants as a result of neutron activation. The radioactivity in the reactor coolant is the 

source of liquid, gaseous, and most of the solid radioactive wastes at LWRs. The following 

sections describe the basic design and operation of PWR and BWR radioactive waste treatment 

systems. 

3.1.4.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste 

Radionuclide contaminants in the primary coolant are the source of liquid radioactive waste in 

LWRs. The specific sources of these wastes, the modes of collection and treatment, and the 

types and quantities of liquid radioactive wastes released to the environment are similar in many 

respects in BWRs and PWRs. Accordingly, the following discussion applies to both BWRs and 

PWRs; distinctions are made only when important differences exist. 

Liquid wastes resulting from LWR operation may be placed into the following categories: clean 

wastes, dirty wastes, detergent wastes, turbine building floor-drain water, and steam generator 

blowdown (PWRs only). Clean wastes include all liquid wastes with normally low conductivity 

and variable radioactivity. They consist of reactor-grade water, which is amenable to 

processing for reuse as reactor coolant makeup water. Clean wastes are collected from 

equipment leaks and drains, certain valve and pump seal leaks from which water was not 

collected in the reactor coolant drain tank, and other aerated leakage sources. Dirty wastes 

include all liquid wastes with moderate conductivity and variable radioactivity that, after 
Affected Environment 

 3-19 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

processing, may be used as reactor coolant makeup water. Dirty wastes consist of liquid 

wastes collected in the containment building sump, auxiliary building sumps and drains, 

laboratory drains, sample station drains, and other floor drains. Detergent wastes consist 

principally of laundry wastes and personnel and equipment decontamination wastes and 

normally have low radioactivity. Turbine building floor-drain wastes usually have high 

conductivity and a low radionuclide content. In PWRs, steam generator blowdown can have 

relatively high concentrations of radionuclides, depending on the amount of primary-tosecondary leakage. Following processing, the water may be reused or discharged. 

Each of these sources of liquid wastes receives varying degrees and types of treatment before 

being stored for reuse or discharged to the environment under the site NPDES permit. The 

extent and types of treatment depend on the chemical content of the waste; to increase the 

efficiency of waste processing, wastes with similar characteristics are batched before treatment. 

Controls for limiting the release of radiological liquid effluents at each plant are described in the 

facility’s Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). Controls are based on (1) concentrations of 

radioactive materials in liquid effluents and (2) dose to a member of the public. Concentrations 

of radioactive material that are allowed to be released in liquid effluents to unrestricted areas 

are limited to the concentration specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2. 

The degree of processing, storing, and recycling of liquid radioactive waste has steadily 

increased among operating plants. For example, extensive recycling of steam generator 

blowdown in PWRs is now the typical mode of operation, and secondary side wastewater is 

routinely treated. In addition, the plant systems that process wastes are often augmented by 

commercial mobile processing systems. As a result, radionuclide releases in liquid effluent from 

LWRs have generally declined for most plants or remained the same over time. 

3.1.4.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste 

The gaseous waste management system collects fission products, mainly noble gases, which 

accumulate in the primary coolant. A small portion of the primary coolant flow is continually 

diverted to the primary coolant purification, volume, and chemical control system to remove 

contaminants and adjust the coolant chemistry and volume. During this process, 

noncondensable gases are stripped and routed to the gaseous waste management system, 

which consists of a series of gas storage tanks. The storage tanks allow the short-half-life 

radioactive gases to decay, leaving only relatively small quantities of long-half-life radionuclides 

to be released to the atmosphere. Some LWRs currently use charcoal delay systems rather 

than gas storage tanks. 

For BWRs, the sources of routine radioactive gaseous emissions to the atmosphere are the air 

ejector, which removes noncondensable gases from the coolant to improve power conversion 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-20 

efficiency, and gaseous and vapor leakages, which, after monitoring and filtering, are 

discharged to the atmosphere via the building ventilation systems. 

PWRs have three primary sources of gaseous radioactive emissions: (1) discharges from the 

gaseous waste management system; (2) discharges associated with the exhaust of 

noncondensable gases at the main condenser if a primary-to-secondary system leak exists; and 

(3) radioactive gaseous discharges from the building ventilation exhaust, including the reactor 

building, reactor auxiliary building, and fuel-handling building. 

The quantities of gaseous effluents released from operating plants are controlled by the 

administrative limits that are defined in the ODCM, which is specific for each plant. Controls are 

based on (1) the rate at which the gaseous effluent is released and (2) dose to a member of the 

public. The limits in the ODCM are designed to provide reasonable assurance that radioactive 

material discharged in gaseous effluents are not in excess of the limits specified in 

10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, thereby limiting the exposure of a member of the public in an 

unrestricted area. 

3.1.4.3 Solid Radioactive Waste 

Solid low-level radioactive waste (LLW) from nuclear power plants is generated from the 

removal of radionuclides from liquid waste streams, filtration of airborne gaseous emissions, 

and removal of contaminated material from various reactor areas. Liquid contaminated with 

radionuclides comes from primary and secondary coolant systems, spent fuel pools, 

decontaminated wastewater, and laboratory operations. 

Solid waste is packaged in containers to meet the applicable requirements of 49 CFR Parts 171 

through 177. Disposal and transportation are performed in accordance with the applicable 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 and 10 CFR Part 71, respectively. 

Solid radioactive waste generated during operations is shipped to a LLW processor or directly to 

a LLW disposal site. Volume reduction may occur both onsite and offsite. The most common 

onsite volume reduction techniques are high-pressure compacting in waste drums, dewatering 

and evaporating wet wastes, monitoring waste streams to segregate wastes, and sorting. 

Offsite waste management vendors compact wastes at ultra-high pressures, incinerate dry 

active waste, separate and incinerate oily and organic wastes, and concrete-solidify resins and 

sludges before the waste is sent to a LLW disposal site.

Spent fuel contains fission products and actinides produced when nuclear fuel is irradiated in 

reactors, as well as any unburned, unfissioned nuclear fuel remaining after the fuel rods have 

been removed from the reactor core. Currently in the United States, the spent fuel is 

considered waste and is being stored at the reactor sites, either in spent fuel pools or dry 
Affected Environment 

 3-21 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

storage facilities, also called independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) (see 

Section 3.11.1.2). 

Mixed wastes, which contain both radioactive and hazardous components, are generally 

accumulated in designated areas onsite and then shipped offsite for treatment and disposal. 

Mixed wastes are regulated both by the EPA or the State under authority granted by the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and by the NRC or the State under authority 

granted by the Atomic Energy Act (see Section 3.11.3). 

3.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems 

Nonradioactive wastes from nuclear power plants include both hazardous and nonhazardous 

wastes. Hazardous wastes, as defined by RCRA Subtitle C, may include organic materials, 

heavy metals, solvents, paints, cutting fluids, and lubricating oils that have been used at a 

nuclear power plant, and, after use, declared to be waste. These wastes are generally 

accumulated in designated areas onsite and then shipped offsite for treatment and disposal. 

Certain hazardous waste streams may receive treatment at some sites. For example, waste oil 

is incinerated at some sites. Common treatment methods for these nonradioactive wastes 

include incineration, neutralization, biological treatment, and removal and recovery. All activities 

related to hazardous wastes—including storage, treatment, shipment, and disposal—are 

conducted pursuant to the regulations issued by the EPA or the State, if authorized, under 

RCRA (see Section 3.11.2). 

There are also some routine or nonroutine releases from power plants that may have hazardous 

components, including boiler blowdown (continual or periodic purging of impurities from plant 

boilers), water treatment wastes (sludges and high-saline streams whose residues are disposed 

of as solid waste and biocides), boiler metal cleaning wastes, floor and yard drains, and 

stormwater runoff. With the exception of solid water treatment wastes, these releases would be 

regulated in accordance with each plant’s NPDES permit. Principal chemical and biocide waste 

sources include the following: 

• Boric acid used to control reactor power and lithium hydroxide used to control pH in the 

coolant. These chemicals could be inadvertently released because of pipe or steam 

generator leakage. 

• Sulfuric acid, which is added to the circulating water system to control scale. 

• Hydrazine, which is used for corrosion control. It is released in steam generator 

blowdown. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-22 

• Sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid, which are used to regenerate resins. These are 

discharged after neutralization. 

• Phosphate in cleaning solutions. 

• Biocides used for condenser defouling. 

Other small volumes of wastewater are released from other plant systems depending on the 

design of each plant. These are discharged from such sources as the service water and 

auxiliary cooling systems, laboratory and sampling wastes, and metal treatment wastes. These 

waste streams are regulated and discharged in accordance with each plant’s NPDES permit as 

separate point sources or are combined with the cooling water discharges. 

Nonradioactive and nonhazardous wastes such as office trash are picked up by a local waste 

hauler and sent to a local landfill without any treatment. Sanitary wastes are treated at a 

sewage treatment plant that is located either onsite or offsite. If the treatment plant is offsite, 

the sanitary waste is either collected in septic tanks, tested for radioactivity, and sent offsite 

periodically or the sanitary waste may be tested for radioactivity and discharged directly to a 

publicly owned treatment works. Any effluent releases to surface water from onsite sewage 

plants are subject to NPDES permit limits. 

3.1.6 Utility and Transportation Infrastructure 

The utility and transportation infrastructure at nuclear power plants typically interfaces with 

public infrastructure systems available in the region. This infrastructure includes utilities, such 

as suppliers of electricity, fuel, and water, as well as roads and railroads used to gain access to 

the sites. 

3.1.6.1 Electricity 

Nuclear power plants generate electricity for other users; however, they also use electricity to 

operate. The amount of electrical power needed to run a 1,000-MWe nuclear power plant is 

relatively small when compared to the amount it generates. The plants use some of the power 

they generate; however, they also have connections to the electrical grid system to receive 

power from offsite sources. Offsite power is provided to run the engineered safety features and 

emergency equipment in case of a malfunction and interruption of power generation at the plant. 

The plants also have independent backup generators that run on diesel fuel. The backup 

generators are tested periodically and come on line automatically in case electrical power to the 

plant from internal generation and external sources is interrupted. 
Affected Environment 

 3-23 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

3.1.6.2 Fuel 

An operating 1,000-MWe PWR contains approximately 220,000 lb (100 MT) of nuclear fuel in 

the form of UO2 at any one time. Only about one-third of that fuel is replaced at every refueling. 

Assuming that the reactor is refueled once every 18 months, the amount of nuclear fuel needed 

(and also spent fuel generated) would be roughly 44,000 lb (20 MT) per year. Fresh fuel is 

brought to the site and stored at the site until needed. 

In addition to nuclear fuel, a nuclear power plant needs a certain amount of diesel fuel to 

operate the emergency diesel power generators. To meet emergency demands, a certain 

quantity of diesel fuel is stockpiled on site in fuel storage tanks. Fuel is also needed for space 

heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) purposes. Plants use a variety of energy 

sources for HVAC, including electricity, natural gas, or fuel oil. Some plants have waste oil 

incinerators onsite to burn their used oil. The heat generated by such an incinerator is used to 

heat buildings during winter. 

3.1.6.3 Water 

Systems designed to provide cooling water at nuclear power plants are described in 

Section 3.1.3. In addition to needing water for cooling, plants need water for sanitary reasons 

and for everyday use by the personnel (e.g., drinking, showering, cleaning, laundry, toilets, and 

eye washes). Plants generally rely on groundwater or, at times, on surface water bodies 

(e.g., nearby rivers and lakes) to obtain potable water. Because the plants are generally in rural 

areas away from population centers, they are often not connected to community water systems 

and are self-sufficient in meeting their water needs. 

The quantity of water needed for cooling purposes was discussed in Section 3.1.3. The amount 

of water needed for sanitary reasons is generally much smaller than the amount needed for 

cooling. After use, the potable water is processed as part of the sanitary water treatment 

system. As described in Section 3.11.4, sanitary waste is either treated onsite, collected in 

septic tanks and then shipped offsite to be treated at a local sewage treatment plant, or 

discharged directly to a publicly owned treatment works. 

3.1.6.4 Transportation Systems 

All nuclear power plants are served by controlled access roads. In addition to the roads, many 

of the plants also have railroad connections for moving heavy equipment and other materials. 

Some of the plants that are located on navigable waters, such as rivers, Great Lakes, or 

oceans, have facilities to receive and ship loads on barges. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-24 

Trucks are the most common mode of transportation for delivering materials to and from the 

sites. Deliveries are accepted at and shipments are made from designated areas on the sites 

under controlled conditions and by following established procedures. Workers generally use 

their personal vehicles to commute to work. Visitors use passenger cars or light pickup trucks 

to get to and from the sites. There are parking areas available on every site for workers and 

visitors. There is also a network of roads and sidewalks for vehicles and pedestrians on each 

site. 

3.1.6.5 Power Transmission Systems 

Each nuclear power plant is connected to an independent regional electrical power distribution 

grid. Power transmission systems consist of switching stations (or substations) and the 

transmission lines needed to transfer electrical power from the nuclear plant to the regional 

electrical power distribution grid (see Section 3.1.1). Only those transmission lines that connect 

the power plant to the switchyard where electricity is fed into the regional distribution system 

(encompassing those lines that connect the nuclear plant to the first substation of the regional 

electric power grid) and power lines that feed the plant from the grid during outages are 

considered within the regulatory scope of license renewal environmental review and this GEIS. 

The original final environmental statements (FESs) for the construction and operation of a 

nuclear power plant also evaluated the impacts of constructing and operating transmission lines 

needed to connect the nuclear plant to the regional electrical power distribution grid. Since 

construction, many of these transmission lines have been incorporated into the regional 

electrical power distribution grid. In many cases, these transmission lines are no longer owned 

or managed by licensees and would remain energized regardless of a license renewal decision. 

These transmission lines are outside of the scope of this GEIS. This is a departure from the 

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

NUREG-1437 (1996 GEIS)(a)

 (NRC 1996) and the supplemental environmental impact 

statements (SEISs) prepared to date. Those reviews considered the operational effects of the 

transmission lines needed to connect the plant to the grid at the time of nuclear power plant 

construction. 

Switching stations transfer electrical power from generating sources to power lines and regulate 

the operation of the power system. Transformers in switching stations convert the generated 

voltage to voltage levels appropriate for the power lines. Equipment for regulating system 

operation includes switches, power circuit breakers, meters, relays, microwave communication 

equipment, capacitors, and a variety of other electrical equipment. This equipment meters and 

controls power flow; improves the performance characteristics of the generated power; and 

 

(a) Any reference in this document to the 1996 GEIS includes the two-volume set published in 1996 and 

Addendum 1 to the GEIS published in 1999. 
Affected Environment 

 3-25 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

protects generating equipment from short circuits, lightning strikes, and switching surges that 

may occur along the electrical power transmission lines. Switching stations occupy onsite land 

areas generally two to four times as large as those areas occupied by the reactor and generator 

buildings, but they are generally not as visible as other power plant structures. 

3.1.7 Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Maintenance 

Nuclear power reactors are capable of generating electricity continuously for long periods of 

time. However, they operate neither at maximum capacity nor continuously for the entire term 

of their license. Plants can typically operate continuously for periods of time ranging from 1 year 

to 2 years on a single fuel load. 

Maintenance activities are routinely performed on systems and components to help ensure the 

safe and reliable operation of the plant. In addition, inspection, testing, and surveillance 

activities are conducted throughout the operational life of a nuclear power plant to maintain the 

current licensing basis of the plant and ensure compliance with Federal, State, and local 

requirements regarding the environment and public safety. 

Nuclear power plants must periodically discontinue the production of electricity for refueling, 

periodic in-service inspection (ISI), and scheduled maintenance. Refueling cycles occur 

approximately every 12 to 24 months. The duration of a refueling outage is typically about 1 to 

2 months. Enhanced or expanded inspection and surveillance activities are typically performed 

at 5- and 10-year intervals. These enhanced inspections are performed to comply with NRC 

and/or industry standards or requirements, such as the American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Five-year ISIs are scheduled for the 5th, 15th, 

25th, and 35th years of operation, and 10-year ISIs are performed in the 10th, 20th, and 

30th years. For economic reasons, many of these activities are conducted simultaneously 

(e.g., refueling activities typically coincide with the ISI and maintenance activities). 

Many plants also undertake various major refurbishment activities during their operational lives. 

These activities are performed to ensure both that the plant can be operated safely and that the 

capacity and reliability of the plant remain at acceptable levels. Typical major refurbishments 

that have occurred in the past include replacing PWR steam generators, reactor vessel heads, 

BWR recirculation piping, and rebuilding main steam turbine stages. The need to perform major 

refurbishments is plant-specific and depends on factors such as design features, operational 

history, and construction and fabrication details. The plants may remain out of service for 

extended periods of time (e.g., several months) while these major refurbishments are made. 

Outage durations vary considerably, depending on factors such as the scope of the repairs or 

modifications undertaken, the effectiveness of the outage planning, and the availability of 

replacement parts and components. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-26 

Each nuclear power plant may be part of a utility system that may own several nuclear power 

plants, fossil-fired plants, or other means of generating electricity. An onsite staff is responsible 

for the actual operation of each plant, and an offsite staff may be headquartered at the plant site 

or some other location. Typically, 800 to 2,300 people are employed at nuclear power plant 

sites during periods of normal operation, depending on the number of operating reactors located 

at a particular site. The permanent onsite workforce is usually in the range of 600 to 800 people 

per reactor unit. However, during outage periods, the onsite workforce typically increases by 

200 to 900 additional workers. The additional workers include engineering support staff, 

technicians, specialty crafts persons, and laborers called in both to perform specialized repairs, 

maintenance, tests, and inspections, and to assist the permanent staff with the more routine 

activities carried out during plant outages. 

3.2 Land Use and Visual Resources 

3.2.1 Land Use 

Nuclear power plants are large industrial complexes with land requirements generally 

amounting to 100 to 125 ac (40 to 50 ha) for the reactor containment building, auxiliary 

buildings, cooling system structures, administration and training offices, and other facilities 

(e.g., switchyards, security facilities, and parking lots). Areas disturbed during construction of 

the power plant generally have been returned to prior uses or were ecologically restored when 

construction ended. Site areas range from 84 ac (34 ha) for the San Onofre plant in California 

to 14,000 ac (5,700 ha) for the Clinton plant in Illinois (Table 3.1-1). Almost 60 percent of plant 

sites encompass 500 to 2,000 ac (200 to 800 ha), with 28 site areas ranging from 500 to 

1,000 ac (200 to 400 ha) and an additional 12 sites encompassing 1,000 to 2,000 ac (400 to 

800 ha). Larger land areas are often associated with elaborate man-made closed-cycle cooling 

systems that include cooling lagoons, spray canals, reservoirs, artificial lakes, and buffer areas. 

While many utilities use the land for the sole purpose of generating electricity, other utilities 

allow other uses for the land. Some sites lease land for agricultural and forestry production, 

promote their ecology nature centers and preservation areas, allow recreational use, and permit 

cemetery and historical site access. Most sites have closed their visitor centers as a result of 

security concerns after September 11, 2001. Sites have improved their security fencing, altered 

their landscaping to enhance visibility from the plant, reduced site access, and increased 

signage detailing site access and restrictions. Some sites have constructed onsite dry cask 

storage facilities for spent fuel. 

The land cover and land use percentages at each site depend on the total site area and amount 

of land required for electricity generation. Land cover on sites is often designated within the 

land use “resource-oriented” classification system, which includes urban or built-up land, 
Affected Environment 

 3-27 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

agricultural land (e.g., cropland, pasture, orchards, nurseries, fields, and fallow lands), 

rangeland, forest land, water, wetland (e.g., marshes and swamps), and barren land 

(e.g., beaches and gravel pits). Land cover designations at other sites use visually descriptive 

categories that include open areas (e.g., fields, cemeteries), forested areas, scrub forest, 

deciduous forest, hardwood forest, beach, wetlands, open water (e.g., ponds, streams, lakes, 

and canals), natural lands, recreational lands, and parking areas. 

Land use within transmission line rights-of-way (ROWs) is both precluded and restricted under 

the easement rights acquired by the utility from private landowners or from local, State, or 

Federal governments. Land use within cleared ROWs often, but not always, differs from that in 

adjacent areas. Land cover within ROWs is managed through a variety of oversight and 

maintenance procedures so that vegetation growth and building construction do not interfere 

with power line operation and access. Land use within ROWs is limited to activities that do not 

endanger line operation and can include recreation, off-road vehicle use, grazing, agricultural 

cultivation, irrigation, recreation, roads, and environmental conservation and wildlife areas. 

One of the siting criteria for nuclear power plant sites was access to rail or water transport so 

that rail or barge deliveries of reactor vessels and other large operating equipment could be 

received. The rail spurs and barge docking facilities still remain at many sites and are used 

occasionally. Because of the large number of workers commuting daily to and from the site, a 

quality road network connecting the site to urban locations was and continues to be essential. 

Information on land cover within 5 mi (8 km) of commercial nuclear power plants is summarized 

in Table 3.2-1. The land cover types in the vicinity of each plant site are presented in 

Appendix C. For all NRC regions, most of the cover near plants is undeveloped or agricultural 

land, or open water. There are differences in land use and land cover in the four NRC regions. 

In Region I (Northeast) and Region II (Southeast), more than two-thirds of the area surrounding 

most plants is open water, forest, and wetlands. Region III (northern Midwest) plants are mostly 

surrounded (80 percent) by agricultural land, open water, and forests. In Region IV (West and 

Southern Midwest), plants are surrounded (77 percent) by agricultural land, shrub/scrub land, 

forests, herbaceous cover, and wetland. 

Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1456) requires that 

license renewal applicants certify that the proposed Federal license renewal in a coastal zone or 

coastal watershed boundary, as defined by each State participating in the National Coastal 

Zone Management Program, is consistent with the enforceable policies of that State’s Coastal 

Zone Management Program. States define their coastal zone boundaries by using a variety of 

parameters, such as the entire State, county or county-equivalent boundaries, political features 

(e.g., town boundaries), and geographic features (adjacency to tidal waters). Applicants must 

coordinate with the State agency that manages the State Coastal Zone Management Program 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-28 

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

 Percent of Land Cover Type in NRC Region 

Land Cover Classes Region I Region II Region III Region IV Overall 

Open water 31.7 20.6 24.6 14.9 23.0 

Undeveloped land 

 Barren land 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.5 

 Forest (deciduous, evergreen, and mixed) 30.6 35.9 14.6 13.3 23.6 

 Wetlands 8.4 13.4 5.9 10.3 9.5 

 Herbaceous 0.3 5.4 3.7 11.5 5.2 

 Shrub/scrub 0.8 2.3 0.2 18.3 5.4 

 Total undeveloped land 40.8 57.7 24.7 53.7 44.2 

Developed land 

 Agriculture (cultivated crops and hay/pasture) 15.6 14.2 40.4 23.7 23.5 

 Developed open space 5.2 4.9 5.0 3.6 4.7 

 Low- to high-density developed land 6.7 2.7 5.2 4.0 4.7 

 Total developed land 27.5 21.8 50.6 31.3 32.9 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 

Source: USGS 2007 

to obtain a determination that the proposed nuclear plant license renewal would be consistent 

with their program. 

The population densities in the vicinity of nuclear plants and the distances of plants from a 

medium- or large-sized metropolitan center vary among sites. Most sites are not very remote 

(i.e., they are not more than about 20 mi (32 km) from a community of 25,000 people or 50 mi 

(80 km) from a community of 100,000 people). During the period from 1960 to 1980, with utility 

and local government activities actively encouraging growth (Metz 1983), commercial, industrial, 

recreational, and industrial land uses tended to expand in the 10-mi (16-km) radius around 

nuclear plants at the expense of agriculture. New major highways, expanded municipal 

services, proximity to major urban areas, recreation facilities, and low taxes are indirect factors 

that promoted population and industrial growth. In some instances, the roads and water lines 

built for plant purposes encouraged area growth because they were available for other users. In 

many communities, recent changes in the legislation and tax codes on electricity generation in 

several States have resulted in significant reductions in the tax revenue stream from nuclear 

power plants. 

 
Affected Environment 

 3-29 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Some form of land use control exists in nearly every local jurisdiction that adopted a 

comprehensive land use or master plan to control residential and commercial developments and 

preserve shrinking agriculture areas. 

For example, some communities enacted laws to specifically regulate land use density around 

nuclear power plants (e.g., in recognition of natural resources, infrastructure constraints, or the 

population’s generally anti-growth attitude since the 1940s). An inadvertent buffering of the 

Crystal River plant in Florida was caused by the host county’s industrial zoning around two 

contiguous large coal-fired power plants that excluded residential development. 

The residential settlement patterns of nuclear power plant workers are well established. Area 

population-driven and tax-driven indirect impacts on land use development have occurred in 

local jurisdictions and service districts that receive tax payments from the owners of the nuclear 

power plant. The manner in which offsite land use has changed during plant operations has 

been directly related to the influence of tax payments to the communities’ total tax revenue and 

the controls and plans approved and enacted to steer and manage growth and land use 

changes. A case study of land use changes that resulted from the operation of seven nuclear 

power plants that was conducted for the 1996 GEIS determined that impacts were SMALL at 

two sites, MODERATE at four sites, and significant at one site depending on the local 

jurisdiction’s ability to provide the public services necessary to support substantial industrial 

development. Impacts at the Wolf Creek plant in Kansas were determined to be potentially 

significant if the plant was shut down. Property tax payments allowed host Coffey County to 

lower its property taxes and upgrade its provision of municipal services as well as purchase 

industrial buildings and machinery. The county was able to lease them back at a discount on a 

lease-purchase basis, thereby successfully encouraging industrial and commercial development 

in the area (NRC 1996). 

3.2.2 Visual Resources 

Aesthetic resources are related to physical elements that represent pleasing sensory stimuli and 

include natural and man-made landscapes and the ways in which the two are integrated. 

Nuclear power plants—particularly those with natural draft cooling towers—stand out from their 

backgrounds. Their site features (Section 3.1.1) are often visible from neighborhoods, roads, 

and recreation-based water bodies over a wide area. While plant structures can be visible from 

as far away as 10 mi (16 km), most structures are typically partially obscured because of the 

large size (distance) of the site and by changes in site topography, buildings next to the site, 

and vegetation. Cooling towers at a site can draw attention to the plant’s existence because 

vapor plumes can rise more than 5,000 ft (1,500 m) above the towers and can extend as much 

as 9 mi (14 km) downwind. These plumes, although visible only under certain meteorological 

and seasonal conditions, extend the plant-related viewshed considerably beyond that of a tower 

alone. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-30 

During the current operating license term, most nuclear power plants have employed a variety 

of mitigation measures to decrease the visual intrusion of plant structures, including the choice 

of exterior cladding and paint colors to blend with surroundings, use of nonreflective surfaces, 

strategic placement of tree plantings and landscaping, and structure placement. In some 

instances, as a result of security requirements, landscaping was reduced and exterior lighting 

was increased. Federal regulations require that tall structures, including reactor containment 

buildings, cooling towers, stacks, and meteorological towers, be fitted with arrays of lights to 

alert aircraft pilots of their presence. Often these structures can be visible for miles away, 

depending on the amount of topographic and vegetation screening. 

Because nuclear power plants are frequently sited near water bodies, views of the facilities and 

their associated transmission lines often intrude into recreational, historic, or scenic areas. To 

date, most of the visual impact from transmission lines has been associated with crossings of 

rivers, wetlands, wildlife areas, roads, lakes, cemeteries, and battlefields. Various design, 

engineering, siting, construction, and metallic surface treatments have been used to mitigate 

these conflicts. 

3.3 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise 

3.3.1 Meteorology and Climatology 

The NRC requires that basic meteorological information be available for use in assessing (1) the 

environmental effects of radiological and nonradiological emissions and effluents resulting from 

the construction or operation of a nuclear power plant and (2) the benefits of design alternatives. 

All nuclear power plants in the United States have a required onsite meteorological monitoring 

program to provide the data needed to determine dispersion conditions in the vicinity of the 

plant for assessment of safety and environmental factors. These data are used with air 

dispersion models to assess and protect public health, safety, and property during plant 

operations (NRC 2007b). 

The most recent update to NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23, which covers meteorological monitoring 

programs for nuclear power plants, provides new guidance for onsite meteorological 

measurements at stationary licensed power reactors. The guidance covers the siting of 

instruments to provide representative measures at plant sites, the accuracy and range of 

specified measured parameters, and special considerations for plants located near influences of 

complex terrain (e.g., coastal areas, hills of significant grade or valleys), among other criteria 

and specifications. 

 
Affected Environment 

 3-31 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Onsite meteorological conditions at commercial nuclear power plants are monitored at primary 

fixed meteorological towers with instrumentation at two levels (e.g., 10 and 60 m), and, if 

necessary, one additional higher level on the tower to better represent dispersion of elevated 

releases from stacks. A secondary onsite tower is typical at many installations as a backup if 

primary tower measures fail. Basic meteorological measurements from tower instruments at 

these levels include: (1) wind speed and direction from at least two levels, (2) temperature for 

an ambient reading at 33 ft (10 m) and to determine deltas or change with height and 

(3) precipitation, which is typically measured near ground level by the tower base. 

Supplemental measures can include moisture at 33 ft (10 m), and, if applicable, incoming solar 

and net radiation, barometric pressure, soil temperature, and moisture at the top of the cooling 

tower. Atmospheric stability is determined from temperature differences at the two lowest levels 

on the tower. If a backup tower is present, measurements include wind speed and direction and 

horizontal wind direction variation, usually taken at one level. 

Weather conditions at each of the plants can be quite variable depending on the year, season, 

time of day, and site-specific conditions, such as whether the site is near coastal zones or 

located in or near terrain with complex features (e.g., steep slopes, ravines, valleys). These 

conditions can be generally described by climate zones according to average temperatures. On 

the basis of temperature alone, there are three major climate zones: polar, temperate, and 

tropical. Within each of the three major climate zones, there are marine and continental 

climates. Areas near an ocean or other large body of water have a marine climate. Areas 

located within a large landmass have a continental climate. Typically, areas with a marine 

climate receive more precipitation and have a more moderate climate. A continental climate 

has less precipitation and a greater range in climate. Regional or localized refinements in 

climate descriptions and assessments can be made by considering other important climate 

variables and climate-influencing geographic variables, such as precipitation, humidity, surface 

roughness, proximity to oceans or large lakes, soil moisture, albedo, snow cover, and 

associated linkages and feedback mechanisms. Localized microclimates can be defined by 

considering factors such as urban latent and sensible heat flux and building-generated 

turbulence. Both national and regional maximum and minimum average annual temperature 

and precipitation climatologies over the 30 years from 1971 through 2000 are summarized in 

Section D.2 in Appendix D. 

The intensities of historical tornado events are recorded and archived by the National Climatic 

Data Center (NCDC) (NOAA 2007). Table 3.3-1 provides the current enhanced Fujita (EF) 

scale next to the original Fujita (F) scale, adjusted to represent peak winds averaged over 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-32 

Table 3.3-1. Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale 

Intensity 

Description 

of Damage 

Original 

Fujita Scale 

(3-s gust) 

(mph) 

Operational 

Enhanced Fujita 

Scale 

(3-s gust) 

(mph) 

F0/EF0 Light 45 to 78 65 to 85 

F1/EF1 Moderate 79 to 117 86 to 110 

F2/EF2 Considerable 118 to 161 111 to 135 

F3/EF3 Severe 162 to 209 136 to 165 

F4/EF4 Devastating 210 to 261 166 to 200 

F5/EF5 Incredible 262 to 31 >200 

Source: Texas Tech University 2006 

3 seconds, which are used to identify a tornado event’s intensity. The number of recorded 

tornado events or strikes having intensities greater than or equal to EF2 (wind speeds ranging 

from 111 to 135 miles per hour or mph [50 to 60 m/s], with 3-second gusts, EF scale) in the 

three regions (Western, Central, and Eastern) of the continental United States over 

approximately the last 50 years (1950 through August 2003) are shown in Figure 3.3-1. The 

size of each square in the figure is 1 degree of latitude per side and represents an area of 

approximately 5000 mi2

. The EF scale (Texas Tech University 2006) is based on the highest 

wind speed estimated in the tornado path with maximum 3-second average wind gusts within 

the range specified for each EF intensity level. The range in damage to structures in the EF2 

through EF5 range is described as considerable to incredible, and the damage depends highly 

on the building’s structural design. Computer programs were used to analyze NCDC data, and 

tornado strike probabilities were estimated for the three U.S. regions: Western, Central, and 

Eastern (NRC 2006a). The expected value structure strike probabilities were estimated to 

range from 1.7 chances of a strike in 100,000 tornado events in the Western region to 

35.8 chances in 100,000 in the Central region. Figure 3.3-2 provides estimates of the expected 

maximum tornado wind speeds with a 1 in 100,000 chance of occurrence. Approximately 

48 percent of the rated licensed reactor capacity is located in the Eastern region, 41 percent is 

in the Central region, and 11 percent is in the Western region. 

Within the context of the normal variations in weather, including severe weather, NRC 

recognizes the implications of global climate change as affected by the contribution of manmade greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Based on findings to date published by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), impacts from warming of the climate 

system include expansion of sea water volume; decreases in mountain glaciers and snow cover 
Affected Environment

 3-33 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure 3.3-1. Distribution of Tornado Strikes with Intensities of F2 or More over the Contiguous United States by One Degree of Latitude and Longitude Boxes (1950 through August 2003) (Adapted from Figure 2-2 in NRC 2006a) 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-34

Affected Environment

Figure 3.3-2. Expected Maximum Tornado Wind Speed with a Probability of One in 100,000 of Occurring over 

the Contiguous United States by Two Degrees of Latitude and Longitude Boxes (Adapted from Figure 5-8 in NRC 2006a) 
Affected Environment 

 3-35 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

resulting in sea level rise; changes in arctic temperatures and ice; changes in precipitation, 

ocean salinity, and wind patterns; and changes in extreme weather (IPCC 2007). 

 

Consistent with the IPCC, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) has 

concluded that warming of the climate is unmistakable and is due primarily to human-induced 

emissions of heat-trapping gases. As summarized by the USGCRP, climate-related changes 

have already been observed globally and in the continental United States. These include 

increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity 

of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow and ice cover. A longer ice-free 

period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the 

atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster 

in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and 

northern Great Plains increasing more than 7oF (3.9oC). Temperatures are projected to rise 

more in the future. In the Northeast, the annual average temperature has increased by 2°F 

(1.1oC), with winter temperatures rising twice this much. In the Southeast, average 

temperatures have increased by 1.6oF (0.9oC) while annual precipitation has declined by about 

8 percent. Regionally-averaged temperatures across the Northwest have risen by about 1.5°F 

(0.8oC) over the past century, but with some areas experiencing increases up to 4°F (2.2 oC). 

Average temperatures across the Southwest have risen by about 1.5°F (0.8oC) in the last 

30 years alone. Nationally, annual precipitation has increased by about 5 percent over the past 

50 years, but with a broad decline in precipitation across the Southeast and in parts of the 

Northwest and Southwest, and observed changes in precipitation patterns elsewhere. 

Projections of future precipitation generally indicate that northern areas will become wetter, and 

southern areas, particularly in the West, will become drier. For coastal areas in particular, likely 

climate implications include more intense hurricanes with related increases in wind, rain, and 

storm surges. Taken together, these changes will nationally affect human health, water supply, 

agriculture, coastal areas, and many other aspects of society and the natural environment 

(USGCRP 2009). 

 

The contribution of nuclear power plant operations to GHG emissions are discussed in 

Section 3.3.2 below. 

3.3.2 Air Quality 

Air emissions related to criteria air pollutants and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (a 

precursor of ozone [O3]) are released to the atmosphere from ancillary non-nuclear facilities at 

nuclear power plants. These emissions include criteria air pollutants such as particulate matter 

(PM) with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less (PM10), PM with a mean aerodynamic 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-36 

diameter of 2.5 μm or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx),(b) carbon 

monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb), and VOCs. 

The facilities that contribute emissions include backup diesel generators, boilers, fire pump 

engines, and cooling towers. The emissions from these facilities (and, if applicable, emissions 

from the incineration of any waste products) must comply with State and local regulatory air 

quality permitting requirements. Because nuclear power plant ancillary facilities are generally 

low emitters of criteria air pollutants and VOCs, the impact on potential ambient air quality is 

minimal. However, special permit conditions may be applicable under various regulatory 

jurisdictions for facilities located in EPA-designated nonattainment areas. 

The EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants, 

including SO2, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, O3, PM10, and PM2.5, and Pb, as shown in 

Table 3.3-2. Primary NAAQS specify maximum ambient (outdoor air) concentration levels of 

the criteria pollutants with the aim of protecting public health with an adequate margin of safety. 

Secondary NAAQS specify maximum concentration levels with the aim of protecting public 

welfare. The NAAQS specify different averaging times as well as maximum concentrations. 

Some of the NAAQS for averaging times of 24 hours or less allow the standard values to be 

exceeded a limited number of times per year, and others specify other procedures for 

determining compliance. States can have their own State Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(SAAQS). SAAQS must be at least as stringent as the NAAQS and can include standards for 

additional pollutants. If a State has no standard corresponding to one of the NAAQS, the 

NAAQS apply. 

An area where criteria air pollutants exceed NAAQS levels is called a nonattainment area. 

Previous nonattainment areas where air quality has improved to meet the NAAQS are 

redesignated maintenance areas and are subject to an air quality maintenance plan. 

The currently designated nonattainment areas (as of August 30, 2011)(c)

 for each criteria air 

pollutant (8-hour O3, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NO2, CO, and Pb) and their relative locations with 

 

(b) NOx is not a criteria pollutant, but emissions are typically reported in terms of NOx. Nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2) is the component of NOx that is a criteria pollutant, but emissions of NO2 are not typically 

reported. 

(c) Nonattainment area designations are ever-changing and redesignations are expected due to EPA’s 

recent standard revisions for PM10 and PM2.5 (effective December 18, 2006), 8-hour O3 (effective 

May 27, 2008), Pb (effective January 12, 2009),1-hour SO2 (Effective August 23, 2010), and 1-hour 

NO2 (effective April 12, 2010). Please refer to the latest EPA Green Book for the most updated 

nonattainment and maintenance area designations (Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/ 

greenbk/). 
Affected Environment 

 3-37 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 3.3-2. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS(b)

Pollutant(a) Value Type(c)

SO2 1-hour 75 ppb P 

 3-hour 0.5 ppm S 

NO2 1-hour 100 ppb P 

 Annual 0.053 ppm (53 ppb) P, S 

CO 1-hour 35 ppm P 

 8-hour 9 ppm P 

O3 8-hour 0.075 ppm P, S 

PM10 24-hour 150 μg/m3 P, S 

PM2.5 24-hour 35 μg/m3 P, S 

 Annual 15 μg/m3 P, S 

Pb Rolling 

3-month 

0.15 μg/m3 P, S 

(a) Notation: CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; O3 = ozone; 

Pb =lead; PM2.5 = particulate matter  2.5 μm; PM10 = particulate matter 

 10 μm; and SO2 = sulfur dioxide. 

(b) Refer to 40 CFR Part 50 or EPA (2011c) for detailed information on attainment 

determination and reference method for monitoring. 

(c) P = Primary standard whose limits were set to protect public health; 

S= Secondary standard whose limits were set to protect public welfare. 

Source: EPA 2011c 

respect to operating nuclear power plants are shown on the maps in Figures 3.3-3 through 

3.3-9. There are currently more than 30 operating plants located within or adjacent to counties 

with designated nonattainment areas. 

The operation of wet cooling towers results in the emission of salt and other inorganic and/or 

organic particles to the air. These releases are called drift emissions. Salt is the dominant drift 

component—being typically greater than 70 percent of the total suspended PM released—for 

coastal plants with wet towers that use seawater as the coolant. Drift emissions from cooling 

towers are also associated with deposits on downwind surfaces (e.g., vegetation, automobiles, 

and structures), known as drift deposition, and a resulting increase in downwind PM 

concentrations. The magnitude and pattern of these impacts could include both near-field and 

far-field receptors. The degree of impacts would depend on a number of factors, such as the 

size of the particles, the steam condenser flow rate or throughput, and the type and height of the 

cooling tower. 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-38

Affected Environment

Figure 3.3-3. Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

and Maintenance Areas, as of August 30, 2011 (Adapted from EPA 2011b) 
Affected Environment

 3-39 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure 3.3-4. Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, as of August 30, 2011 (Adapted from EPA 2011b) 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-40

Affected Environment

Figure 3.3-5. Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas, 

as of August 30, 2011 (Adapted from EPA 2011b) 
Affected Environment

 3-41 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure 3.3-6. Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated SO2 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, as of August 30, 2011 (Adapted from EPA 2011b) 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-42

Affected Environment

Figure 3.3-7. Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated NO2 Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas, as of August 30, 2011 (Adapted from EPA 2011b) (Note: There are currently no nonattainment areas for NO2 in the United States.) 
Affected Environment

 3-43 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure 3.3-8. Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated CO Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, as of August 30, 2011 (Adapted from EPA 2011b) (Note: There are currently no nonattainment areas for CO in the United States.) 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-44

Affected Environment

Figure 3.3-9. Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated Pb Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas, as of August 30, 2011 (Adapted from EPA 2011b) 
Affected Environment 

 3-45 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Cooling tower particulate emissions are formed entirely as secondary particles from evaporation 

of wet tower drift droplet releases to the atmosphere. Because the drift droplets generally 

contain the same chemical impurities (primarily dissolved solids) as those in the cooling water 

circulating through the tower, these impurities wind up in the drift that escapes the tower. Large 

drift droplets settle out of the tower’s exhaust air stream and are deposited on surfaces near the 

tower. This process can lead to wetting, icing, and salt deposition and can cause related 

problems, such as damage to equipment or vegetation. Other drift droplets may evaporate and 

form mixed chemical particles from water-soluble materials (total dissolved solids or TDS), such 

as sea salt, and water-insoluble (total suspended solids or TSS) droplet-encapsulated particles 

(Pruppacher and Klett 1980) that are transported in the air as suspended PM before being 

deposited on surfaces downwind. Both PM10 and PM2.5 are generated when the drift droplets 

evaporate and leave fine PM formed by the crystallization of dissolved solids. Dissolved solids 

found in cooling tower drift can consist of salt compounds (e.g., sodium chloride [NaCl], sodium 

nitrate [NaNO3], ammonium sulfate [(NH4)2SO4] and other mineral matter, corrosion inhibitors, 

and biocides. 

The magnitude of drift-related PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from wet towers depends on several 

conditions and parameters, such as the makeup water composition, concentrations of TDS 

(organic matter, biocides, corrosion inhibitors, sodium chloride), steam condenser flow rate, drift 

eliminator efficiency, number of cooling towers/cells, and annual hours of operation. In 

comparison, drift emissions from cooling tower systems using seawater are over 7 times greater 

than those from systems supplied with freshwater makeup feeds, if everything else is held 

constant. However, one plant (Palo Verde in Arizona) uses makeup water derived from the 

Phoenix City Sewage Treatment Plant. Reported emission data indicate that wastewater 

treatment at this facility is good. The associated drift emissions from the six mechanical draft 

cooling towers at the Palo Verde plant are estimated at 7.7 and 6.4 lb/hr (3.5 and 2.9 kg/hr) for 

PM10 and PM2.5, respectively (MCAQD 2006). These emissions are relatively small and typical 

for a well-controlled cooling tower using a water supply with low TDS concentration levels. Palo 

Verde’s cooling tower operates in compliance with operating permit conditions issued by the 

Maricopa County Air Quality Department and is located in neither a PM10 nor PM2.5

nonattainment area. 

There is only one plant, Hope Creek in New Jersey, that uses high-salinity water (from the 

Delaware River Estuary) as the reactor coolant in a natural draft cooling tower. On the basis of 

recent air quality modeling conducted in support of an extended power uprate from about 

3,300 to about 3,800 megawatts-thermal (MWt), the analysis of drift emissions and air impacts 

from Hope Creek’s natural draft cooling tower was assessed (NRC 2007b). The analysis 

showed that the upgrade would increase the particulate cooling tower drift emissions from the 

current rate of 29.4 lb/hr (13.3 kg/hr) to an average rate of 35.6 lb/hr (16.1 kg/hr, with a 

maximum of 42.0 lb/hr [19.1 kg/hr]). Particulates (primarily salts) from the cooling tower are 

primarily PM10. Although smaller suspended drift particles would also likely be generated from 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-46 

evaporation of cooling tower plume droplets, estimates of the size distribution of generated drift 

particles to determine the PM2.5 fraction were not made. The NRC determined that the 

estimated increase in particulate emissions would exceed the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP’s) regulatory maximum hourly emission limit of 30 lb/hr 

(13.6 kg/hr) for particulates (NJDEP 1998). However, the NJDEP’s Bureau of Technical 

Services reviewed the air quality modeling conducted in support of the proposed power uprate 

and determined that the cooling tower emissions would not exceed the NAAQS for PM10 or New 

Jersey’s Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM10. On the basis of this determination, the NRC 

concluded that there would be no significant particulate emission impacts associated with the 

Hope Creek Plant’s cooling tower at the associated higher makeup water throughput necessary 

to sustain the higher requested plant operating loads. On June 13, 2007, NJDEP issued its final 

Title V air permit for the Hope Creek cooling tower, authorizing a variance to the plant’s air 

operating permit with an hourly emission rate of 42 lb/hr (19.1 kg/hr) (NJDEP 2007). In addition, 

a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) applicability determination by the EPA concluded 

that the requested power uprate would not result in a significant increase in emissions and 

would not be subject to PSD review (NJDEP 2007). Further regulatory review was not required 

since the Hope Creek plant is located in an attainment area for PM10. 

Although there is the potential for some air quality impacts to occur as a result of equipment and 

cooling tower operations, even in the worst case situation (Hope Creek), the impacts would be 

considered small, at least in part because of the fact that licensees would be required to operate 

within State permit requirements. 

Nuclear power plants also emit GHGs that contribute to climate change, including carbon 

dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) from fuel combustion. In general, GHGs 

are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic (manmade), that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of thermal 

infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. This 

property causes the greenhouse effect. Water vapor (H2O) and CO2, N2O, CH4, and ozone (O3) 

are the primary greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. Moreover, there are a number of 

entirely man-made GHGs in the atmosphere, including halocarbons and other chlorine- and 

bromine-containing substances (IPCC 2007). 

However, total GHG emissions from nuclear power plants are typically very minor, because 

such plants, by their very nature, do not normally burn fossil fuels to generate electricity. As a 

result, for most plants, GHG emissions would be expected to fall below EPA’s mandatory 

reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons CO2 equivalent per year (74 FR 56264), although 

comprehensive data in this regard for the entire fleet of 104 nuclear power plants is currently 

lacking. 
Affected Environment 

 3-47 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Other GHG sources from nuclear power plants may include man-made fluorinated compounds. 

These include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) contained in 

refrigerants and used in other industrial applications, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The present 

contribution of these gases to the total global effect of all man-made GHGs is small; however, 

because of their extremely long lifetimes, many of them will continue to accumulate in the 

atmosphere as long as emissions continue. In addition, many of these gases have a high global 

warming potential relative to CO2, and the usage of HFCs has been growing rapidly in industrial 

applications since they are the primary substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), 

which are being phased out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer (EPA 2011a). Nevertheless, the gas SF6 is particularly relevant to the nuclear power 

industry by virtue of its use in electric power transmission and distribution applications. 

The largest use of SF6 in the United States and worldwide is as a dielectric (insulating) gas and 

electrical interrupter in equipment that transmits and distributes electricity. This colorless, 

odorless gas has been employed by the electric power industry in the United States since the 

1950s because of its dielectric strength and electric arc-quenching characteristics. It can be 

found in substations, circuit breakers, and other switchgear. The gas has replaced flammable 

insulating oils in many applications and allows for more compact substations. Fugitive 

emissions of SF6 can escape from gas-insulated substations and switchgear through seals, 

especially from older equipment. The gas can also be released during equipment 

manufacturing, installation, servicing, and disposal (EPA 2011a). Further, SF6 is the most 

potent greenhouse gas that has been studied, with a global warming potential of 23,900 times 

that of CO2 over a 100-year time horizon. In addition, SF6 has an extremely long atmospheric 

lifetime of about 3,200 years, resulting in irreversible accumulation in the atmosphere once 

emitted (IPCC 2007) (EPA 2011a). 

Transmission lines have been associated with the production of minute amounts of O3 and NOx. 

These pollutants are associated with corona—the breakdown of air that is very near highvoltage conductors. Corona is a phenomenon associated with all energized transmission lines. 

Under certain conditions, the localized electric field near an energized conductor can be 

sufficiently concentrated to produce a tiny electric discharge that can ionize air close to the 

conductors (EPRI 1982). This partial discharge of electrical energy is called corona discharge, 

or corona. Corona is most noticeable for higher-voltage lines during rain or fog conditions. In 

addition to the small quantities of O3 and NOx that form, other manifestations of corona events 

include energy loss, interference with radio or television transmission, and ambient noise 

(see Section 3.3.3). Typically, corona interference with radio and television reception is not a 

design problem. Interference levels in both fair and rainy weather are extremely low at the 

ROW edge for 230-kV and lower transmission lines, and they usually meet or exceed the 

reception guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Through the years, 

line designs that greatly reduce corona effects have been developed. Because transmission 

line emissions associated with corona discharge are so small when compared with emissions 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-48 

from other sources of air pollution (e.g., ozone precursors from automobiles, power plants, and 

large industrial boilers), these emissions are not a regulated source of air pollution in the 

United States. 

Airborne radiological releases during normal plant operation and associated doses to downwind 

populations are discussed in Section 3.9. 

3.3.3 Noise 

The principal sources of noise from nuclear power plant operations are natural draft and 

mechanical draft cooling towers, transformers, and loudspeakers. Other occasional noise 

sources may include auxiliary equipment (such as pumps to supply cooling water) and corona 

discharge. Generally, these plant noise sources are not perceived by a large number of people 

offsite because the level of noise from the surrounding community and highway is high 

(60 to 65 dBA) (FICN 1992). In rural or low-population areas, where background noise levels 

are in a range of 35 to 45 dBA, plant noises are more noticeable. 

In most cases, the sources of noise are far enough away from sensitive receptors outside plant 

boundaries that the noise is attenuated to nearly ambient levels and is scarcely noticeable. 

However, during the original license application process, some sites identified sensitive 

receptors near plant boundaries that would experience noise greater than 10 dBA above 

ambient levels. Those levels would increase the difficulty in communicating by speech 

outdoors, requiring people to speak louder to be heard. In no case is the offsite noise level from 

a plant sufficient to cause hearing loss. 

There are no Federal regulations for public exposures to noise. When noise levels are below 

the levels that result in hearing loss, impacts have been judged primarily in terms of adverse 

public reactions to noise. The Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(24 CFR 51.101(a)(8)) uses day-night average sound levels of 55 dBA, recommended by EPA 

as guidelines or goals for outdoors in residential areas (EPA 1974). However, noise levels are 

considered acceptable if the day-night average sound level outside a residence is less 

than 65 dBA. 

Natural draft and mechanical draft cooling towers emit noise of a broadband nature, whereas 

transformers emit a humming noise of a specific tonal nature at twice the normal voltage or 

current cycle (core expansion and contraction twice its 60 Hz cycle) with a vibration or noise 

harmonic of 120 Hz. This is called the fundamental noise frequency. Transformer noise 

originates almost entirely in the reactor core as a result of the restrictive effects of steel on the 

generated magnetic field, a phenomenon called magnetostriction, which causes the core and its 

clamps to vibrate (Ellingson 1979). Since the core is not symmetrical and the magnetic effects 

do not behave in a simple way, the resultant noise is not pure in tone. This is the noise or 
Affected Environment 

 3-49 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

vibration produced. The noise radiated by transformers is primarily composed of discrete tones 

at even harmonics of line frequency (e.g., 120, 240, 360 Hz) when the line frequency is 60 Hz 

(Vér and Beranek 2006). 

Loudspeakers emit noise at audible frequencies, generally below 5,000 Hz. Because of the 

broadband character of the noise at cooling towers, the noise associated with the towers is less 

obtrusive and is largely indistinguishable from the noise from transformers or loudspeakers. 

Transformer noise is distinct because of its specific low frequencies. The low frequencies are 

not attenuated with distance and intervening materials as much as higher frequencies are; thus, 

low frequencies are more noticeable and obtrusive. However, at most sites employing cooling 

towers, transformer noise is masked by the broadband cooling tower noise. 

Cooling tower and transformer noise from existing equipment does not change appreciably 

during the time when the plant is operating, nor does the crackling sound of transmission lines 

during storms. Increases or decreases in site noise levels can occur when equipment is 

upgraded or modified to meet life-cycle maintenance requirements or when the power level is 

uprated. 

Transmission lines can generate a small amount of sound energy during corona activity. During 

corona events (see Section 3.3.2), the ionization of the air that surrounds conductors of the 

high-voltage transmission lines, which is caused by electrostatic fields in these lines, generates 

impulse corona currents. When the voltage on a particular phase is high enough, a corona 

burst occurs, and a noise is generated. This noise occurs primarily on the positive power line 

voltage wave and is referred to as positive corona noise (Maruvada 2000). Although conductors 

are designed to minimize corona discharges, surface irregularities caused by damage, insects, 

raindrops, or contamination may locally enhance the electric field strength enough for corona 

discharges to occur (D’Amore 1985). This audible noise from the line can barely be heard in fair 

weather on higher-voltage lines. During wet weather, water drops collect on the conductor and 

increase corona activity so that a crackling or humming sound may be heard near the line. This 

noise is caused by small electrical discharges from the water drops. 

3.4 Geologic Environment 

The geologic environment of a nuclear power plant site encompasses the physiographic or 

physical setting in which the plant has been constructed and the associated geologic strata and 

soils that comprise the site. Large-scale geologic hazards are a condition of the geologic 

environment and include geologic faulting and earthquakes that comprise a site’s seismologic 

setting. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-50 

Nuclear power plants are located in a variety of physiographic provinces, though most nuclear 

plants are located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain and Central Lowlands provinces. Each 

physiographic province consists of a regional geologic terrain with a broadly similar structure 

and character. However, within each province, the local geology may differ significantly from 

the regional conditions. The geologic setting of each plant is therefore a site-specific function of 

the local geology rather than the physiographic province in which it is located. Plants are 

located in a wide variety of settings, including uplands along rivers, glaciated till plains, Great 

Lakes shorelines, and coastal sites. As a result, the geologic strata on which plants have been 

sited and constructed ranges from variably textured, interbedded, unconsolidated to semiconsolidated sediments of relatively recent age (i.e., less than 11,700 years before present), to 

thick sequences of sedimentary rock (e.g., sandstone, shale, siltstone) of varying age, to 

massive crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks (e.g., granitic and gneissic rocks) as old as 

Precambrian (i.e., greater than 540 million years before present). All safety-related structures 

(e.g., seismic category 1 structures) at nuclear power plants are founded either on competent 

bedrock, engineered compacted strata, concrete fill, and/or structural backfill in order to ensure 

that no safety-related facilities are constructed in potentially unstable materials. 

 

Soils across a plant site come from the disintegration of parent materials (i.e., bedrock or 

sediments) and interaction with the atmosphere and biological action, and can develop distinct 

horizons or layers with varying properties and uses. Soils and subsoils at nuclear plant sites 

vary in terms of their geotechnical properties, such as shear-strength, shrink-swell potential, cutslope stability, and erodibility, relative to site construction projects and their hydraulic properties 

relative to the movement of infiltration, groundwater, and contaminants. Depending on the 

nuclear plant’s location and design, riverbanks or coastlines may need to be protected to 

prevent erosion, especially at water intake or discharge structures. 

 

The soil resources available at each power plant are site-specific in terms of their potential 

erodibility and their potential use for agricultural activities and vary spatially on the basis of the 

distribution of different soil types on the site. Many of the plants in the Midwest, Great Plains, 

East, and Southeast (with the exception of plants in Florida) are located in areas with soils that 

are designated prime farmland (USDA 2001). Prime farmland soil has the best combination of 

physical and chemical characteristics for growing crops and is potentially subject to the 

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) (7 USC 4201 et seq.) and its implementing 

regulations (7 CFR Parts 657 and 658). Other important farmland soils potentially subject to the 

FPPA include unique farmlands as well as farmlands designated as having statewide or local 

importance. Farmland subject to FPPA regulation does not have to be currently used for 

cropland. It can be forest land, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban 

built-up land. Nuclear plants in Florida and in Western States are generally not located near 

prime or other important farmland. At some nuclear plant sites (e.g., Cooper and Harris), 

undeveloped or restored portions of the nuclear plant site are leased for agricultural use 
Affected Environment 

 3-51 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

including timber production. However, some land areas may not be available for leasing if they 

are within a nuclear plant’s security zone. 

The geologic resources in the vicinity of each nuclear plant, including rock, mineral, or energy 

rights and assets, vary with the location and may support extraction industries. These industries 

may include sand and gravel pit operations or quarrying for crushed stone. In general, there is 

little if any interaction between plant operations and local extraction industries, although some 

nuclear plants may purchase materials for landscaping and site construction from local sources. 

Commercial mining, or quarrying, or drilling operations are not allowed within site boundaries. 

Another aspect of the geologic environment is the seismic setting. The NRC has well 

established design criteria and standards that are used as the basis for the construction of all 

commercial nuclear power plants in the United States. These include ensuring the ability to 

withstand environmental hazards, such as earthquakes and flooding, without loss of capacity to 

perform their safety functions. Specifically, the NRC requires that safety-related structures, 

systems, and components be designed to take into account the most severe natural 

phenomena historically reported for the site and surrounding area. With regard to earthquakes 

in particular, existing U.S. nuclear power plants were designed and built to withstand the 

ground-shaking level considered appropriate for its location, given the possible earthquake 

sources that may affect the site. 

 

U.S. nuclear power plants were originally sited using geologic and seismic criteria set forth in 

10 CFR 100.10(c)(1) and 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, and designed and constructed in 

accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A. The regulations require that plant structures, 

systems, and components important to safety be designed to withstand the effects of natural 

phenomena, including earthquakes and other natural phenomena, without loss of capability to 

perform safety functions. Site-specific design bases for seismic protection are prescribed by a 

nuclear power plant’s Final Safety Analysis Report/Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(FSAR/UFSAR) and by applicable technical specifications. Nuclear power plants licensed after 

January 10, 1997, are subject to the more rigorous geologic and seismic site acceptability and 

design criteria established in 10 CFR 100.20 and 100.23, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix S. 

Detailed investigations of the proposed site and regional geologic environment are required to 

include an analysis of all historic earthquakes with the potential to affect the nuclear power plant 

site and power plant operations. Locations for nuclear power plants are also evaluated for the 

presence of geologic faults including those considered to be capable of generating earthquakes, 

predicted earthquake ground motions in order to establish the plant’s safe shutdown 

earthquake, the potential for the nuclear plant to be exposed to seismically induced floods and 

water waves, and characterization of the nature and behavior of the surficial geologic materials 

and subsurface materials and their engineering properties. In addition, spent fuel pools are 

designed with reinforced concrete so that they may remain operable through the largest historic 

earthquake that has or is expected to occur in the area. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-52 

The U.S. Geological Survey regularly updates its seismic hazard mapping products for the 

United States (see, for example, USGS 2011a,b). Currently, as measured in terms of predicted 

earthquake-produced peak horizontal ground accelerations with a 10 percent probability of 

exceedance in 50 years (i.e., corresponding to a return time of about 500 years), most nuclear 

power plants are located in seismically low-hazard areas, with peak accelerations of 0 to 

10 percent of gravity. However, the two California plants—Diablo Canyon and San Onofre—are 

in locations with predicted peak ground acceleration of approximately 25 to 30 percent of 

gravity. These plants have been designed to safely withstand the seismic effects associated 

with earthquakes with epicenters at various locations and at various depths, magnitudes, and 

ground accelerations (AEC 1973; Southern California Edison 2007). 

 

Moreover, the state of knowledge regarding geologic conditions and seismology and seismic 

hazards at nuclear power plant sites may have changed since construction. Although such 

discoveries are expected to be rare, new seismological conditions include the identification of 

previously unknown geologic faults. For example, a strike-slip fault was discovered 

approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) offshore of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in 2009 (NRC 2009). 

Changes in potential seismic hazards are not within the scope of the license renewal 

environmental review, except, where appropriate, during the analysis of severe accident 

mitigation alternatives, because any such changes would not be the result of continued 

operation of the nuclear power plant. Seismic design issues are considered during site-specific 

safety reviews and, more specifically, are addressed on an ongoing basis through the reactor 

oversight process and other NRC safety programs, such as the Generic Issues Program, which 

are separate from the license renewal process. When new seismic hazard information 

becomes available, the NRC evaluates the new information, through the appropriate program, 

to determine if any changes are needed at one or more existing plants. 

 

3.5 Water Resources 

Water resources comprise all forms of surface water and groundwater occurring in the vicinity of 

nuclear power plants. Surface water encompasses all water bodies that occur above the 

ground surface, including rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and other features, such as man-made 

reservoirs or other impoundments. Groundwater is water that is below the ground surface 

within a zone of saturation, with the uppermost groundwater surface comprising the water table. 

Groundwater comprises water that originated naturally as recharge from precipitation (e.g., rain 

or the melting of snow, sleet, or hail) or artificially as recharge from activities such as irrigation, 

industrial processing, and wastewater disposal, and water destined to return to the surface 

through discharge to springs and baseflow into rivers and streams, evaporation from shallow 

water table areas, or human activity involving wells or excavations. Aquifers are subsurface 

formations capable of yielding a significant amount of groundwater to wells or springs. Lesser 
Affected Environment 

 3-53 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

amounts of groundwater may also occur in areas above the saturated zone in the form of 

relatively small and isolated lenses of groundwater known as “perched” groundwater. 

Potential water uses, from either surface water or groundwater sources, include drinking and 

sanitary purposes, irrigation, maintenance of terrestrial and aquatic resources, recreation, and, 

of critical importance to all nuclear plants, industrial cooling and other applications. Demands 

for water are not restricted to freshwater (i.e., generally water with a total dissolved solids [TDS] 

level of less than 1,000 mg/L) but can also be met, for certain uses, by brackish (i.e., TDS level 

of about 1,000 to 35,000 mg/L) and saltwater (saline) sources, including for industrial cooling 

applications. As such, nuclear power plants are located in a range of settings with respect to 

water resources availability. In point, 16 of the 65 currently licensed nuclear power plants are 

located in estuarine or coastal areas, 10 plants are located on or near the Great Lakes, 

35 plants are located on rivers and/or with associated impoundment (e.g., reservoirs), 3 plants 

are located on or near large, free-flowing river corridors, and 1 plant is located at an inland 

location with no nearby perennial surface water bodies (see also Table 3.1-2 and 

Section 3.5.1.1 below). 

Earth’s water is always in movement, and the natural water cycle, also known as the hydrologic 

cycle, describes the continuous movement of water on, above, and below the surface of the 

Earth. It is the movement of water from surface water, groundwater, and vegetation to the 

atmosphere and back to the Earth in the form of precipitation. Natural waters are normally 

replenished by precipitation. However, the availability of water resources is being reduced and 

their distribution is changing due to human activity and natural forces. This is further aggravated 

by global climate change and variations in natural conditions. Impacts within the hydrologic 

cycle can be observed in precipitation patterns, infiltration to groundwater, surface runoff, 

stream flow, and other natural features. 

Water quality of surface water bodies and groundwater in the vicinity of and within the 

watersheds where nuclear power plant sites are located is influenced by a wide range of 

activities that are often unrelated to and far removed from nuclear power plant operations. 

Urbanization and development increases the amount of impervious surface coverage, such as 

roads and sidewalks, and reduces the natural terrain and pervious surfaces, including 

woodlands, meadow, and prairie lands. These alterations result in higher runoff velocities while 

reducing or eliminating the ability for infiltration, which also reduces groundwater recharge. 

Pervious areas associated with urbanization and development, such as landscape and 

recreational areas, contribute to increased surface runoff because they are typically uniformly 

graded and sparsely vegetated. Increased runoff is also thermally warmer than precipitation 

falling on natural terrain, and can carry pollutants entrained from sources of contamination on 

the land surface and which may have otherwise been filtered through natural processes. As a 

result, changes in surface runoff velocities and volumes have the potential to result in surface 

water quality impacts, including changes in receiving water chemical and thermal 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-54 

characteristics. Additionally, increases in runoff lead to streamside erosion, loss of topsoil, and 

other hydrologic changes leading to an increased flooding potential of downstream areas. 

These changes can occur in some watersheds despite design guidelines and regulations 

implemented by local, State, and Federal agencies to manage runoff rates associated with 

development. 

Typical pollutants carried in stormwater runoff include sediment, nutrients, debris, bacteria, and 

household hazardous substances. Nutrient additions, whether from fertilizer additions to 

landscaped lawns in urban and suburban areas or from croplands in agricultural areas, add to 

the pollutant loading and can have negative effects on water quality, terrestrial communities, 

and aquatic life (see Section 3.6). Atmospheric deposition of pollutants is also a substantial 

contributor to water quality degradation in “downwind” regions and particularly in urbanized 

areas. Nuclear power plant operations can contribute to water quality and hydrologic changes 

by increasing stormwater runoff, adding to nutrient discharges from sewage treatment, and 

through effluent discharges from industrial cooling systems. The additional runoff volume 

results in a total increase in deposited pollutants from impervious surface and industrial yards. 

Cooling system discharges typically contain cooling water treatment chemicals (e.g., corrosion 

inhibitors and biocides) (see also Section 3.5.1.2 below). Such chemical constituents when 

released to receiving water bodies have the potential to impact aquatic organisms. Thermal 

pollution is an additional pollutant that warms a receiving water body from both stormwater 

runoff and industrial cooling discharges. Within a watershed, these conditions are exacerbated 

by basin-wide deforestation and stripping of streamside vegetation in urban, suburban, and 

even in agricultural areas due to the associated reduction in runoff and pollutant attenuation. 

The collection of these pollutants from all sources in receiving waters can result in waters that 

are unable to meet the water quality standards and desired uses set by States, territories, or 

authorized Tribes. Those water bodies that do not meet the standard are listed as impaired 

water bodies and require additional monitoring and more stringent effluent limits being imposed 

on industrial and other dischargers under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. In the United 

States, there are approximately 41,000 listed impaired water bodies. The top pollutants 

contributing to impairment are pathogens (e.g., coliform bacteria), sediment, nutrients, and 

organic enrichment/oxygen depletion (EPA 2012). 

Finally, groundwater quality, whether in shallow, unconfined aquifers comprised of 

unconsolidated sediments or bedrock aquifers, may be impacted by many of the sources 

previously described. Fertilizers, chemicals, and petroleum products can degrade groundwater 

quality by infiltration into soil, subsoils, and into the water table. Subsurface sources of pollution 

may be from broken sewage pipelines, stormwater and/or combined sanitary sewers, as well as 

cracks or failures of underground storage tanks. At nuclear power plant sites and other 

industrial facilities, groundwater quality has been impacted by inadvertent releases including 
Affected Environment 

 3-55 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

spills and leaks of petroleum products and radionuclides, predominately tritium, from plant 

systems. 

Within the context of the information discussed above, the following sections discuss the effects 

of past and current nuclear power plant operations on water resources, including relevant 

regulatory considerations. 

3.5.1 Surface Water Resources 

The dominant water requirement at most nuclear power plants is cooling water, which, in most 

cases, is obtained from surface water bodies. For this reason, most plants are located near 

suitable supplies of surface water, such as rivers, reservoirs, lakes, the Great Lakes, oceans, 

bays, or manmade impoundments, as described above. An exception is the Palo Verde plant in 

Arizona, which relies on treated municipal wastewater for cooling. Because of the interaction 

between power plants and surface water, issues arise in terms of both usage and quality. 

These are discussed in separate sections below. 

3.5.1.1 Surface Water Use 

Nuclear power plants withdraw large amounts of surface water to meet a variety of plant needs, 

especially for condenser cooling (Section 3.1.3). The commercial nuclear power plants 

considered in the 1996 GEIS are compared in Table 3.5-1 in terms of their condenser flow 

rates, when normalized to energy production. Included in the table are two plants (Nine Mile 

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

Water Loss Rate per 1,000 MWe 

Cooling System(a)

Number 

of Sites 

Condenser Cooling Water 

Flow Rate per 1,000 MWe 

in gpm (m3/s)(b)

Average Consumptive 

Water Loss per 

1,000 MWe in gpm 

(m3/s)(c)

Pond and/or canal 6 300,000 to 650,000 (19 to 41) 9,300 (0.59) 

Mechanical draft cooling tower 8 140,000 to 760,000 (9 to 48) 14,000 (0.89) 

Natural draft cooling tower 19 170,000 to 760,000 (11 to 48) 13,000 (0.82) 

Once-through cooling 37 250,000 to 900,000 (16 to 57) 8,100 (0.51) 

Once-through cooling with tower 6 220,000 to 680,000 (14 to 43) Not available 

(a) For cases of multiple reactors per site, the water use was combined if the reactors used the same type of cooling 

system. If multiple reactors at a site used different cooling systems (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station and Arkansas 

Nuclear One), water use for each system was tallied separately. 

(b) Source: NRC (1996). 

(c) Source: Giusti and Meyer (1977). Note that Giusti and Meyer calculated consumptive use for a different set of 

plants. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-56 

Point and Arkansas) that have two reactors each: one with a cooling tower and one with a 

once-through system. These were tallied separately in the table. The condenser flow rates are 

similar in magnitude for the various types of cooling systems. Although plants in warmer 

geographical locations might be expected to have higher water requirements for cooling, a 

comparison of the locations of the plants and the normalized water use by their cooling systems 

suggests there is not a correlation between high water use and warmer climate. Design factors 

are likely responsible for the overlapping ranges in condenser flow rates. 

For closed-cycle cooling systems featuring cooling towers, the amount of water consumed 

equates approximately to the amount of water lost through evaporation and drift. In this type of 

cooling system, the condenser flow rate is much larger than the withdrawal rate from a surface 

water body, and this withdrawal rate is essentially the water consumption rate of the system. 

For once-through cooling systems, the condenser flow rate is nearly equal to the surface water 

withdrawal rate, and the consumption rate is much less since water is returned directly to the 

surface water body and undergoes less evaporation than in a cooling tower. 

Cooling towers consume water at 13,000 to 14,000 gpm (0.82 to 0.88 m3

/s), normalized to 

1,000 MWe, as a result of evaporation and drift (Table 3.5-1) (Giusti and Meyer 1977). 

Additional water requirements offset the blowdown returned to the surface water body. Water 

withdrawal for plants with closed-cycle cooling systems is 5 to 10 percent of the withdrawal for 

plants with once-through cooling systems, with much of this water being used for makeup of 

water lost to evaporation (NRC 1996). An estimate of typical makeup water needs for plants 

having closed-cycle cooling, normalized to a 1,000 MWe reactor, is about 14,000 to 18,000 gpm 

(0.9 to 1.1 m3

/s) for all makeup needs (NRC 1996). This range of makeup water requirements 

includes not only the consumed water but also the offset of blowdown, which is returned to the 

surface water body. Variation in water use among plants results from the design of the cooling 

tower, concentration factor of recirculated water, climate at the site, plant operating conditions, 

and other plant-specific factors. 

Once-through cooling systems are somewhat more common than closed-cycle systems 

(Table 3.5-1). For once-through systems, the water withdrawn is returned to the surface water 

body with less consumptive loss (8,100 gpm or 0.51 m3

/s) per 1,000 MWe because there is less 

evaporation than that associated with cooling towers (Giusti and Meyer 1977). The withdrawal 

rate from the surface water body, however, is much higher than that of a closed-cycle system 

(e.g., in Table 3.5-1, compare the condenser flow rates needed for once-through systems 

[which correspond to their surface water withdrawals] with the consumptive losses of closedcycle systems [which correspond to their makeup water requirements] and, therefore, their 

surface water withdrawals). The thermal discharge from once-through cooling systems is 

generally higher than that from cooling towers, as discussed below. 
Affected Environment 

 3-57 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Additional operational surface-water-related needs at power plants include service water, 

auxiliary system supplies, and radioactive waste systems. These needs combined are small 

relative to the flow needed for condenser cooling (NRC 1996). 

Nuclear plant water usage must comply with State, local, and regional regulations regarding 

water supply. Most States require permits regulating surface water usage. 

For plants relying on river water, consumptive water losses reduce surface water supplies for 

other users downstream. In areas experiencing water availability problems, nuclear power plant 

consumption could conflict with other existing or potential uses (e.g., municipal and agricultural 

water withdrawals) and instream uses (e.g., adequate instream flows to protect aquatic biota, 

recreation, and riparian communities). Water availability issues have not been generally noted 

in past license renewal evaluations and are likely to occur only during times of extended 

drought. Both water availability and water temperature are important factors in maintaining 

operations at power plants. In August 2007, a heat wave resulted in high river water 

temperatures at the Browns Ferry plant in Alabama (Huntsville Times 2007). Because of the 

reduced capability of the river water to cool the condensers, one of the plant’s three reactors 

was shut down, while operations at its other two reactors were cut by 25 percent. In summer 

2006, the Quad Cities plant in Illinois had to reduce operations because the Mississippi River 

was warm, and other plants in Illinois and 

Minnesota had to cut back as a result of 

drought effects (Nuclear Information and 

Resource Service 2007). High surface water 

temperature at the intake does not represent 

an impact on the environment but rather an 

effect of the natural conditions on operations. 

 

3.5.1.2 Surface Water Quality 

 

Discharges from the circulating cooling water 

system account for the largest volumes of 

water and usually the greatest potential 

impacts on water quality and aquatic systems, 

although other systems may also contribute 

heat and chemical contaminants to the effluent. 

Provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

regulate the discharge of pollutants into waters 

of the United States. The CWA requires that 

all facilities which discharge pollutants from any 

point source into waters of the United States 

obtain an NPDES permit. An NPDES permit is 

Clean Water Act 

 Section 402 authorizes the NPDES permit 

program that controls water pollution by 

regulating point sources, including cooling 

water discharge from electricity-generating 

plants that discharge pollutants into 

waters of the United States. 

 Section 316(a) allows for a variance from 

thermal discharge standards in an NPDES 

permit if the variance is more stringent 

than necessary to assure the propagation 

of a balanced, indigenous population. The 

alternate thermal effluent limitation is only 

good for the term of the NPDES permit 

(5 years), and the facility must reapply 

each permit term for the permitting 

authorities review and approval. 

 Section 316(b) requires that the location, 

design, construction, and capacity of 

cooling water intake structures reflect the 

best technology available for minimizing 

adverse environmental impact. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-58 

developed with two levels of controls: technology-based limits and water quality-based limits. 

NPDES permit terms may not exceed 5 years, and the applicant must reapply at least 180 days 

prior to the permit expiration date. EPA is authorized under the CWA to directly implement the 

NPDES program; however, EPA has authorized many States to implement all or parts of the 

national program. Conditions of discharge for each plant are specified in its NPDES permit 

issued by the State or EPA. CWA Section 401 requires an applicant for a Federal license to 

conduct activities that may cause a discharge of regulated pollutants into navigable waters to 

provide the licensing agency with water quality certification from the State. This certification 

implies that discharges from the project to be licensed will comply with CWA requirements, as 

applicable, including that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of State water 

quality standards. If the applicant has not received Section 401 certification, the NRC cannot 

issue a license unless that State has waived the requirement. The NRC recognizes that some 

NPDES-delegated States explicitly integrate their 401 certification process with NPDES permit 

issuance. 

Thermal Effluents and Withdrawal of Cooling Water from Surface Water Bodies 

NPDES permits for nuclear power plants impose temperature limits for effluents (which may 

vary by season) and/or a maximum temperature increase above the ambient water temperature 

(referred to as “delta-T,” which also may vary by season). Other aspects of the permit may 

include the compliance measuring location and restrictions against plant shutdowns during 

winter to avoid drastic temperature changes in surface water bodies. 

The area affected by heated releases to surface water bodies (the thermal plume) varies with 

site-specific conditions (e.g., discharge temperature, discharge rate, discharge structure location 

and design, flow of the surface water body, and temperature of the surface water body). 

A plume may be assessed in the field through plume mapping or dye tracing. Generally, the 

use of cooling towers decreases the thermal influence of a plant (e.g., NRC 2006b). 

Sections 316(a) and 316(b) of the CWA are relevant to the operation of a nuclear power plant 

cooling system. Facilities may apply for a thermal variance from their NPDES temperature 

limitation under Section 316(a) of the CWA. The facility must be able to demonstrate that the 

required variance is more stringent than necessary to assure the propagation of a balanced, 

indigenous population (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart H) in order to receive an alternative thermal 

effluent limitation. The alternate thermal effluent limitation is only good for the term of the 

NPDES permit (5 years), and the facility must reapply each permit term for the permitting 

authorities review and approval. Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that the location, design, 

construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology 

available for minimizing impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms and is also 

regulated under the NPDES program. 

 
Affected Environment 

 3-59 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Three rulemaking phases address cooling water intake structures. Phase I (enacted in 

December 2001) is for new facilities (40 CFR 125.83) with a design intake flow greater than 

2 million gallons per day (MGD) (7.6 million L/d) and that use at least 25 percent of water 

withdrawn used for cooling purposes (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart I). Phase II (enacted in 

July 2004) applies to existing large electric generating facilities with a design intake flow of 

50 MGD (189 million L/d) or more and that use at least 25 percent of the water withdrawn for 

cooling purposes (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart J). The Phase II Rule was suspended on July 9, 

2007, after several of its key provisions were remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Phase III 

(enacted June 2006) established national standards for new offshore and coastal oil and gas 

extraction facilities with a design intake flow greater than 2 MGD (7.6 million L/d) and that use at 

least 25 percent of water withdrawn used for cooling purposes (40 CPR Part 125, Subpart N). 

 

Existing facilities with a cooling water intake structure that are not currently subject to a national 

rule require Section 316(b) NPDES permit conditions that reflect best technology available for 

minimizing adverse environmental impact on a case-by-case, best professional judgment basis 

(40 CFR 125.90(b) and 401.14). 

 

Other Effluents 

Liquids containing chemicals and other parameters are discharged to surface water from 

nuclear power plants, as discussed in Section 3.1.4.1. The concentrations and flow rates of the 

liquids vary with activities involving the systems associated with floor drains, blowdown, 

laundries, decontamination, and other facilities. The liquids may also undergo treatment before 

reuse or discharge. These effluents are regulated under the plant’s NPDES permit. As part of 

the permitting process, concentration limits are established, and monitoring takes place at 

specific outfalls or other monitoring locations. The frequency of sampling is also covered by 

permit. EPA or authorized State agencies also provide the reporting requirements, and they 

may post results on a publicly accessible Web site. Noncompliance issues may range from 

administrative matters to exceedances of concentration, temperature, or flow limits. The 

exceedance of a parameter limit will trigger the permitting agency to review the history and 

magnitude of exceedance recurrences. Actions may include reviewing the permit for 

appropriate parameter levels, setting a compliance schedule for the applicant, assessing fines, 

and, in a worst case scenario, withdrawing a permit and disallowing the legal ability to 

discharge. 

Sanitary sewage wastes are treated before their release to the environment to minimize 

environmental impacts. The treatment may be through discharge to a municipal wastewater 

treatment system, an onsite wastewater treatment plant, or an onsite septic system. In cases 

where nonradioactive sanitary or other wastes cannot be processed by onsite wastewater 

treatment systems, the wastes are collected by independent contractors and trucked to offsite 

treatment facilities. Waste collection and offsite disposal can occur during a planned outage, 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-60 

when portable toilets may be required to accommodate the additional workforce. Water quality 

issues related to sanitary waste treatment include the adequacy of the wastewater treatment 

capacity for handling the increased flow and loading associated with operational changes to the 

plant, emission of phosphates from onsite laundries, suspended solids, coliform bacteria from 

sewage treatment discharges, and other effluents that cause excessive biochemical oxygen 

demand. State regulators are typically involved in site inspections, review of monitoring reports, 

and handling of any violations. 

The control of biological pests is critical to maintaining optimum system performance and 

minimizing operating costs. Consequently, many nuclear power plant cooling systems are 

periodically treated with molluscides to control the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) and the 

zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), which are generally found in the portions of the cooling 

system where water temperatures are ambient rather than heated. 

Biocides also are commonly used in cooling towers, although they may also be used in oncethrough systems or cooling ponds (Veil et al. 1997). Discharge of these chemicals to the 

receiving body of water can have toxic effects on aquatic organisms. Chlorine is commonly 

used as a biocide at nuclear power plants and represents the largest potential source of 

chemically toxic release to the aquatic environment. It may be injected at the intake or targeted 

at various points (such as the condensers) on an intermittent or continuous basis. Chlorine gas, 

which was commonly used in the past, has been replaced by many users with other forms, such 

as bleach (sodium hypochlorite) (Veil et al. 1997). Bromide compounds have been used 

increasingly in recent years, either in place of or in addition to chlorine treatments. 

Dechlorination may occur prior to discharge. Non-oxidizing biocides used to control zebra 

mussels and other organisms include quaternary ammonia salts, triazine, glutaraldehyde, and 

other organic compounds. 

Most plants have a storm water management plan, with the parameter limits of the storm water 

outfalls included in the NPDES permit. Plants may also have a spill prevention, control, and 

countermeasures plan that contains information on potential liquid spill hazards and the 

appropriate absorbent materials to use if a spill occurs. 

3.5.1.3 Hydrologic Changes and Flooding 

As described in Section 3.5, urbanization of watersheds in which nuclear power plants operate 

increases the amount of impervious surface coverage resulting in water quality impacts and 

changes in the hydrologic characteristics of the watershed. Urbanization has a direct correlation 

to the degradation of natural receiving streams. The higher the percentage of the impervious 

surface coverage in a watershed, the higher the flow velocity and volume in receiving water 

bodies. Increases in stream flow erode natural stream banks and scour natural vegetation from 

littoral zones, while also adding to higher flow volume and increased potential for flooding. A 
Affected Environment 

 3-61 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

flood is the occurrence when, under high water level and/or flow conditions, water overflows the 

natural or artificial bank of the water body. The floodplain or zone defines the extent of the land 

areas covered by the overflowing water. Floods can occur at any time, but weather patterns, 

terrain, land use coverage, and other factors influence when and where floods happen, as well 

as their frequency and severity. For example, the western United States can experience 

flooding due to cyclones in the winter and early spring; the streams in the southwest United 

States can experience flashflooding due to thunderstorms in late summer and fall; frontal storms 

in the northern and eastern United States can cause floods during the winter and spring; and 

the southeastern United States experiences flooding due to tropical storms, such as hurricanes, 

during the late summer and fall. 

Flood zone boundaries are determined based on the predicted recurrence interval of flooding 

and the extent of the land area inundated through the use of analytical modeling and field 

observations. The recurrence interval is the average number of years between floods of a 

certain size. For instance, the 100-year flood, on average, would occur once every 100 years. 

However, statistically there is a 1 in 100 chance that the 100-year flood will occur in any given 

year. 

Flood zones are dynamic and change over time due to natural forces. Further, changes in 

urbanization increase runoff and changes in weather patterns increase the intensity of 

precipitation events. In some instances, land areas that were not previously within a flood zone 

have been reclassified as being within one after nearby river elevations and flood potential were 

reanalyzed. On large rivers, dams have been shown to reduce flooding. Flood control dams, 

such as on multi-use reservoirs, are designed to release water flow at a controlled rate and 

allow water to back up in a reservoir when, typically under storm events, the inflows exceed the 

predetermined outflow rate. This prevents high flows from reaching streams that would 

otherwise flood, and allows water flow to bypass communities without flooding them. 

Currently operating nuclear power plants were originally sited in consideration of the hydrologic 

siting criteria set forth in 10 CFR 100, and designed and constructed in accordance with 

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A. The regulations require that plant structures, systems, and 

components important to safety be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena 

including flooding, without loss of capability to perform safety functions. Site-specific design 

bases for flood protection are prescribed by a nuclear power plant’s FSAR/UFSAR and by 

applicable technical specifications. Acceptable protection for floods includes levees, seawalls, 

floodwalls, or breakwaters. If new information or operating experience relating to flooding 

becomes available, the NRC evaluates the new information to determine if any changes are 

needed at existing plants. Flood protection issues are considered during site-specific safety 

reviews and, more specifically, are addressed on an ongoing basis through the reactor oversight 

process and other NRC safety programs, which are separate from the license renewal process. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-62 

3.5.2 Groundwater Resources 

Some nuclear power plants also use groundwater as a source of water for some of their 

operational needs. The rate of usage varies greatly among the plants. Many plants use 

groundwater only for the potable water system and require less than 100 gpm (0.006 m3

/s). At 

some plants, the original construction required dewatering of a shallow aquifer by using 

pumping wells or a drain system. Some plants operate dewatering systems to lower the water 

table near buildings. This is accomplished either by pumping or by having footing drains along 

foundations. Groundwater may also be used for sanitary uses or landscaping, and it may 

undergo processing to be used for makeup or service water systems. Groundwater usage 

regulations vary considerably from State to State, and State allocation permits are typically 

required. 

At the Grand Gulf plant in Mississippi, large-diameter wells with radial collector arms known as 

Ranney wells are used to withdraw groundwater along the Mississippi River at relatively high 

rates. They are installed in alluvial aquifers along rivers to obtain a mixture of groundwater and 

surface water through induced infiltration. At Grand Gulf, the average groundwater pumping 

rate by their well systems was higher than 21,000 gpm (1.3 m3

/s) in 2001 (System Energy 

Resources, Inc. 2005). The water withdrawn at Grand Gulf may be used as makeup, service, 

potable, or sanitary water or for landscaping or fire protection. 

The quality of groundwater may be affected by operations at nuclear power plants. Water from 

cooling ponds may seep into the underlying surficial aquifer. Activities at power plants typically 

include general industrial practices, such as the storage and use of hydrocarbon fuels (diesel 

and/or gasoline), solvents, and other chemicals. These practices have the potential to 

contaminate soil and groundwater, and, at some plants, this contamination has occurred. 

Examples from plant-specific SEISs include leakages or spills of gasoline (with methyl tertiary 

butyl ether, or MTBE) at fuel tank storage areas, spills of fuel at transfer or filling stations, 

solvent leakages from storage area drums, spilled or sprayed solvents, and underground line 

leaks of hydraulic oil or diesel fuel (e.g., NRC 2006b, 2007c). These incidents involved 

regulatory oversight under State regulations for hydrocarbons and under RCRA for other 

chemicals, and offsite groundwater users were not affected. 

Radionuclide releases, primarily tritium, to groundwater has raised concern in recent years 

because of inadvertent releases at the Indian Point, Braidwood, Callaway, Dresden, Byron, and 

Palo Verde plants (NRC 2007d). The NRC (2006c) has examined the matter and noted the 

leaks are generally not observable because they are underground and because plants are not 

required to have onsite groundwater monitoring wells unless an onsite well is used for drinking 

water or irrigation water. Even so, NRC licensees are required to survey, evaluate, document, 

and report the hazard of known spills or leaks of radioactive material. The NRC has reporting 

requirements based on the amount of radioactivity released; thus any large spills or leaks will be 
Affected Environment 

 3-63 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

reported. Additionally it is important to note that all plants are required to submit an annual 

report, which is publically available, to the NRC that summarizes the types and quantities of 

radioactive material released into the environment. 

In response to discoveries of underground radionuclide releases at nuclear power plants, the 

Nuclear Energy Institute (2007a), which represents the nuclear industry on policy issues, 

developed the Ground Water Protection Initiative. Each plant voluntarily committed to have an 

action plan to develop site-specific groundwater protection program in place by July 31, 2006. 

These programs cover the assessment of plant systems and components, site hydrogeology, 

and implementation of groundwater monitoring programs. To monitor the actions of the nuclear 

industry, the NRC updated its inspection procedure to include this issue as part of its routine 

radiological inspection at all nuclear power plants. 

3.6 Ecological Resources 

A wide variety of ecological resources exist at and in the vicinity of operating nuclear power 

plants across the United States. This section presents an overview of those resources. 

Terrestrial resources (including wetlands and floodplains, which are transitional areas between 

terrestrial and aquatic systems); aquatic resources; and special status species and habitats are 

discussed in Sections 3.6.1, 3.6.2, and 3.6.3, respectively. This section summarizes the effects 

of past activities, including construction and current operations at plant sites. 

3.6.1 Terrestrial Resources 

Operating commercial nuclear power plants are located in 31 States across the continental 

United States. These power plants have been sited in a wide variety of terrestrial habitat types. 

For the purposes of this analysis, terrestrial ecological resources in the vicinity of nuclear power 

plants are described in terms of upland vegetation and habitats, floodplain and wetland 

vegetation and habitats, and wildlife. Section 3.6.3.1 discusses special status terrestrial species 

and habitats. 

3.6.1.1 Upland Vegetation and Habitats 

Terrestrial vegetation and habitats include forests, grasslands, and shrublands. These habitats 

were affected by the initial construction of nuclear power plants, normal operations associated 

with nuclear power plants, and successional changes occurring within vegetation communities. 

In general, the level of land management varies by area at a nuclear power plant. See 

Section 3.2.1 for a general description of land use at a nuclear power plant. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-64 

Impacts on terrestrial vegetation and habitats can result from a number of activities or 

processes during normal operations at a nuclear power plant. Since startup of operations, 

areas on the nuclear plant sites within the security fence have typically been maintained as 

modified landscapes, but they may also include disturbed early successional habitats or areas 

of relatively undisturbed habitat. Maintenance of portions of the site by mowing and herbicide or 

pesticide application keeps the diversity of plant species at a reduced level. Native plant 

species are often replaced by cultivated varieties or weedy species tolerant of disturbance. 

Areas of the plant site outside the security fence may include natural areas, such as forest or 

shrubland, in various degrees of disturbance. 

Terrestrial habitats near nuclear plants can be subject to radiological releases under normal 

plant operations. These habitats are exposed to small amounts of radionuclides that result from 

the deposition of particulates released from power plant vents during normal operations. 

Releases typically include noble gases (which are not deposited), tritium, isotopes of iodine, and 

cesium, and they may also include carbon-14, strontium, cobalt, and chromium. Exposure to 

these radionuclides results in a dose rate to terrestrial plants of much less than 0.1 rad/d 

(0.001 Gy/d).(d)

 This rate is considerably lower than 1.0 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d), which is the DOE 

guideline level for impacts on terrestrial plant species (DOE 2002). Radionuclides, such as 

tritium, and other constituents in cooling water systems, such as biocides, that enter shallow 

groundwater from cooling ponds can be taken up by terrestrial plant species. 

Terrestrial habitats near plants with closed-cycle cooling water systems are subject to the 

deposition of cooling tower drift particulates (including salt); the deposition of water droplets on 

vegetation from drift; structural damage from freezing vapor plumes; and increased humidity 

from cooling towers and cooling ponds. Small amounts of particulates from cooling towers are 

dispersed over a wide area, with particulates from natural draft towers being dispersed over a 

larger area and at a lower deposition rate than those from mechanical draft towers (NRC 1996). 

However, most of the deposition from cooling towers occurs in relatively close proximity to the 

towers. Generally, deposition rates are below those that are known to result in measurable 

adverse effects to plants, and no deposition effects on agricultural crops or plant communities 

have been observed at most of the power plants. However, exceptions have been observed at 

some nuclear plants (NRC 1996). Impacts from icing, when they have occurred, have been 

minor and localized near cooling towers. 

Effects of nuclear power plant operations on terrestrial habitats also include the effects of 

transmission line ROWs and their maintenance. ROW management typically includes the 

periodic cutting of tall woody vegetation and use of herbicides. Management activities and 

transmission line repair occasionally result in the erosion of exposed soils where vegetation is 

 

(d) Dose rates were calculated on the basis of media concentrations provided in nuclear power plant 

radiological monitoring reports (see Section D.5 in Appendix D). 
Affected Environment 

 3-65 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

removed or where soils are disturbed by equipment. However, based on the scope of the 

power transmission system described in Section 3.1.6.5, in-scope transmission lines and 

structures are expected to occur primarily on developed portions of sites and would include only 

the short lengths of transmission lines that run from the plant to the nearest substation. 

3.6.1.2 Floodplain and Wetland Vegetation and Habitats 

Floodplains occur as lowlands along rivers and coastlines near many nuclear plants. They are 

typically identified as areas that have a chance of at least 1 percent of flooding in any given 

year; these are also described as 100-year floodplains. Activities related to nuclear plant 

construction and operations that have occurred in floodplains include the construction and 

maintenance of cooling water intakes and outfalls and transmission line ROWs. Activities 

undertaken by Federal agencies are regulated under Executive Order 11988, Floodplain 

Management. One requirement of this order is for Federal agencies to restore and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Floodplain values include attenuation of the 

extent of flooding, which supports wetlands, fish, and wildlife. 

A wide variety of wetland types occur near 

nuclear power plants. These include riverine, 

palustrine, lacustrine, estuarine, and marine 

wetland types as described by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

(Cowardin et al. 1979) for the National 

Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Most nuclear plants 

have wetlands nearby (within a radius of 5 mi), 

and wetlands cover an average of 3 percent of 

the land area near the plants, as mapped by 

the NWI (USFWS 2007a). The National Land 

Cover Database (USGS 2007) and New Jersey 

State database were used for the sites that 

were lacking digital NWI data. Wetlands 

exclude deepwater habitats, which are 

permanently flooded coastal areas and which 

occupy, on average, 10 percent of the area 

within 5 mi of the plants. The proportion of 

wetlands and deepwater habitats within 5 mi 

(8 km) of nuclear plants is presented in 

Table D.5-3 in Appendix D. 

Wetlands were affected by the initial plant 

construction and various aspects of plant 

Wetland Types That Occur near Nuclear 

Power Plants 

 Riverine wetlands are contained within 

a channel that has moving water, at least 

periodically, and they lack persistent 

vegetation. 

 Palustrine wetlands primarily support 

trees, shrubs, or persistent emergent 

plants, or they can be small (generally 

under 20 ac or 8 ha), shallow wetlands 

lacking such plant communities. 

 Lacustrine wetlands are large or deep 

bodies of water that lack persistent 

vegetation. 

 Estuarine wetlands occur near land with 

access to the ocean, are influenced by 

tides, and are diluted to a variable extent 

by freshwater. 

 Marine wetlands are exposed to open 

ocean waves and currents and may be 

slightly diluted by freshwater. 

Source: Cowardin et al. 1979 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-66 

operation during the period of the initial plant operating license. These effects included those 

associated with facility construction, transmission line ROW construction and maintenance, the 

construction and operation of cooling systems, and stormwater management. Effects to 

wetlands from construction activities and stormwater runoff often include changes in vegetative 

plant community characteristics, altered hydrology, decreased water quality, and sedimentation 

(Wright et al. 2006; EPA 1996). Wetland losses occurred during the construction of many 

nuclear power plants. For example, construction of the Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey 

resulted in the loss of 200 acres of several types of wetlands (AEC 1974). However, at plants 

using cooling ponds, new wetland habitats may form along the margins of those ponds such as 

can be found along portions of the Robinson Reservoir, the Robinson nuclear plant cooling 

pond (NRC 2003b), and Parr Reservoir used for storage exchange and makeup water for the 

Summer plant cooling pond (NRC 2004b). Forested wetlands in ROWs are converted to 

scrub/shrub or emergent wetland types when trees are removed, and ROW management 

programs maintain the ROW in these habitat types. The operation of heavy equipment in 

wetlands during ROW maintenance or transmission line repair can damage or compact wetland 

soils and vegetation and may promote the establishment of invasive species (BPA 2000). 

The operation of cooling water intake and discharge systems can increase the salinity of stream 

segments, as has occurred at the Oyster Creek plant (NRC 2007c), or expose wetland habitats 

to thermal impacts and contaminants in discharged cooling water or cooling tower blowdown. 

The maintenance of intake or discharge structures may damage wetland habitats, and the 

disposal of dredged sediments may affect wetlands. Maintenance activities on the plant sites or 

ROWs may also result in chemical or fuel spills that may affect wetlands. Contaminants that 

enter groundwater may affect wetlands that receive groundwater discharge. Executive 

Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires Federal agencies not only to minimize the 

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands while they are conducting their activities but also to 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Many activities that occur 

in wetlands are regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. Actions that result in the discharge of 

dredge or fill material into wetlands that are under the jurisdiction of the CWA require a permit 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

3.6.1.3 Wildlife 

Wildlife populations on and in the vicinity of nuclear power plants have also been affected by 

plant construction and operations. The initial construction of the plants and transmission line 

ROWs reduced the available terrestrial habitat at sites; habitat losses in many cases total 

hundreds of acres. Because habitats along transmission line ROWs are maintained in a 

modified condition, the wildlife communities they support are different than those found in 

undisturbed habitats. Some predator species, such as skunks and raccoons, more readily use 

ROW habitats, and ROWs may therefore provide a means for new or easier access to some 

areas, thereby affecting populations of prey species (Evans and Gates 1997; Crooks and 
Affected Environment 

 3-67 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Soulé 1999). Wildlife species in the vicinity of transformers or cooling towers are exposed to 

elevated noise levels that disrupt behavior patterns. Wildlife species near transmission lines are 

exposed to electromagnetic fields. However, there is currently a lack of conclusive evidence 

that biological systems are affected by electromagnetic fields (see Section 3.9.4). Atmospheric 

or surface water releases can result in the exposure of wildlife to contaminants. Wildlife is 

exposed to small amounts of radionuclides from the deposition of particulates released from 

power plant vents during normal operations. Exposure of upland and riparian wildlife to these 

radionuclides results in a dose rate of much less than 0.1 rad/d (0.001 Gy/d), which is the 

guideline for protection of riparian and terrestrial wildlife (DOE 2002).(e)

 This rate is considerably 

lower than rates known to result in measurable impacts. 

Plant structures such as natural draft cooling towers, meteorological towers, and transmission 

lines create collision hazards for migratory and local bird species. Monitoring of bird collisions 

has been done at several nuclear plants with natural draft cooling towers. The results of those 

monitoring efforts indicate that cooling towers at nuclear power plants do cause some collision 

mortality for migrating songbird species; however, these deaths represent only a fraction of the 

total annual bird collision mortality from all man-made sources. See Section 4.6.1.1 for a 

detailed description of bird collision mortality at nuclear power plants. 

There are no reports of relatively high collision mortality occurring at the transmission lines 

associated with nuclear power plants in the United States. The length of these lines is 

considerably less than the total 500,000 mi (800,000 km) of transmission lines estimated within 

the United States (Manville 2005). Although the data are not available, transmission lines 

associated with nuclear power plants are likely responsible for only a small fraction of total bird 

collision mortality associated with transmission lines nationwide. See Section 4.6.1.1 for a 

detailed description of bird collision mortality at nuclear power plants. 

Cooling system intakes can create an impingement hazard for waterfowl, and water demands 

for cooling can create water-use conflicts with wildlife. At the Nine Mile Point plant in New York, 

for example, approximately 100 greater scaup (Aythya marila) and lesser scaup (Aythya affinis) 

ducks were impinged at the cooling water intake structure in 2000 while feeding on zebra 

mussels during reverse flow conditions for deicing of the structure (NRC 2006d). As a result of 

this incident, the Nine Mile Point Intake structures now undergo annual cleaning to remove 

zebra mussels (the food source), and reverse flow conditions are scheduled during periods 

when diving duck feeding is limited (NRC 2006d). The potential for water use conflicts at the 

Wolf Creek plant in Kansas can occur during drought conditions as makeup water for the 

cooling lake is withdrawn from the Neosho River, resulting in reduced flows (NRC 2008). 

Riparian communities along the Neosho River can be degraded or lost by reduced flows. 

 

(e) Dose rates were calculated based on information provided in nuclear power plant radiological 

monitoring reports (see Section D.5 in Appendix D). 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-68 

Wildlife associated with these riparian habitats can subsequently be affected by reductions in 

habitat quality or extent. 

Species that occupy onsite habitats are exposed to a variety of factors associated with plant 

operations and maintenance. The maintenance required for landscaped areas generally keeps 

the diversity of wildlife located there less than it is in surrounding habitats. Wildlife species 

occurring on the sites within the security areas are typically limited by the low quality of the 

habitat and generally include common species adapted to industrial developments. 

3.6.2 Aquatic Resources 

Nuclear power plants are usually located near relatively large water bodies, such as major rivers 

and reservoirs, the Great Lakes, and estuarine and marine coastal areas, because of the 

amount of water that is needed to meet cooling system demands (Table 3.1-2). In the few 

cases where a power plant is located near small streams (e.g., the Summer plant in 

South Carolina and the Clinton plant in Illinois), the streams have been impounded to create 

cooling lakes. The water bodies in the vicinity of the power plants contain a complex 

assemblage of habitats and species that may be affected by a plant’s cooling system and by 

maintenance of the transmission line ROWs. The following text presents an overview of the 

habitats and aquatic biota in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, followed by an overview of the 

effects of existing power plant operations on aquatic resources. 

3.6.2.1 Description of Aquatic Resources near Nuclear Power Plants 

This section presents an overview of the aquatic habitats and biota that occur in the vicinity of 

nuclear power plants. Emphasis is placed on the major ecosystem types (i.e., freshwater rivers, 

reservoirs, and lakes and coastal estuarine and marine systems) and major groups of aquatic 

biota (i.e., fish, other aquatic vertebrates, macroinvertebrates, zooplankton, phytoplankton, and 

macrophytes). An overview of the effects of existing power plant operations on aquatic 

resources is provided in Section 3.6.2.2. A discussion of threatened and endangered aquatic 

species, marine mammals, and essential fish habitat is provided in Section 3.6.3.2. 

Aquatic Habitats 

The aquatic ecological communities that occur in the vicinity of U.S. nuclear power plants are 

very diverse because of the differences in their geographies and habitat types and in the 

physical and chemical conditions of the water bodies located near them. The geographical 

setting, physical conditions (e.g., substrate type, temperature, turbidity, and light penetration), 

chemical factors (e.g., dissolved oxygen levels and nutrient concentrations), biological 

interactions (e.g., competition and predation), seasonal influences, and man-made modifications 

and actions all interact to influence the types of species present and the nature of the aquatic 
Affected Environment 

 3-69 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

community in a particular aquatic ecosystem. Nuclear plants use freshwater, estuarine, and 

marine ecosystems as their cooling water sources, except for the Palo Verde plant, which uses 

Phoenix City sewage effluent (Table 3.1-2). 

Freshwater systems can be broadly categorized as lentic or lotic, depending on the degree of 

water movement. Lentic systems refer to water bodies that have standing or slow-flowing 

water, such as that found in ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and some canals. Most lentic habitats 

stratify during summer (monomictic) or during summer and winter (dimictic). Lotic habitats 

generally have a measurable velocity and include natural rivers and streams and also some 

artificial waterways. Most lotic habitats do not generally stratify (Morrow and Fischenich 2000). 

Although some freshwater aquatic species occur in both lentic and lotic habitats, many species 

are adapted to the physical, chemical, and ecological characteristics of one system or the other, 

and the overall ecological communities present within these aquatic ecosystem types will differ 

for a given region of the country. 

Species composition and ecological conditions 

within riverine environments are largely 

determined by the geographic area, gradient of 

the river bed, velocity of the current, and 

source of nutrients and organic matter at the 

base of the food chain. Thus, ecological 

communities in rivers become altered if the 

river is impounded, with the degree of 

alteration depending on the degree to which 

various physical and chemical conditions are 

affected. Environmental threats to rivers 

include depletion of water, dams that alter flow 

and temperature characteristics and can block 

the upstream or downstream movement of 

aquatic organisms, chemical pollution, and the 

introduction of nonnative species. 

Major rivers that serve as cooling water 

sources include the Mississippi River 

(Minnesota, Illinois, Mississippi, and Louisiana; 

six plants), Missouri River (Nebraska and 

Missouri; three plants), Susquehanna River 

(Pennsylvania; three plants), Delaware River 

(New Jersey; two plants), Hudson River (New York; one plant), and Columbia River 

(Washington; one plant) (Table 3.1-2). Some power plants that use rivers for cooling are 

located on sections of rivers that have been impounded to slow the rate of flow and create 

Aquatic Ecosystem Types 

• Freshwater: Waters that contain a salt 

concentration of less than 1 percent. 

 Lentic: Standing or slow-flowing 

fresh water (e.g., lakes and ponds). 

 Lotic: Flowing fresh water with a 

measurable velocity (e.g., rivers and 

streams). 

• Marine: Waters that contain a salt 

concentration of about 3 percent 

(e.g., ocean overlying the continental shelf 

and associated shores). 

• Estuarine: Coastal bodies of water, 

often semi-enclosed, which have a free 

connection with marine ecosystems 

(e.g., bays, inlets, lagoons, and oceanflooded river valleys). In these areas, 

freshwater merges with marine waters; 

salinity concentrations vary spatially and 

temporally due to location and tidal 

activity. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-70 

pooled areas in the vicinity of cooling water withdrawal or discharge structures. These sections 

are not as clearly lentic in nature as are reservoirs. 

Lentic ecosystems can be broadly divided into littoral, pelagic, and profundal habitat zones on 

the basis of water depth and light penetration in the water. Littoral habitats refer to nearshore 

shallower waters where sufficient light reaches the bottom so that rooted plants are able to 

grow. Pelagic habitats include open offshore waters where light intensity is great enough for 

photosynthesis to occur. Profundal habitats are found in deep-water areas that are beyond the 

depth at which light penetration is great enough to support photosynthesis (Armantrout 1998). 

The ecological communities that inhabit these zones differ, reflecting the preferences and 

tolerances of aquatic species at various life stages for the physical and chemical conditions that 

exist. Within the United States, 10 nuclear power plants use water from natural lakes for cooling 

(Table 3.1-2): Lake Erie (Ohio and Michigan; three plants), Lake Michigan (Michigan and 

Wisconsin; four plants), and Lake Ontario (New York; three plants). 

The species diversity and biomass of fish are greater in the nearshore than in the offshore areas 

of the Great Lakes (Edsall and Charlton 1997). The nearshore areas offer a variety of habitat 

conditions (e.g., morphometric features, current velocities, substrates, and aquatic vegetation) 

that provide conditions that are optimal to most species of fish in the Great Lakes for at least 

some portion of their life cycle. Of 139 Great Lakes fish species reviewed by Lane et al. (1996, 

as reported in Edsall and Charlton [1997]), all but five species (four species of deepwater 

ciscoes [Coregonus spp.] and the deepwater sculpin [Myxocephalus thompsoni]) use waters 

less than 33 ft (10 m) deep for nursery habitat. Some of the threats to the ecological integrity of 

the Great Lakes are reviewed in Beeton (2002); they include eutrophication (nutrient 

enrichment), land-use changes, overfishing, invasive species, and pollution (Beeton 2002). 

Constraints have been implemented in recent years to reduce nutrient inputs and control land 

use changes, such as shoreline alteration and destruction of wetlands. Invasive species have 

become a major problem as nonindigenous species gain access to the Great Lakes. Examples 

of invasive nonnative aquatic organisms that have become established in the Great Lakes 

include the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), 

spiny waterflea (Bythotrephes cederstroemi), and quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis). The 

introduction of such species can result in changes to native ecological communities (Dermott 

and Kerec 1997). These threats to the integrity of the Great Lakes are likely to continue 

(Beeton 2002). 

Reservoirs refer to areas of rivers or streams that are impounded by a dam or water control 

structure such that they have become physically, chemically, and ecologically more similar to 

lakes instead of the lotic system from which they are formed (Armantrout 1998). In the 

United States, 14 nuclear power plants use water from reservoirs for cooling (Table 3.1-2). Fish 

species that thrive in the habitat conditions that exist within a given reservoir are often stocked 

and managed to support recreational fisheries. 
Affected Environment 

 3-71 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Brackish to saltwater estuarine and marine ecosystems occur along the coastlines of the 

United States. General habitat types found within these ecosystems include the mouths of 

rivers, tidal streams, shorelines, salt marshes, beaches, mangroves, submerged aquatic 

vegetation, coral reefs, and open water. Estuaries are particularly important as staging points 

during the migration of certain fish species (e.g., salmon and eels), giving them time to form 

schools and to physiologically adjust to the changes in salinity. Many marine fish and 

invertebrate species use estuaries for spawning or as places where young fish can feed and 

grow before moving to other marine habitats. Estuarine and marine habitats support important 

commercial or recreational finfish and shellfish species. In the United States, 16 nuclear power 

plants use water from estuarine or marine environments (Table 3.1-2). 

Aquatic Organisms 

A great diversity of aquatic organisms could be affected by nuclear plant operations. Power 

plant effects can be analyzed by studying representative important species (e.g., indicator 

species or species groups). McLean et al. (2002) identified the following representative 

important species: 

• Species sensitive to adverse harm from plant operations (e.g., thermally sensitive 

species); 

• Species that use the local area for spawning or nursery grounds (including those species 

that migrate past the plant to spawn); 

• Species of commercial or recreational value; 

• Species that are habitat formers and critical to the functioning of the local ecosystem; 

• Species that are important links in the local food web; 

• Rare, threatened, or endangered species; and 

• Potential nuisance species likely to be enhanced by plant operations. 

Fish

Fish can be characterized as freshwater, estuarine, marine, and migratory (e.g., anadromous 

and catadromous) species. The first three categories are based on salinity regimes, whereas 

the migratory category is composed of reproductively specialized fish that migrate between 

freshwater and saltwater (or vice versa) to reproduce (Murdy et al. 1997). Murdy et al. (1997) 

defined freshwater fish as those that usually inhabit waters with a salinity of less than 0.5 parts 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-72 

per thousand (ppt) (although some species can tolerate a salinity as high as 10 ppt); estuarine 

fish as those that inhabit tidal waters with salinities that range between 0 and 30 ppt; and marine 

fish as those that typically live and reproduce in coastal and oceanic waters with salinities that 

are more than 30 ppt. Anadromous species migrate from the ocean waters to freshwater to 

spawn, while the opposite situation occurs for catadromous species. Anadromous species 

include sturgeons, clupeids, salmonids, smelts, striped bass (Morone saxatilus), and the sea 

lamprey (Petromyzon marinus). Within the United States, the only catadromous species is the 

American eel. For some species, migratory movements may be confined within a freshwater 

system (e.g., species tend to move to upstream areas for spawning) or in the ocean 

(e.g., species tend to move northward as waters warm and southward as they cool). A few 

species such as the tarpon (Megalops atlanticus) move freely between fresh and marine waters 

for purposes not related to spawning (Lagler et al. 1962). Many of the fish species that occur in 

the vicinity of the power plants are of considerable commercial and/or recreational importance, 

while others serve as forage for those species. 

Fish have developed various regulatory mechanisms to maintain their overall performance at a 

wide range of body temperatures as a result of being subjected to large diurnal or seasonal 

changes in water temperature (Claireaux et al. 2006). Nevertheless, freshwater fish can be 

classified as coldwater, coolwater, or warmwater species. Coldwater fish (e.g., trout and 

salmon) have an upper lethal temperature of about 77°F (25°C), warmwater species 

(e.g., gizzard shad [Dorosoma cepedianum], common carp [Cyprinus carpio], largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides], and sunfish [Lepomis spp.]) have an upper lethal limit as high as 

97°F (36°C), and coolwater species have upper lethal temperature limits similar to or slightly 

lower than those of warmwater species (e.g., freshwater drum [Aplodinotus grunniens], yellow 

perch [Perca flavescens], smallmouth bass [Micropterus dolomieu], walleye [Sander vitreus], 

and sauger [S. canadensis]), but they usually require cooler average temperatures during their 

growing season (Morrow and Fischenich 2000). Preferred summer temperatures are below 

59°F (15°C) for coldwater species, 70 to 77°F (21 to 25°C) for coolwater species, and 81 to 

88°F (27 to 31°C) for warmwater species (Magnuson et al. 1979). As summarized by 

Armour (1991), the highest average mean weekly temperatures tolerated by coldwater, 

coolwater, and warmwater fish species are 72°F (22°C), 84°F (29°C), and 86°F (30°C); while 

their respective spawning temperatures are less than 55°F (12.8°C), 40 to 60°F (4.4 to 15.6°C), 

and above 60°F (15.6°C). 

The swimming performance of fish is influenced by temperature. Maximum swimming speed 

and endurance peak at an optimum temperature, are reduced at low temperatures, and 

decrease as temperatures approach the upper thermal limit (Claireaux et al. 2006). Many of the 

marine fish species have buoyant eggs, while most stream fish have eggs that are heavy and 

sink (demersal). Most demersal eggs are also, at least temporarily, adhesive 

(Lagler et al. 1962). Most marine fish species have high fecundity (e.g., a female may produce 

thousands to millions of eggs per year); while most freshwater fish produce hundreds to 
Affected Environment 

 3-73 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

thousands of eggs per year. However, newly hatched larvae undergo mortality rates of 5 to 

30 percent per day as a result of predation, starvation, disease, pollution, and other causes 

(Batty and Blaxter 1992). 

Other Aquatic Vertebrates

In addition to fish, other vertebrate species can be present in the aquatic ecosystems near 

nuclear plants. These include sea turtles, American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), waterfowl, 

seals, and the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). The effects that power plant 

operations have had on these species are discussed in Section 4.6.1.2. 

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Aquatic macroinvertebrates include a diverse range of taxa, including immature and adult 

insects, crustaceans, mollusks, and worms. They can occur on a variety of substrates, plants, 

debris, and submerged portions of manmade structures and within the water column (Fremling 

and Drazkowski 2000). Macroinvertebrates control key ecosystem processes, such as primary 

production, decomposition, nutrient regeneration, water chemistry, and water clarity. High 

densities of macroinvertebrates can be attained, as exemplified by midge (Chironomidae) 

larvae—4,650/ft2 (50,000/m2

); Asiatic clams (Corbicula fluminea)—2,325/ft2 (25,000/m2); and 

zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha)—46,500/ft2

 (500,000/m2) (GSMFC 2005; Pennak 1953; 

Sprecher and Getsinger 2000). 

Mussels are planktivores and are prey items for some fish and other vertebrates. They depend 

on good water quality and physical habitat conditions and on an environment that will support 

populations of their host fish species. Williams et al. (1993) reported the nearly 300 native 

freshwater mussels in the United States and Canada, nearly 72 percent are considered 

endangered, threatened, or of special concern; almost 5 percent are of undetermined status; 

and less than 24 percent are considered stable. Mussels occur in the vicinity of most plants that 

use freshwater as a cooling water source. 

In addition to native freshwater mussels, several species of mussels and clams have been 

introduced to the United States and have reached nuisance levels. Most notable among these 

are the Asiatic clam and the zebra mussel. These species can alter trophic and nutrient 

dynamics of aquatic ecosystems and displace native mussels. The ability of Asiatic clams and 

zebra mussels to clog water systems makes them a serious and costly problem for utilities 

(Morgan et al. 2003). Densities of zebra mussels can be as high as 78,000/ft2

 (840,000/m2) in 

utility water pipes (IDNR undated). Many of the nuclear plants have programs in place to 

monitor for these species, and, as appropriate, to control them, usually using biocides. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-74 

Zooplankton

Zooplankton is the animal component of the plankton community and includes protozoans, 

crustaceans, and the drifting larvae of fish and macroinvertebrates. Rotifers, cladocerans, and 

copepods are primary components of the zooplankton community in freshwater ecosystems. 

The zooplankton of estuarine and marine ecosystems include eggs, larvae, juveniles, and/or 

adults of anemones, jellyfish, bristleworms, sea urchins, starfish, copepods, isopods, 

amphipods, shrimp, crabs, lobsters, bryozoans, and mollusks. Ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and 

larvae) are a seasonal component of the zooplankton in all aquatic ecosystems. Zooplankton is 

an important link between phytoplankton and fish or other secondary consumers.

Phytoplankton and Aquatic Macrophytes

Phytoplankton is an important food source for some invertebrate and fish species and is 

important for carbon fixation (converting carbon dioxide to organic materials via photosynthesis). 

Periphyton (algae attached to solid submerged objects) includes species of diatoms and other 

algae that grow on natural or artificial substrates. These species can become planktonic as a 

result of scouring or other actions that separate individuals from their substrate. Components of 

the phytoplankton include green algae (Chlorophyta), bluegreen algae (Cyanophyta), and 

golden brown algae (Chrysophyta). Brown algae and kelp (Phaeophyta) and red algae 

(Rhodophyta) also occur in marine waters. Diatoms (Bacillariophyta) are a major component of 

the phytoplankton in many aquatic systems. Macrophytes can stabilize sediments, act as 

important links in nutrient cycling, provide shelter and protection for animal communities, and 

provide important nursery areas (Hall et al. 1978). Factors that affect the distribution and 

condition of submersed aquatic vascular plants include weather and hydrology, sedimentation, 

suspended solids and water clarity, and consumption and disturbance by fish and wildlife 

(USGS 1999). 

3.6.2.2 Overview of the Effects of Existing 

Nuclear Plant Operations on Aquatic 

Resources 

During the initial license period, the operations 

of nuclear plants had effects on aquatic 

resources. The withdrawal of cooling water 

affected aquatic organisms by means of 

impingement and entrainment. Impingement 

occurs when organisms (e.g., fish, shellfish 

[e.g., shrimp, crabs, and crayfish], and, more 

rarely, sea turtles, birds, and marine mammals) 

are held against the intake screen or netting 

Impingement 

Impingement is the entrapment of all life 

stages of fish and shellfish on the outer part of 

an intake structure or against a screening 

device during periods of water withdrawal 

(40 CFR 125.83). 

Entrainment 

Entrainment is incorporation of all life stages 

of fish and shellfish with intake water flow 

entering and passing through a cooling-water 

intake structure and into a cooling water 

system (40 CFR 125.83). 
Affected Environment 

 3-75 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

placed within intake canals. Entrainment occurs when smaller organisms (e.g., phytoplankton, 

zooplankton, and the planktonic eggs and larvae of fish and shellfish) pass through the intake 

screens and travel through the entire condenser cooling system. Aquatic organisms that might 

otherwise avoid impingement by swimming away may enter and become entrapped in enclosed 

cooling water intake canals that hinder escape. 

Temperature can have an effect on most 

biochemical, physiological, and life history 

activities of aquatic organisms 

(Beitinger et al. 2000). Thermal effects on 

aquatic biota can result from heat shock; cold 

shock; interference with fish migration; 

premature emergence of aquatic insects; 

enhanced susceptibility to parasitism, 

predation, and disease; stimulation of nuisance 

organisms; gas bubble disease; and lower 

dissolved oxygen level (NRC 1996). Nuclear 

power plants also affect aquatic organisms 

through thermal and chemical releases (NRC 

1996). In addition, radionuclides are released into aquatic systems. Radionuclides can be 

environmentally significant as they have a strong tendency to adsorb onto particles 

(e.g., suspended and settled solids), can accumulate in biological organisms, or can be 

concentrated through trophic transfers (Jones and McLean 2005). 

The impact from any type of power plant on aquatic resources can be difficult to determine 

because biotic populations also respond to changes in environmental conditions (EPA 2002). 

Table 3.6-1 lists various characteristics of power plants, water bodies, and aquatic species that 

influence the effects of impingement, entrainment, or thermal or chemical discharge on aquatic 

resources. 

Chemical effects on aquatic biota can occur from exposure to biocides and other contaminants 

(e.g., heavy metals such as copper, zinc, and chromium that may be leached from condenser 

tubing and other heat exchangers). Blowdown from closed-cycle cooling systems can contain 

concentrated levels of constituents present in the makeup water, residual biocides, process 

contaminants, and other chemicals added for controlling corrosion or deposits (Veil et al. 1997). 

Radionuclides are released to aquatic systems at or below permitted levels at nuclear power 

plants. 

Thermal Shock 

Heat Shock: Acute thermal stress caused by 

exposure to a sudden elevation of water 

temperature that adversely affects the 

metabolism and behavior of an organism and 

can lead to its death. 

Cold Shock: Acute thermal stress caused by 

exposure to a sudden decrease of water 

temperature that adversely affects the 

metabolism and behavior of an organism and 

can lead to its death. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-76 

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

Aquatic Resources 

3.6.3 Special Status Species and Habitats 

A variety of Federal and State Acts protect certain species and habitats. Federally listed 

threatened and endangered species are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

while State-listed species are protected under provisions of various State regulations. Prior to 

the initial construction of the power plants and transmission line ROWs built after 1973, the NRC 

consulted with the USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as appropriate, to 

determine the presence of any Federally listed species or critical habitat at or near sites and 

assess the potential for impacts from the construction and operation of plants or associated 

transmission lines. Before the Endangered Species Act was enacted, consultation was not 

required; however, rare species or habitats were often considered in project planning. Any 

Power Plant Factors Ecosystem Factors 

 Intake and discharge location (e.g., distance 

from shoreline and to each other) and type 

(e.g., size and operation) 

 Intake depth and approach velocities 

 Proximity to areas of biological concern 

(e.g., spawning and rearing habitats) 

 Fish protection technologies (e.g., intake screen 

design, fish diversion/avoidance systems, 

screen wash return systems) 

 Timing, duration, frequency, and quantity 

of water withdrawal 

 Ratio of cooling water intake to source water 

flow 

 Water temperature change and duration 

in cooling system 

 Biocide use 

 Corrosive potential of condenser tubing 

 Type of cooling system (e.g., once through, 

combination cycle, closed cycle, cooling lake, or 

canal) 

 Thermal plume characteristics (e.g., crosssectional area of elevated discharge 

temperatures) 

Abiotic Factors 

 Type of water body (e.g., riverine, lacustrine, 

estuarine, marine) 

 Ambient water temperatures 

 Ambient water quality (e.g., salinity, dissolved 

oxygen, pollutant levels) 

 Current or tidal conditions 

 Direction and rate of ambient flows 

Biological Factors 

 Spatial and temporal distributions 

 Abundance or density 

 Habitat preference 

 Ability to detect and avoid intake 

 Swimming speeds 

 Body size 

 Age and developmental stage 

 Physiological tolerance (e.g., temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, and salinity) 

 Reproductive strategy 

 Mode of egg and larval dispersal 

 Generation time 

 Condition and health 

Source: EPA 2002; NRC 1996 
Affected Environment 

 3-77 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

ongoing or proposed activity associated with the 

operation or maintenance of existing nuclear 

power plants during the license renewal term 

that has the potential to affect a listed species 

requires the initiation of consultation under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act with 

the USFWS for terrestrial and freshwater 

species or the NMFS for marine and 

anadromous species. Federally managed 

marine and anadromous fishery resources, 

including essential fish habitat, are protected 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (MagnusonStevens Act; 16 USC 1801 et seq.). Marine 

mammals are protected under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 USC 1361 

et seq.), which establishes a Federal 

responsibility to conserve marine mammals. 

Both the Magnuson-Stevens Act and MMPA are 

administered by the NMFS. 

Many listed species occur in the vicinity of 

U.S. commercial nuclear plants. Sackschewsky 

(1997) reported that there were 484 Federally 

listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate species potentially occurring near 

one or more of the 75 nuclear reactor sites 

(including sites that have now been shut down 

or decommissioned). In a follow-up report, 

452 species(f) were identified at 63 sites for 

which data were available (the Pilgrim and 

Seabrook plants were not included); critical habitat for 18 species was identified near the 

facilities (Sackschewsky 2004). The number of species by taxonomic group is given in 

Table 3.6-2. Although a number of species were identified for most nuclear plants, the 

probability of occurring at sites was considered low for most species. At the time of the study, 

there were 59 known occurrences of listed species on nuclear plant sites. Some of the known 

 

(f) Five species that were included in this report have been removed from the list of threatened and 

endangered species: the Arizona agave (Agave arizonica), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), 

cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum), Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus 

eggertii), and gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the western Great Lakes and Minnesota. 

Terms Related to Threatened, Endangered, 

and Protected Species and Habitats 

 Endangered Species: Animal or plant 

species in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

 Threatened Species: Animal or plant 

species likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

 Candidate Species: Animal or plant 

species for which the USFWS or NMFS 

has on file sufficient information on 

vulnerability and threats to support a 

proposal to list it as endangered or 

threatened. 

 Proposed Species: Animal or plant 

species that is proposed in the Federal

Register to be listed under Section 4 of 

the Endangered Species Act. 

 Critical Habitat: Specific geographic 

areas, whether occupied by a listed 

species or not, that are essential for its 

conservation and that have been formally 

designated by rule published in the 

Federal Register. 

 Essential Fish Habitat: Those waters 

and substrates needed by Federally 

managed marine and anadromous fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to 

maturity. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-78 

Table 3.6-2. Number of Endangered Species 

Act-Listed Species That Could 

Occur near Operating Nuclear 

Power Plants 

Taxonomic Group No. of Species 

Plants 218 

Clams 58 

Snails 12 

Crustaceans 8 

Insects and arachnids 16 

Fish 44 

Amphibians 9 

Reptiles 21 

Birds 32 

Mammals 34 

Total 452 

Source: Sackschewsky 2004 

or potentially occurring species may have been affected by the construction and subsequent 

operation of the plants, with effects similar to those described in Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2. 

The USFWS maintains a threatened and endangered species system (TESS) Web site 

(USFWS 2007b) for all Federally listed species (as well as proposed and candidate species), 

which has lists organized by State, taxonomic group, species with critical habitats and recovery 

plans, and so forth. 

3.6.3.1 Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species 

Nuclear plants known to support listed terrestrial species on the site or along transmission line 

ROWs generally maintain monitoring programs to identify changes in populations or report 

impacts to the USFWS and State agencies. Factors that could affect listed terrestrial species 

include construction-related habitat loss, cooling tower drift, operation and maintenance of 

cooling systems, transmission line ROW maintenance, avian collisions with cooling towers and 

transmission lines, exposure to radionuclides, and site operations and maintenance. 

In cases where there have been concerns regarding potential impacts on listed species from 

plant operation, mitigation has been implemented. For example, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), which was listed by the USFWS as a threatened species until August 2007, 
Affected Environment 

 3-79 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

occurs near many nuclear plants. At the Monticello plant in Minnesota, a bald eagle nest is 

located on one of its transmission towers. Flight diverters were installed on transmission lines 

associated with the Monticello plant to reduce the potential for avian collisions, thereby reducing 

the likelihood of impacts on bald eagles (NRC 2006f). At the Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland, 

restrictions are placed on activities (such as timber harvest) within 0.25 mi (0.4 km) of active 

bald eagle nests. The cooling canals at the Turkey Point plant in Florida support a breeding 

population of the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). The cooling canal system, including 

freshwater ponds between canals, is managed to provide suitable habitat for all life stages of 

the crocodile (NRC 2002b). 

Listed plant species occur along transmission line ROWs associated with many of the nuclear 

plants. The open canopy maintained in the ROWs provides habitat conditions required by many 

of these species. However, these species could be adversely affected by ROW management or 

line maintenance activities. Individuals could be affected by mowing, cutting, equipment or 

vehicle operation, and herbicide applications. Many nuclear plants have developed ROW 

management programs in cooperation with the USFWS or State resource agency. 

Management activities are designed to avoid impacts on these species and maintain habitat 

conditions conducive to the survival of these populations. For example, at the Brunswick 

Nuclear Plant in North Carolina, the golden sedge (Carex lutea), Cooley’s meadowrue 

(Thalictrum cooleyi), and rough-leaf loosestrife (Lysimachis asperulaefolia), all listed by the 

USFWS as endangered, occur within transmission line ROWs. These populations are managed 

in cooperation with the State of North Carolina, and vegetation management practices have 

been adopted to protect these species (NRC 2006e). 

ROW management efforts at the St. Lucie plant in Florida provide and maintain habitat for the 

Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) and other species that prefer open shrubby 

habitat (NRC 2003a). A small number of bald eagles were killed by collisions with the Rock 

Creek transmission line associated with the Quad Cities plant in Illinois, at the Mississippi River 

crossing; however, the impact on the local population was considered small (NRC 2004c). 

3.6.3.2 Aquatic Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species, Marine Mammals, and 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The potential for Federally and State-listed aquatic species to occur in the vicinity of specific 

nuclear power plants depends on the distribution and habitat preferences of the listed species 

and the specific water bodies and habitat types that are present on or near the power plant. 

Species that occur in aquatic habitats with enough water to support power plant cooling water 

needs (e.g., large rivers and lakes, estuaries, and inshore marine areas) are more likely to be 

affected by power plant operations than species that occur in smaller bodies of water that would 

not be capable of providing sufficient cooling water (EPA 2002). Listed aquatic species would 

generally be considered less likely to be present in constructed habitats, such as cooling ponds, 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-80 

that historically would not have provided suitable habitat and that do not provide ready 

connections to more natural habitats from which colonization or immigration could occur. 

Examples of listed freshwater fish species that have been identified as occurring in the vicinity 

of nuclear power plants include the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), which occurs in the 

Missouri River near the Fort Calhoun plant in Nebraska (NRC 2003c), and the Neosho madtom 

(Noturus placidus), which may inhabit streams in the immediate vicinity of the Wolf Creek plant 

in Kansas (Sackschewsky 2004). None of the operating nuclear power plants or their 

transmission lines are located in areas designated as critical habitat under the Endangered 

Species Act for Federally listed aquatic species. 

North America has the highest diversity of freshwater mussels in the world. Williams et al. 

(1993) reported that about 72 percent of North American mussel species are considered 

endangered, threatened, or of special concern as a result of habitat destruction and reduced 

water quality (Williams et al. 1993). This high percentage of imperiled species is reflected in the 

large numbers of listed mussel species that could occur in the vicinity of nuclear power plants 

that obtain cooling water from freshwater aquatic habitats. Sackschewsky (2004) identified 

32 nuclear plants where listed mussel species could occur. There was the potential for more 

than 20 listed mussel species to occur in the immediate vicinity of three of these plants (Browns 

Ferry, Sequoyah, and Watts Bar) (Sackschewsky 2004). 

A number of listed fish, shellfish, and sea turtles occur in the vicinity of nuclear plants located on 

estuaries and marine habitats. Some marine mammals (e.g., seals and the West Indian 

manatee), which, depending on the species, may be protected under Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 or under the MMPA, occur in the vicinity of some coastal plant sites. Federally listed 

estuarine and marine fish species that are known to occur in the vicinity of nuclear plants 

include shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata). 

Although the West Indian manatee occurs in the vicinity of the Turkey Point plant in Florida, it 

has not been found in the cooling water canals and is considered unlikely to be affected by 

operations of the plant (NRC 2002b). The West Indian manatee also occurs in the vicinity of the 

Crystal River plant in Florida, and in the heated effluent of other non-nuclear power plants in 

Florida (Laist and Reynolds 2005). 

In addition to those marine mammals protected under the Endangered Species Act, marine 

mammals are also protected under the MMPA. The MMPA gives the NMFS the responsibility 

for managing cetaceans (porpoises and whales) and pinnipeds (seals, fur seals, and sea lions). 

The USFWS is responsible for managing all other marine mammals, including the sea otter, 

walrus, polar bear, dugong, and manatee. The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the 

“take” (i.e., harming) of marine mammals in U.S. waters. Concerns about the potential impacts 

of nuclear power plants on marine mammals have been expressed for only a small number of 

plants, and typically, intake structures and discharge systems are modified to reduce the 
Affected Environment 

 3-81 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

potential for harming marine mammals. In cases where there is a potential for small numbers of 

marine mammals to be inadvertently affected by plant operations, the NMFS or the USFWS 

may allow the unintentional take of up to a certain number of individuals. For example, a letter 

of authorization (LOA) under the MMPA was issued by the NMFS for the unintentional take of 

small numbers of seals incidental to operations of the cooling water intake system at the 

Seabrook plant in New Hampshire (67 FR 61, January 2, 2002). That LOA specified that up to 

20 harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and up to a combined total of four gray (Halichoerus grypus), 

harp (Pagophilus groenlandicus), and hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) may be taken 

annually (LOAs are subject to periodic renewal). As part of the take authorization, the licensee 

of the Seabrook plant is required to monitor the intake facilities for seals and report the 

impingement of any seals to the NMFS. No seals have been impinged at the Seabrook plant 

since the installation of seal deterrent barriers in August 1999 (see 67 FR 61). 

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS is responsible for the management of commercial 

and recreational fisheries within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United States, which 

includes marine waters that extend seaward for up to 200 nautical miles from State-managed 

coastal waters. The Magnuson-Stevens Act calls for the description, identification, and 

management of essential fish habitat (EFH) to help conserve and manage Federal fishery 

resources. EFH is defined as those waters and substrates that are necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The Magnuson-Stevens Act established 

Fishery Management Councils and requires them to describe and identify EFH in their 

respective regions and to specify actions to conserve and enhance that EFH. The MagnusonStevens Act also requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may 

adversely affect the EFH designated in fishery management plans. 

In addition to designating EFH, the NMFS requires Fishery Management Councils to identify 

habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs) within fishery management plans. These HAPCs 

are discrete subsets of EFH that provide important ecological functions or are especially 

vulnerable to degradation. Councils may designate a specific habitat area as an HAPC on the 

basis of the (1) importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat; (2) extent to which 

the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation; (3) whether, and to what 

extent, development activities are or will be stressing the habitat type; or (4) the rarity of the 

habitat type. While the HAPC designation does not confer additional protection for or 

restrictions on an area, it can help prioritize conservation efforts. 

Fishery management plans for Federally managed species are typically prepared by the 

appropriate regional Fishery Management Council(s) and submitted to the NMFS for review, 

approval, and implementation. Because some of these Federally managed fish and 

invertebrate species use coastal habitats (e.g., estuaries, coastal rivers, submerged aquatic 

vegetation, salt marshes, coral reefs, rocky intertidal areas, and hard or live bottom areas) 

during their lives, some coastal habitats outside of the EEZ have been designated as EFH for 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-82 

one or more managed species. Because of this, some activities on land and in the water have a 

potential to alter, damage, or destroy EFH components, thereby affecting the fishery resources 

that use them. Thus, operations of nuclear power plants located in marine, estuarine, and 

coastal areas have the potential to affect EFH. EFH assessments have been completed as part 

of the license renewal process for a number of nuclear power plants (e.g., Brunswick, Pilgrim, 

Vermont Yankee, and Oyster Creek) and as part of the extended power uprate evaluation for 

the Hope Creek plant. 

Overall, there are 17 nuclear power plants where potential impacts on EFH may be a 

consideration (Table 3.6-3), primarily because cooling water is withdrawn from or discharged to 

Table 3.6-3. Operating Nuclear Power Plants for Which 

Essential Fish Habitat May Be a Consideration 

Plant State Cooling Water Source 

Brunswick(a) North Carolina Cape Fear River 

Calvert Cliffs Maryland Chesapeake Bay 

Columbia Washington Columbia River 

Crystal River Florida Gulf of Mexico 

Diablo Canyon California Pacific Ocean 

Hope Creek(b) New Jersey Delaware River 

Indian Point New York Hudson River 

Millstone Connecticut Long Island Sound 

Oyster Creek(c) New Jersey Barnegat Bay 

Pilgrim(d) Massachusetts Cape Cod Bay 

St. Lucie Florida Atlantic Ocean 

Salem New Jersey Delaware River 

San Onofre California Pacific Ocean 

Seabrook New Hampshire Atlantic Ocean 

Surry Virginia James River 

Turkey Point Florida Biscayne Bay 

Vermont Yankee(e) Vermont Connecticut River 

(a) EFH assessment completed as part of SEIS for Brunswick license renewal 

(NRC 2006e). 

(b) EFH assessment completed as part of the evaluation for the Hope Creek 

extended power uprate. 

(c) EFH assessment completed as part of SEIS for Oyster Creek license renewal 

(NRC 2007c). 

(d) EFH assessment completed as part of SEIS for Pilgrim license renewal 

(NRC 2007e). 

(e) EFH assessment completed as part of SEIS for Vermont Yankee license 

renewal (NRC 2007f). 
Affected Environment 

 3-83 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

estuarine or marine habitats. However, cooling water withdrawn from or discharged to 

freshwater sources that provide habitat for some Federally managed anadromous species 

(e.g., salmon) could also affect EFH. 

3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

Historic and cultural resources include 

prehistoric era and historic era archaeological 

sites, historic districts, and buildings, as well as 

any site, structure, or object that may be 

considered eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Historic 

and cultural resources also include traditional 

cultural properties (TCPs) that are important to 

a living community of people for maintaining 

their culture. “Historic property” is the legal 

term for a historic and/or cultural resource that 

is eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

3.7.1 National Historic Preservation Act 

and NEPA 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

of 1966, as amended (United States Code, 

Title 16, Section 470 [16 USC 470 et seq.]), 

Section 106, requires Federal agencies to take 

into account the effects of their “undertakings” 

on historic properties. Regulations define an 

undertaking as “a project, activity, or program 

funded in whole or in part under the direct or 

indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, 

including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal 

financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval.” (see 

36 CFR 800.16(y)). License renewal is a Federal undertaking that requires compliance with the 

NHPA. 

The NEPA process can be used to fulfill the requirements of NHPA Section 106 when preparing 

EISs (see 36 CFR 800.8). This allows the NRC to make the Section 106 review processes 

more efficient. The key to using the NEPA process to comply with Section 106 is early 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

Historic and cultural resources are areas, 

places, structures, natural features, and 

objects with an associated historical, cultural, 

archaeological, architectural, community, or 

aesthetic value. Examples include prehistoric 

and historic era archaeological sites, historic 

structures, and traditional cultural properties.

Prehistoric era resources are the remains of 

human activities from the time period prior to 

the arrival of Europeans in North America in 

the 1490s.

Historic era resources are those resources 

created after Europeans arrived in North 

America and are most often associated with 

Europeans or their descendants.

Traditional cultural properties are historic 

and cultural resources that are associated with 

cultural practices or beliefs of a living 

community that are rooted in that community's 

history, and are important in maintaining the 

cultural identity of the community. Examples 

include traditionally used plants, gathering 

areas, and landscape features.
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-84 

coordination and consultation. The Section 106 process also affords the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. 

The NRC will comply with the consultation requirements in the NHPA regulations in 

36 CFR Part 800. The NRC will consult with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), Tribal 

representatives, and other interested parties to determine the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and 

if license renewal would affect any historic properties. Tribal Historic Preservation Officers 

(THPOs) can serve the function of a SHPO on Tribal lands. Other consulting parties, as 

identified in 36 CFR 800.2, can include representatives of the local government, the license 

renewal applicant, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the public, and organizations 

with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking. The NRC will consider information provided by 

these consulting parties when making determinations. 

While the NRC cannot impose mitigation measures that are not related to public health and 

safety from radiological hazards or common defense and security, mitigation measures can be 

implemented to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects to historic properties. Other 

consulting parties as identified in 36 CFR 800.2, can provide information to assist in these 

determinations. 

The license renewal APE is the area that may be impacted by land-disturbing or other 

operational activities associated with continued plant operations and maintenance during the 

license renewal term and/or refurbishment. The APE typically encompasses the nuclear power 

plant site, its immediate environs including viewshed, and in-scope transmission lines. The APE 

may extend beyond the nuclear plant site and transmission lines when these activities may 

affect historic properties. This determination is made irrespective of land ownership or control. 

If historic and cultural resources are present, the 

eligibility of any historic properties for listing on the 

NRHP is determined through the application of the 

NRHP criteria in 36 CFR 60.4 in consultation with 

SHPOs, tribal representatives, and other interested 

parties. SHPOs maintain a record of all historic 

and cultural resources in the State and ensure the 

protection of historic and cultural resources in the 

State. The NHPA requires that information on the 

locations of historic and cultural resources, as well 

as sensitive sacred and religious information, be 

withheld from the public to protect the resources 

(36 CFR 800.11(c)(1)). Other legal authorities 

regarding protection of information from public 

release may also apply. 

Historic Property (36 CFR 800.16(l)(1))

Any prehistoric or historic district, site, 

building, structure, or object included in, 

or eligible for inclusion in, the National 

Register of Historic Places maintained by 

the Secretary of the Interior. Historic 

properties also include artifacts, records, 

and remains that are related to and 

located within such properties. The term 

includes properties of traditional religious 

and cultural importance to an Indian 

Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization 

and that meet the National Register

criteria. 
Affected Environment 

 3-85 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Extensive ground-disturbing activities occurred during nuclear power plant construction, and 

much of the land immediately surrounding the power block was disturbed down to bedrock. 

This activity would have eliminated any potential for historic or cultural resources to be present 

in this portion of the power plant site. Since many nuclear power plant sites were not 

investigated for the presence of historic and cultural resources prior to construction, a survey of 

any area which may be disturbed by ongoing operations and maintenance activities, including 

previously disturbed areas of the nuclear power plant site (other than the land immediately 

surrounding the power block), should be conducted by qualified professionals. The NRC will 

use this survey information in consultation with the SHPO and other consulting parties to 

effectively determine areas that could potentially contain historic and cultural resources. 

3.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources 

Historic and cultural resources are the remains of past human activity and include prehistoric 

era and historic era archaeological sites, historic districts, buildings, or objects with an 

associated historical, cultural, archaeological, architectural, community, or aesthetic value. 

Historic and cultural resources also include traditional cultural properties (TCPs) that are 

important to a living community of people for maintaining their culture. A historic property is a 

historic or cultural resource that is eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Prehistoric era resources are those associated with the period before Europeans arrived in 

North America in the 1490s. Evidence of prehistoric peoples in North and South America 

suggests that humans have been in the Americas for at least 12,000 years. Some of the most 

heavily used areas on the landscape for prehistoric era people were along rivers, lakes, and the 

seashore. These locations provided freshwater and the most abundant food sources, as well as 

the most efficient ways to travel. Waterways formed the primary transportation routes in North 

America for thousands of years. As a result, prehistoric era archaeological sites tend to be 

found along these waterways. The types of prehistoric archaeological resources found include 

small temporary camps, larger seasonal camps that were returned to year after year, large 

village sites that were occupied continuously over several years or potentially centuries, or 

specialized-use areas associated with fishing or hunting or with tool and pottery manufacture. 

Historic era resources are those associated with Europeans or their descendants. Similar to the 

prehistoric era, historic era sites tend to cluster near waterways as water was the most efficient 

form of transportation at the time. Historic era resources include farmsteads, mills, forts, 

residences, industrial sites (such as mines or canals), and shipwrecks.

TCPs are historic and cultural resources that are important for a group to maintain its cultural 

heritage. TCPs are closely associated with Native American cultures; however, a TCP can be 

associated with any living community. Examples of traditional cultural properties include 

traditional gathering areas where particular plants or materials were harvested, a sacred 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-86

mountain or landscape that was crucial to a Tribe‘s identity, or burial locations that connect 

individuals or groups with their ancestors. As the location of traditional cultural properties is 

often kept private, SHPOs can often be unaware of these locations. Identification of TCPs is an 

important part of consultation with SHPOs, tribal representatives, or other interested parties.

The fact that past human activities were focused along waterways is important to note as most 

nuclear power plants are located along major rivers, lakes, or the ocean. Consequently, the 

potential for the presence of historic and cultural resources near most nuclear power plants is 

high. A review of historic and cultural resources at 40 nuclear plants that have already 

undergone license renewal indicates that generally very few archaeological sites have been 

identified at the power plant locations. In the cases where field investigations were undertaken, 

the average number of historic and cultural resources present was 35 per plant. At plants 

where field investigations did not take place, no sites were known. Some of the historic and 

cultural resources identified include village sites, town sites, and cemeteries.

Activities that take place as part of continued operations and refurbishment activities that could 

affect archaeological sites include grading for parking lots, construction of security barriers, any 

new construction or ground clearing, vegetation removal, and landscaping activities. Even a 

small amount of ground clearing could critically alter a small but very significant historic and 

cultural resource. For instance, a small short-term-occupation site can be a time capsule for 

understanding past lifeways, even if the site is only half an acre.

3.8 Socioeconomics

This section describes socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or indirectly 

affected by changes in nuclear power plant operations. The nuclear plant and the communities 

that support it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The communities provide 

the people, goods, and services needed to operate the nuclear power plant. Power plant 

operations, in turn, provide wages and benefits for people and dollar expenditures for goods and 

services. The measure of a communities‘ ability to support power plant operations depends on 

the ability of the community to respond to changing environmental, social, economic, and 

demographic conditions.

The socioeconomics region of influence around a nuclear power plant is defined by the counties 

where plant employees and their families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, 

thereby affecting the economic conditions of the region. Changes in nuclear power plant

operations affect socioeconomic conditions in the regions surrounding them, including 

employment and income; population and housing; community services; and transportation. 
Affected Environment 

 3-87 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

3.8.1 Power Plant Employment and Expenditures 

Nuclear power plant operations generate employment and expenditures at each plant site. 

Wage and salary and nonlabor expenditures create demand for a range of durable and 

nondurable goods provided by wholesalers and retailers, while wage and salary spending also 

create demand for health and professional services and for housing. Power plants also provide 

tax revenues for education, public safety, government services, and transportation. 

Employment at nuclear power plants varies according to a number of factors, including the 

number of reactor units, power production, and the type and age of the plant. At 11 nuclear 

plants for which detailed economic annual data have been collected, employment averaged 

1,337 workers, ranging from 528 workers at Three Mile Island to 2,385 workers at Palo Verde 

(Table 3.8-1). Annual wage and salary expenditures at the State level reflected the size of the 

labor force at each plant, ranging from $59.2 million at Grand Gulf to $194.2 million at Palo 

Verde. Annual labor expenditures averaged $122.6 million, or $95,029 per permanent full-time 

worker. In addition to labor expenditures, each plant also had expenditures for materials, 

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

from 2003 through 2006(a) 

Plant Employment 

Labor 

Expenditures 

($ million) 

Nonlabor 

Expenditures 

($ million) 

Total 

Expenditures 

($ million) 

Tax Revenues

($ million) 

Diablo Canyon 1,638 123.1 48.8 171.9 27.0 

Grand Gulf 621 59.2 1.8 61.0 26.2 

Indian Point 1,559 145.9 54.9 200.8 35.3 

Limerick 705(b)

 NA(c) NA NA NA 

Millstone 1,406 96.4 63.0 159.4 25.0 

Oconee 1,328(b)

 NA NA NA NA 

Palo Verde 2,385 194.2 21.1 215.3 90.6 

Peach Bottom 666(b)

 NA NA NA NA 

Susquehanna 1,528 196.7 56.1 252.8 35.3 

Three Mile Island 528 61.6 26.2 87.8 0.9 

Wolf Creek 1,028 103.6 5.6 109.2 24.8 

(a) Data for Millstone are for 2003; data for Diablo Canyon, Indian Point, Oconee, and Palo Verde are for 2004; data for 

Three Mile Island and Wolf Creek are for 2005; data for Grand Gulf, Limerick, Peach Bottom, and Susquehanna are 

for 2006. 

(b) National employment data. 

(c) NA = not available. 

Sources: Nuclear Energy Institute, 2003, 2004a,b,c,d, 2005a,b, 2006a,b,c 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-88 

equipment, and services to support power plant operations. Some plants, such as Millstone 

($63.0 million), Susquehanna ($56.1 million), and Indian Point ($54.9 million), had significant 

nonlabor expenditures, while others spent less than $10 million. Annual nonlabor expenditures 

at the 11 plants averaged $34.7 million. 

Nuclear power plants provide annual tax revenues to State and local governments. State and 

local taxes paid by power plants ranged from $0.9 million at Three Mile Island to $90.6 million at 

Palo Verde, averaging $27.6 million. Differences in tax revenues among plants are related to 

variations in State and local taxation laws, electricity output, plant size, and plant employment. 

Additional employment and expenditures occur during refueling activities at each plant, when 

additional workers are employed over a 1 to 2-month period. Refueling outages generally occur 

on approximately 18-month to 24-month cycle. 

3.8.2 Regional Economic Characteristics 

Nuclear power plant operations affect socioeconomic conditions in the county in which the plant 

is located and in the counties in which the majority of the plant’s employees reside. Regional 

economic conditions can vary depending on the location of the nuclear plant. In general, 

nuclear power plants in the United States are located in one of two broad regional economic 

settings: rural or semi-urban. Recent employment, expenditures and tax revenue information 

for a representative sample of 11 nuclear power plants is presented in Table 3.8-1. 

3.8.2.1 Rural Economies 

Many nuclear power plants are located in rural areas, where agriculture is the primary economic 

activity. Rural areas often have relatively simple economies, without many of the industries that 

provide equipment and services important to plant operations, and with smaller, less diversified 

labor markets that are often composed of lower-paying occupations requiring less skill. In 

addition to agriculture and related activities, a range of other activities, including those 

associated with the resource extraction, manufacturing, and transportation industries, may 

provide employment and income. 

Among the 11 plants listed in Table 3.8-1, the seven shown in Table 3.8-2 are located in rural 

economies. Only two of these seven plants, Diablo Canyon and Oconee, provided 1 percent or 

more of regional employment, and average plant earnings at these plants (particularly Oconee, 

Wolf Creek, and Diablo Canyon) were higher than the regional average. 

Employment, wages, salaries, and nonlabor expenditures are directly associated with plant 

operations. As direct expenditures circulate through the economy, producing additional 

economic activity, spending in the local and regional economy also produces indirect 
Affected Environment 

 3-89 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

Plant 

Plant 

Regional 

Employment 

Total 

Regional 

Employment 

Percent 

of Total 

Regional 

Employment 

Annual 

Avg. Plant 

Earnings 

per Worker 

($) 

Annual Avg. 

Regional 

Earnings 

per Worker 

($) 

Percent of 

Regional 

Avg. 

Earnings 

Diablo Canyon 1,260 118,500 1.1 85,200 52,400 163 

Grand Gulf 593 162,100 0.4 70,400 50,000 141 

Oconee 1,312 161,108 0.8 83,100 45,700 182 

Peach Bottom 523 652,903 0.1 75,700 63,500 119 

Susquehanna 305 151,869 0.2 69,500 52,000 134 

Three Mile Island 512 742,700 0.1 71,300 53,500 133 

Wolf Creek 838 82,243 1.0 72,400 43,100 168 

Source: Nuclear Energy Institute 2004a,c, 2005a,b, 2006a,c 

employment and income. The size of the indirect local impact depends closely on both the 

extent to which plant employees live in the local area (and consequently the size of the wage 

and salary bill paid to local residents) and the presence of local vendors of material and 

supplies. These determine the ability of the local economy to absorb nonlabor spending. 

Indirect impacts occur annually in the local area at a number of power plants as a result of direct 

plant expenditures. For example, 882 indirect jobs were created at Diablo Canyon and 952 jobs 

were created at Oconee; these are the two plants with the largest direct employment 

(Table 3.8-3). Almost 2,300 total jobs are created in the local area at these two plants annually. 

On average, an additional 0.4 job is created locally for every direct job at each plant. 

Expenditures at the Oconee plant produced $25.3 million in indirect income in the local area, 

$135.6 million in total. At Diablo Canyon, $19.1 million in income was produced in the host 

county, and $128.1 million was produced in total. On average, an additional 11 cents in income 

was produced in the local area for every dollar of direct income paid at each plant site. 

Plant expenditures associated with wages, salaries, procurement, and tax revenues create 

additional direct and indirect impacts beyond the local area. At Diablo Canyon, 1,616 indirect 

jobs in the State were created by expenditures at the plant, in addition to 1,638 direct jobs 

(Table 3.8-4). At Susquehanna, the plant created 2,639 indirect jobs in the State, in addition to 

1528 direct jobs; at Wolf Creek, 1,028 direct and 986 indirect jobs were created in the host 

State. On average, 1.3 additional jobs are created in the State for every direct job at each plant. 

Although the largest impacts occurred at the three plants that had the largest direct 

employment, the sizes of the indirect impact and total impact of each plant are related to 

variations in the extent of wage, salary, and procurement expenditures within each State. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-90 

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

Locations(a)

Plant 

Employment Income ($ million) 

Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total 

Diablo Canyon 1,405 882 2,287 109.0 19.1 128.1 

Grand Gulf 411 152 563 38.8 3.8 42.6 

Oconee 1,328 952 2,280 110.3 25.3 135.6 

Peach Bottom 248 71 319 28.4 2.0 30.4 

Susquehanna 305 76 381 37.3 2.2 39.5 

Three Mile Island 208 67 275 22.8 2.0 24.8 

Wolf Creek 561 121 682 55.4 2.3 57.7 

(a) Impacts from Diablo Canyon occur in San Luis Obispo County; from Grand Gulf occur in 

Warren and Claiborne Counties; from Oconee occur in Anderson, Oconee, and Pickens 

Counties; from Peach Bottom occur in York County; from Susquehanna occur in Luzerne 

County; from Three Mile Island occur in Dauphin County; and from Wolf Creek occur in 

Coffey County. 

Source: Nuclear Energy Institute 2004a,c; 2005a,b; 2006a,c 

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

Plant 

Employment Income ($ million) 

State and Local Taxes 

($ million) 

Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total 

Diablo Canyon 1,638 1,616 3,254 123.1 50.8 173.9 27.0 11.6 38.6 

Grand Gulf 625 695 1,316 59.2 19.5 78.7 26.2 3.3 29.5 

Susquehanna 1,528 2,639 4,167 196.7 96.6 293.3 35.3 14.8 50.2 

Three Mile Island 528 848 1,376 69.6 29.6 91.2 0.9 4.8 5.7 

Wolf Creek 1,028 986 2,014 103.6 25.6 129.3 24.8 5.0 29.9 

Source: Nuclear Energy Institute 2004a,c; 2005a,b; 2006a,c 

Annual expenditures at each plant also produced indirect income and tax revenues at the State 

level. The Susquehanna plant produced $96.6 million of indirect income in the State, 

$293.3 million in total. The Diablo Canyon plant produced $50.8 million of income in the State, 

and $173.9 million in total (Table 3.8-4). Expenditures at Susquehanna also produced 

$14.8 million of indirect tax revenues at the State and local level, with $11.6 million of indirect 

tax revenues generated by the Diablo Canyon plant. An additional 40 cents in income is 

produced in the State on average for every dollar of direct income paid at each plant site, and 
Affected Environment 

 3-91 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

an additional $1.25 in tax revenues is produced on average for each dollar of direct State and 

local taxes paid at each plant. 

3.8.2.2 Semi-Urban Economies 

Many nuclear power plants are located in semi-urban areas. These areas have more complex 

economic structures than rural areas, containing a wider range of industries, with larger and 

more diverse labor markets. Semi-urban areas may also serve specialized economic functions, 

including maritime shipping, fishing, and boatbuilding; recreation; and tourism. Numerous 

locations serve residential areas containing second homes and hosting retirement communities. 

The economies of many of the semi-urban areas in which nuclear plants are located have 

changed since these plants were constructed. Gradual residential and commercial 

development and the associated diversification of economic activity in these areas have 

changed the local and regional economic profile, with a decline in the importance of agriculture 

and other related activities and their replacement by manufacturing, retailing, and professional 

services. At other sites, especially those in coastal locations, participation in outdoor 

recreational activities by both the local and nonresidential population has also changed the 

focus of local and regional economic activity; this, together with the often-associated growth of 

retirement communities, rivals the importance of traditional economic activities in the vicinity of a 

power plant site in providing employment and income. 

Among the 11 plants shown in Table 3.8-1, the four shown in Table 3.8-5 are located in 

semi-urban economies. None of the plants provided 1 percent or more of regional employment, 

and average plant earnings at these plants (particularly Millstone and Indian Point) were higher 

than the regional average. 

Employment, wages, salaries, and nonlabor expenditures are directly associated with plant 

operations. As direct expenditures circulate through the economy, producing additional 

economic activity, spending in the local and regional economy also produces indirect 

employment and income. Local impacts shown in Table 3.8-6 are those impacts that occur in 

the county hosting the power plant and in the adjacent counties. The size of the indirect local 

impact depends closely on both the extent to which plant employees live in the host county or 

counties (and consequently the size of the wage and salary bill paid to local residents) and the 

presence of local vendors of material and supplies. These determine the ability of the local 

economy to absorb nonlabor spending. 

Indirect impacts occur annually in the local area at a number of power plants as a result of direct 

plant expenditures. For example, 1,570 indirect jobs were created at Palo Verde, 1,272 were 

created at Millstone, and 1,198 were created at Indian Point. These are the three plants with 

the largest direct employment (Table 3.8-6). More than 3,900 total jobs are created annually in 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-92 

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

Plant 

Plant 

Regional 

Employment 

Total 

Regional 

Employment 

Percent 

of Total 

Regional 

Employment 

Annual Avg. 

Plant 

Earnings per 

Worker ($) 

Annual Avg. 

Regional 

Earnings per 

Worker ($) 

Percent 

of Regional 

Avg. 

Earnings 

Indian Point 1,053 899,331 0.2 121,700 85,800 142 

Limerick 590 786,824 0.1 75,900 74,300 102 

Millstone 1,066 130,721 0.8 80,200 52,100 154 

Palo Verde 2,385 1,427,292 0.1 66,000 58,600 113 

Source: Nuclear Energy Institute 2003; 2004b,d; 2006b 

Table 3.8-6. Local Economic Impacts of Plant Operations 

in Semi-Urban Locations(a)

Plant 

Employment Income ($ million) 

Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total 

Indian Point 1,355 1,198 2,553 126.6 44.8 171.4 

Limerick 253 132 385 31.3 5.7 36.9 

Millstone 1,066 1,272 2,338 73.1 45.1 118.2 

Palo Verde 2,373 1,570 3,943 193.2 51.9 245.2 

(a) Impacts from Indian Point occur in Westchester, Duchess, Orange, Putnam, and 

Rockland Counties; from Limerick occur in Montgomery County; from Millstone 

occur in New London County; from Palo Verde occur in Maricopa County. 

Source: Nuclear Energy Institute 2003; 2004b,d; 2006b 

the local area at the Palo Verde plant. On average, an additional 0.8 job is created for every 

direct job at each plant. Expenditures at the Palo Verde plant produced $51.7 million in indirect 

income in the local area, $244.9 in total. At Millstone, $45.1 million in income was produced in 

the local area, and $44.8 million was produced at Indian Point. At Indian Point, a total of 

$171.4 million in income was produced annually, compared with $118.2 million at Millstone, 

because employment and direct wage and salary expenditures were higher at Indian Point. On 

average, an additional 40 cents in income is produced in the local area for every dollar of direct 

income paid at each plant site. 

In addition to impacts in the local area, nuclear power plants also generate employment and 

income in the economies as a whole of the States in which plants are located, since plant 

expenditures associated with wages, salaries, procurement, and tax revenues create additional 

direct and indirect impacts beyond the local area. In 2006, expenditures at Millstone created 

1,841 indirect jobs in the State, in addition to 1,406 direct jobs (Table 3.8-7). At Palo Verde, the 
Affected Environment 

 3-93 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

 Employment Income ($ million) 

State and Local 

Taxes ($ million) 

Plant(a) Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total 

Indian Point 1,559 1,620 3,179 145.9 65.2 211.1 35.3 14.4 49.7 

Millstone 1,406 1,841 3,247 96.4 78.4 174.8 17.1 39.7 56.8 

Palo Verde 2,385 1,800 4,185 194.2 55.1 249.3 54.1 7.8 62.0 

(a) Data for Limerick are not included because impact estimates are not available at the State level. 

Source: Nuclear Energy Institute 2003; 2004b,d; 2006b 

plant created 1,800 indirect jobs in the State, in addition to 2,385 direct jobs. At Indian Point, 

1,559 direct and 1,620 indirect jobs were created in the host State. On average, one additional 

job is created in the State for every direct job at each plant. Although the largest impacts 

occurred at the three plants with the largest direct employment, the sizes of the indirect impact 

and total impact of each plant are related to variations in the extent of wage, salary, and 

procurement expenditures within each State. 

Annual expenditures at each plant also produced indirect income and tax revenues at the State 

level. The Millstone plant produced $78.4 million in indirect income in the host county, $174.8 in 

total (Table 3.8-7). At Indian Point, $65.2 million in income was produced in the local area, and 

$211.1 million in total. Expenditures at Millstone also produced $39.7 million in indirect tax 

revenues at the State and local level, with $14.4 million in indirect tax revenues generated by 

the Indian Point plant, and $7.8 million by Palo Verde. On average, an additional 51 cents in 

income is produced in the State for every dollar of direct income paid at each plant site, and an 

additional 96 cents in tax revenues is produced for each dollar of direct State and local taxes 

paid at each plant. 

3.8.3 Demographic Characteristics 

Although the majority of U.S. nuclear power plants are situated in smaller, rural communities, 

population densities within 20 mi (50 km) of most nuclear plant sites are generally high, and 

most are within 50 mi (80 km) of a community with a population of 100,000 (see Section D.7 in 

Appendix D). Demographic characteristics vary in the region around each nuclear power plant 

and may be affected by the remoteness of the nuclear plant to regional population centers. 

Two measures of remoteness were developed for the 1996 GEIS, “sparseness” and “proximity,” 

which combine demographic data on population density and the distance to larger cities to place 

nuclear plants into three population classes. Population classifications of 11 representative 

nuclear power plant sites are presented in Table 3.8-8. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-94 

Table 3.8-8. Population Classification of Regions around Selected Nuclear 

Power Plants 

Population Plant 

Population 

Density Within 

20 mi 

Sparseness 

Measure 

Population 

Density Within 

50 mi 

Proximity 

Measure 

Low Palo Verde 13.3 1 227.5 4 

 Wolf Creek 11.0 1 22.0 1 

 Oconee 154.1 4 156.7 3 

Medium Diablo Canyon 286.7 4 106.8 3 

High Susquehanna 250.4 4 215.7 4 

 Peach Bottom 299.3 4 698.6 4 

 Millstone 440.4 4 699.9 4 

 Three Mile Island 639.5 4 315.1 4 

 Limerick 869.9 4 977.5 4 

 Indian Point 839.7 4 2,265.5 4 

Source: Argonne National Laboratory calculations.

Many communities have transient populations associated with regional tourist and recreational 

activities, weekend and summer homes, or populations of students who attend regional colleges 

and other educational institutions. Nuclear power plants located in coastal regions, notably 

Cook and Palisades on Lake Michigan and Oyster Creek on the New Jersey shore north of 

Atlantic City, have summer, weekend, and retirement populations and a range of recreational 

and environmental amenities that attract visitors from nearby metropolitan population centers. 

Some areas, such as the region around Vermont Yankee, attract visitors seeking outdoor 

recreational activities, such as skiing. 

In addition to transient populations, farms and factories in rural communities often employ 

migrant workers on a seasonal basis. For example, berry production near the Cook and 

Palisades Nuclear Plants is a local agricultural activity that employs a sizable migrant labor 

force in the summer. 

3.8.4 Housing and Community Services 

Housing in the vicinity of nuclear power plants ranges in number of housing units and the type 

and quality of available housing. Much of the difference is due to the nature of the local 

economy, particularly regional population and income levels; proximity to metropolitan areas; 

and the importance of recreation, tourism, second homes, and retirement communities. 
Affected Environment 

 3-95 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Although long-term housing demand can be 

affected by changes in the number of 

permanent onsite employees, demand for 

rental housing increases during periodic 

outages, when refueling and maintenance 

workers require rental accommodations. This 

demand affects the availability and cost this 

type of housing. Some workers may occupy 

motels and other temporary accommodations, 

including housing provided onsite at some 

power plants. 

Rural communities generally have small 

housing markets, stable prices for most types 

of housing, lower median house values, and 

stable vacancy rates. Housing markets in 

semi-urban regions are less stable with more 

housing turnover, higher prices for most types 

of housing, and lower vacancy rates. Controls 

on housing development are more likely in 

semi-urban communities, particularly where 

there is a transient seasonal population. 

3.8.5 Tax Revenues 

Nuclear power plants provide tax revenues to 

local and State governments. Although the 

most important source of revenue for local 

communities is property taxes, other sources of 

revenue include levies of electricity output and 

direct funding for local educational facilities and 

programs. In 2006, State and local taxes paid 

by power plants ranged from $0.9 million at 

Three Mile Island to $90.6 million at Palo 

Verde, averaging $24.1 million (Table 3.8-9). Differences in tax revenues among plants are 

related to variations in local and State taxation laws, electricity output, power plant size, and 

plant employment. Tax revenues may be used by local, regional, and State governmental 

entities to fund education, public safety, local government services, and transportation. In 

smaller rural communities, power plant tax revenues can affect the level and quality of public 

services available to local residents, with property tax revenues paid by power plants 

contributing more than 50 percent of total property taxes in some communities (e.g., at the Cook 

Sparseness Indices

Most 1 There are fewer than 

Sparse 40 people/mi2

 (15 people/km2) and 

there is no community with 

25,000 or more people within 

20 mi (32 km) of the plant. 

 2 There are 40 to 60 people/mi2

(15 to 23 people/km2) and there is 

no community with 25,000 or more 

people within 20 mi (32 km) of the 

plant. 

 3 There are 60 to 120 people/mi2

(23 to 46 people/km2

) and there is 

at least one community with more 

than 25,000 people/mi2

(10,000 people/km2

) within 20 mi 

(32 km) of the plant. 

Least 4 There are more than 

Sparse 120 people/mi2

 (46 people/km2) 

within 20 mi (32 km) of the plant. 

Proximity Indices 

Not in 1 There are fewer than 

Close 50 people/mi2

 (19 people/km2) and 

Proximity there is no city with more than 

100,000 people within 50 mi 

(80 km) of the plant. 

2 There are 50 to 190 people/mi2

(19 to 73 people/km2) and there is 

no city with 100,000 people within 

50 mi (80 km) of the plant. 

3 There are fewer than 

190 people/mi2

 (73 people/km2) 

and there are one or more cities 

with more than 100,000 people 

within 50 mi (80 km) of the plant. 

In Close 4 There are more than 

Proximity 190 people/mi2

 (73 people/km2) 

within 50 mi (80 km) of the plant. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-96 

Table 3.8-9. State and Local Tax 

Revenues Generated 

at Eight Nuclear 

Power Plants 

Plant(a)

Tax Revenues 

($ million) 

Diablo Canyon 27.0 

Grand Gulf 26.2 

Indian Point 35.3 

Millstone 25.0 

Palo Verde 90.6 

Susquehanna 35.3 

Three Mile Island 0.9 

Wolf Creek 24.8 

(a) Data for Limerick, Oconee, and Peach 

Bottom are not included because impact 

estimates are not available at the State 

level. 

Source: Nuclear Energy Institute 2003; 

2004a,b,c; 2005a,b; 2006a,b,c 

and Palisades plants in Michigan and the Nine Mile Point plant in New York). Even in semiurban regions, revenues from power plants provide support for public services at the local level 

(e.g., at the Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey). 

The restructuring of utilities has occurred in some States with the deregulation of electricity 

markets, and this has led to changes in the methods used to estimate property values at some 

nuclear power plants. At some plants, these changes have had an impact on the property taxes 

that utilities pay to State and local taxing jurisdictions. Any changes in tax revenues following 

utility deregulation would not occur as a direct result of license renewal. 

3.8.6 Local Transportation 

Local and regional transportation networks in the vicinity of nuclear power plant sites may vary 

considerably depending on the regional population density, location, and size of local 

communities, nature of economic development patterns, location of the region relative to 

interregional transportation corridors, and land surface features, such as mountains, rivers, and 

lakes. The impacts of employee commuting patterns on the transportation network in the 

vicinity of nuclear power plants depend on the extent to which these factors limit or facilitate 

traffic movements and on the size of the plant workforce that uses the network at any given 
Affected Environment 

 3-97 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

time. Impacts at the local level in the immediate vicinity of power plant sites vary depending on 

the capacity of the local road network, local traffic patterns, and particularly the availability of 

alternate routes for power plant workers. Given the rural locations of most power plant sites, 

site traffic has a small impact on the local road system, since often there is not much other 

traffic on local roads in the immediate vicinity of the plant. Because most sites have only one 

access road, there may be congestion on this road at certain times, such as during shift 

changes. 

3.9 Human Health 

3.9.1 Radiological Exposure and Risk 

Radiological exposures from nuclear power plants include offsite doses to members of the 

public and onsite doses to the workforce. Each of these impacts is common to all commercial 

U.S. reactors. The Atomic Energy Act requires the NRC to promulgate, inspect, and enforce 

standards that provide an adequate level of protection for public health and safety and the 

environment. The NRC continuously evaluates the latest radiation protection recommendations 

from international and national scientific bodies to establish the requirements for nuclear power 

plant licensees. The NRC has established multiple layers of radiation protection limits to protect 

the public against potential health risks from exposure to effluent discharges from nuclear power 

plant operations. If the licensees exceed a certain fraction of these dose levels in a calendar 

quarter, they are required to notify the NRC, investigate the cause, and initiate corrective 

actions within the specified time frame. Section 3.9.1.1 discusses regulatory requirements at 

nuclear power plants. Sections 3.9.1.2 and 3.9.1.3 discuss occupational and public exposure, 

respectively. These sections evaluate the performance of licensees in implementing these 

requirements, and they compare the doses and releases with permissible levels. Risk 

estimates are provided in Section 3.9.1.4. 

3.9.1.1 Regulatory Requirements 

Nuclear power reactors in the United States must be licensed by the NRC and must comply with 

NRC regulations and conditions specified in the license in order to operate. The licensees are 

required to comply with 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart C, “Occupational Dose Limits for Adults,” and 

10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D, “Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public.” 

Regulatory Requirements for Occupational Exposure 

10 CFR 20.1201 establishes occupational dose limits (see Table 3.9-1). 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-98 

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

Tissue Dose Limit(a)

Whole body or any individual 

organ or tissue other than the 

lens of the eye 

More limiting of 5 rem/yr TEDE to whole body or 50 rem/yr sum of the deep dose 

equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue 

other than the lens of the eye 

Lens of the eye 15 rem/yr dose equivalent 

Extremities, including skin 50 rem/yr shallow dose equivalent 

(a) See text box for definitions. Note: To convert rem to sievert, multiply by 0.01. 

Under 10 CFR 20.2206, the NRC requires licensees to submit an annual report of the results of 

individual monitoring carried out by the licensee for each individual for whom monitoring was 

required by 10 CFR 20.1502 during that year. 

Under 10 CFR 20.2202 and 10 CFR 20.2203, the NRC requires all licensees to submit reports 

of all occurrences involving personnel radiation exposures that exceed certain control levels. 

The control levels are used to investigate occurrences and to take corrective actions as 

Definitions 

 Total effective dose equivalent (TEDE): Sum of the dose equivalent (for external exposure) and 

the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposure). 

 Committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE): Sum of the products of the weighting factors for 

body organs or tissues that are irradiated and the committed dose equivalent to these organs or 

tissues. 

 Deep dose equivalent: Applies to external whole-body exposure and is the dose equivalent at a 

tissue depth of 1 cm. 

 Committed dose equivalent: Dose equivalent to organs or tissues from an intake of radioactive 

material for the 50-year period following the intake. 

 Dose equivalent: Product of the absorbed dose in the tissue, quality factor, and all other 

necessary modifying factors at the location of interest. 

 Shallow dose equivalent: Applies to the external exposure of the skin, as the dose equivalent at 

a tissue depth of 0.007 cm averaged over an area of 1 cm2

. 

 Organ dose: Dose received as a result of radiation energy absorbed in a specific organ. 

 Total body dose or whole body dose: Sum of the dose received from external exposure to the 

total body, gonads, active blood-forming organs, head and trunk, or lens of the eye and the dose 

due to the intake of radionuclides by inhalation and ingestion, where a radioisotope is uniformly 

distributed throughout the body tissues rather than being concentrated in certain parts. 
Affected Environment 

 3-99 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

necessary. Depending on the magnitude of the exposure, the occurrence reporting is required 

immediately, within 24 hours, or within 30 days. On the basis of the reporting requirement, the 

control levels can be placed in one of three categories (A, B, or C), as follows (Burrows and 

Hagemeyer 2006): 

• Category A, immediate notification. A total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) of 25 rem 

or more to any individual, an eye dose equivalent of 75 rem or more, or a shallow dose 

equivalent to the skin or extremities of 250 rad or more (10 CFR 20.2202(a)(1)). 

• Category B, notification within 24 hours. A TEDE of 5 rem or more to any individual, an 

eye dose equivalent of 15 rem or more, or a shallow dose equivalent to the skin or 

extremities of 50 rem or more (10 CFR 20.2202(b)(1)). 

• Category C, written report within 30 days. Any incident for which notification was 

required and doses or releases that exceed the limits in the license set by the NRC or 

EPA (10 CFR 20.2203). 

Regulatory Requirements for Public Exposure 

NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 identify maximum allowable concentrations of radionuclides 

that can be released from a licensed facility into the air and water above background at the 

boundary of unrestricted areas to control radiation exposures of the public and releases of 

radioactivity. These concentrations are derived on the basis of an annual TEDE of 0.1 rem to 

individual members of the public. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36a, nuclear power 

reactors have special license conditions called technical specifications for radioactive gaseous 

and liquid releases from the plant that are required to minimize the radiological impacts 

associated with plant operations to levels that are as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). 

Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 provides numerical values on dose-design objectives for 

operation of LWRs to meet the ALARA requirement. The design objective doses for Appendix I 

are summarized here in Table 3.9-2. 

In addition to keeping within NRC requirements, nuclear power plant releases to the 

environment must comply with EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 190, “Environmental Radiation 

Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” These standards specify limits on the 

annual dose equivalent from normal operations of uranium fuel-cycle facilities (except mining, 

waste disposal operations, transportation, and reuse of recovered non-uranium special nuclear 

and by-product materials). The standards are given in Table 3.9-2. Radon and its daughters 

are covered by Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 192 (the conforming NRC regulations are in 

Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40). 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-100 

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

General Public from Nuclear Power Plants(a)

Tissue Gaseous Effluents Liquid Effluents 

Design objectives, Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 

Total body, mrem 5(b) 3 

Any organ (all pathways), mrem 10 

Ground-level air dose,(b)

 mrad 10 (gamma) and 20 (beta) 

Any organ(c)

 (all pathways), mrem 15 

Skin, mrem 15 

Dose standards, 40 CFR Part 190, Subpart B 

Whole body,(d)

 mrem 25 

Thyroid,(d)

 mrem 75 

Any other organ,(d)

 mrem 25 

(a) Calculated doses. 

(b) The ground-level air dose has always been limiting because an occupancy factor cannot be used. 

The 5-mrem total body objective could be limiting only in the case of high occupancy near the 

restricted area boundary. 

(c) Particulates, radioiodines. 

(d) All effluents and direct radiation except radon and its daughters. 

EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 61, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,” 

apply only to airborne releases. The EPA specified an annual effective dose equivalent limit of 

10 mrem for airborne releases from nuclear power plants; however, no more than 3 mrem can 

be caused by any isotope of iodine. However, the EPA has stayed the rule for NRC-licensed 

commercial nuclear power reactors on the basis of its finding that NRC’s ALARA program for 

power reactor air effluents protects and is likely to continue to protect public health and safety 

with an ample margin of safety. 

Experience with the design, construction, and operation of nuclear power reactors indicates that 

compliance with the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 will keep average annual 

releases of radioactive material in effluents at small percentages of the limits specified in 

10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 190. At the same time, the licensee is given the flexibility in 

operations, compatible with considerations of health and safety, to ensure that the public is 

provided with a dependable source of power, even under unusual operating conditions that 

might temporarily result in releases that were higher than such small percentages but still well 

within the regulatory limits. 

Another 10 CFR Part 20 requirement is that the sum of the external and internal doses (TEDE) 

for a member of the public shall not exceed 100 mrem/yr. This value is an annual limit and is 
Affected Environment 

 3-101 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

not intended to be applied as a long-term average goal. The dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 are 

based on the methodology described in International Commission on Radiological Protection 

(ICRP) Publication 26 (ICRP 1977). The radiation levels at any unrestricted area should not 

exceed 2 mrem in any one hour. Licensees may comply with the 100-mrem limit by 

demonstrating (1) by measurement or calculation that the dose to the individual likely to receive 

the highest dose from sources under the licensee’s control does not exceed the limit or (2) that 

the concentrations of radioactive material released in gaseous and liquid effluents averaged 

over a single year do not exceed the levels specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2; 

and at the unrestricted area boundary, the dose from external sources would not exceed 

2 mrem in any given hour and 50 mrem in a single year. The concentration values given in 

Table 2 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20 are equivalent to the radionuclide concentrations that, 

if inhaled or ingested continuously in a year, would produce a TEDE of 50 mrem. Nuclear 

power reactors, as discussed earlier in this section, are subject to additional regulatory controls 

which maintain doses to members of the public to the ALARA dose-design objectives in 

Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

3.9.1.2 Occupational Radiological Exposures 

This section provides an evaluation of the radiological impacts on nuclear power plant workers. 

This evaluation extends to all nuclear power reactors. Currently there are 104 operating 

reactors in the United States, and all are LWRs. Among them, 35 are BWRs and 69 are PWRs. 

Plant workers conducting activities involving radioactively contaminated systems or working in 

radiation areas can be exposed to radiation. Individual occupational doses are measured by 

NRC licensees as required by the basic NRC radiation protection standard, 10 CFR Part 20 

(see Section 3.9.1.1). Most of the occupational radiation dose to nuclear plant workers results 

from external radiation exposure rather than from internal exposure from inhaled or ingested 

radioactive materials. Workers also receive radiation exposure during the storage and handling 

of radioactive waste and during the inspection of stored radioactive waste. However, this 

source of exposure is small compared with other sources of exposure at operating nuclear 

plants. 

Table 3.9-3 shows the radiation exposure data from all commercial U.S. nuclear power plants 

for the years 1993 through 2005. The year 1993 was chosen as a starting date because the 

dose data for years before 1993 were presented in the original GEIS. For each year, the 

number of reactors, the number of workers receiving measurable exposures, the collective 

dose(g)

 for all reactors combined, and the number of individuals receiving a dose in the range of 

4 to 5 rem are given. Data indicate that no worker received a dose in the range of 4 to 5 rem 

from 2003 to 2005. The collective dose has been about 12,000 person-rem or less since 2001. 

 

(g) The collective dose is the sum of all personal doses and is expressed as person-rem. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-102 

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

Nuclear Power Plants 

Year 

Number of 

Workers with 

Measurable Doses 

Collective Dose

(person-rem) 

Number of 

Reactors 

Number of 

Workers with 

Dose in the Range 

of 4 to 5 rem 

1993 93,749 26,364 106 5 

1994 83,454 21,704 107 0 

1995 85.671 21,688 107 2 

1996 84,644 18,883 109 0 

1997 84,711 17,149 109 0 

1998 71,485 13,187 105 1 

1999 75,420 13,599 104 0 

2000 74,108 12,652 104 0 

2001 67,570 11,109 104 0 

2002 73,242 12,126 104 1 

2003 74,813 11,956 104 0 

2004 69,849 10,368 104 0 

2005 78,127 11,456 104 0 

Source: Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006 

Note: To convert rem to sievert (Sv), multiply by 0.01. 

Table 3.9-4 shows the occupational dose history (since 1993) for all commercial U.S. reactors. 

Average collective occupational dose information and average annual individual worker doses 

are presented for plants that operated between 1993 and 2005. For the period from 1993 to 

2005, the annual average dose per plant worker decreased from 0.31 to 0.18 rem for BWRs and 

from 0.25 to 0.12 rem for PWRs. During 2005, at all operating nuclear power plants, the annual 

average individual dose was 0.15 rem compared with an exposure limit of 5 rem. The average 

collective occupational exposure for the year 2005 was roughly 1.71 person-Sv (171 personrem) per plant at BWRs and about 0.79 person-Sv (79 person-rem) per plant at PWRs. 

Tables 3.9-5 and 3.9-6 show the 3-year collective dose per reactor, number of workers with 

measurable doses, and average dose per worker for BWRs and PWRs, respectively, for the 

years 2003 to 2005. For the years 2003 to 2005, the average collective occupational 

exposure for the BWRs was 1.63 person-Sv (163 person-rem) per plant, and for the PWRs, 

it was 0.81 person-Sv (81 person-rem). 
Affected Environment 

 3-103 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 3.9-4. Annual Average Occupational 

Dose for U.S. Commercial 

Nuclear Power Plants 

Average Collective 

Occupational Dose 

Per Plant (person-rem) 

 Average Individual 

Whole-Body Dose 

Per Plant (rem) 

Year LWR BWR PWR LWR BWR PWR 

1993 241 330 194 0.27 0.31 0.25 

1994 203 327 137 0.26 0.31 0.22 

1995 198 256 168 0.25 0.27 0.24 

1996 173 256 131 0.22 0.25 0.20 

1997 157 205 133 0.20 0.22 0.19 

1998 126 190 92 0.18 0.21 0.17 

1999 131 184 105 0.18 0.20 0.17 

2000 122 174 95 0.17 0.20 0.15 

2001 107 138 91 0.16 0.17 0.16 

2002 117 175 87 0.17 0.20 0.14 

2003 115 162 91 0.16 0.18 0.14 

2004 100 156 71 0.15 0.16 0.14 

2005 110 171 79 0.15 0.18 0.12 

Source: Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006 

Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01. 

Deviations higher than these averages in the table are routinely experienced, depending largely 

on whether a plant had an outage during a given year and the nature and extent of 

refurbishment or repair activities undertaken during outages. 

To identify trends, Figure 3.9-1 provides the average and median values of the annual collective 

dose per reactor for BWRs and PWRs for the years 1992 through 2005. The reported ranges of 

the values are shown by the vertical lines that extend to the minimum and maximum observed 

values. The rectangles indicate the range of values of the collective dose exhibited by those 

plants ranked in the 25th through the 75th percentiles. The median values do not normally 

fluctuate as much as the average values from year to year because they are not affected as 

much by the extreme values of the collective doses. The median collective dose was 

64 person-rem for PWRs and 153 person-rem for BWRs in 2005. Figure 3.9-1 also shows that, 

in 2005, 50 percent of the PWRs reported collective doses between 44 and 107 person-rem, 

while 50 percent of the BWRs reported collective doses between 94 and 198 person-rem. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-104 

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

Plant 

Number of 

Reactor-Years 

Collective TEDE 

per Reactor per 

Year (person-rem) 

Number of 

Workers with 

Measurable TEDE 

Average Annual 

TEDE per 

Worker (rem) 

Limerick 1, 2 6 81 4,023 0.12 

Hatch 1, 2 6 93 3,792 0.15 

Duane Arnold 3 94 1,928 0.15 

Oyster Creek 3 99 2,078 0.14 

FitzPatrick 3 100 1,771 0.17 

Susquehanna 1, 2 6 117 5,976 0.12 

Grand Gulf 3 119 2,859 0.13 

Fermi 2 3 125 3,047 0.12 

Clinton 3 125 2,292 0.16 

Monticello 3 126 2,056 0.18 

Brunswick 1, 2 6 133 5,878 0.14 

Hope Creek 1 3 149 4,918 0.09 

Cooper 3 153 2,629 0.17 

Peach Bottom 2, 3 6 154 4,864 0.19 

Vermont Yankee 3 155 2,843 0.16 

Pilgrim 3 166 3,076 0.16 

Dresden 2, 3 6 166 6,148 0.16 

River Bend 1 3 170 3,172 0.16 

LaSalle 1, 2 6 193 6,716 0.17 

Columbia 3 199 4,052 0.15 

Nine Mile Point 1, 2 6 204 4,229 0.29 

Browns Ferry 1, 2, 3 9 212 9,593 0.20 

Quad Cities 1, 2 6 318 6,201 0.31 

Perry 3 366 4,110 0.27 

Totals and averages 105 – 98,251 0.17 

Average per reactor-yr – 163 – – 

Source: Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006 

Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01. 
Affected Environment 

 3-105 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

Plant 

Number of 

ReactorYears 

Collective TEDE per 

Reactor per Year 

(person-rem) 

Number of 

Workers with 

Measurable TEDE 

Average Annual 

TEDE per 

Worker (rem) 

Seabrook 3 43 2,306 0.06 

Harris 3 45 1,697 0.08 

Farley 1, 2 6 48 2,739 0.10 

Prairie Island 1, 2 6 48 2,562 0.11 

Summer 1 3 51 1,679 0.09 

Ginna 3 52 1,185 0.13 

Vogtle 1, 2 6 53 2,670 0.12 

Point Beach 1, 2 6 54 2,105 0.15 

Kewaunee 3 56 1,101 0.15 

Indian Point 3 3 58 2,029 0.09 

Robinson 2 3 63 1,852 0.10 

North Anna 1, 2 6 63 2,692 0.14 

Byron 1, 2 6 63 3,272 0.12 

Wolf Creek 1 3 66 1,769 0.11 

Palo Verde 1, 2, 3 9 68 5,281 0.12 

Catawba 1, 2 6 70 3,551 0.12 

Braidwood 1, 2 6 71 3,484 0.12 

Indian Point 2 3 73 1,847 0.12 

McGuire 1, 2 6 74 3,358 0.13 

Comanche Peak 1, 2 6 74 2,868 0.16 

Three Mile Island 1 3 75 2,290 0.10 

Cook 1, 2 6 76 3,275 0.14 

Waterford 3 3 78 1,672 0.14 

Turkey Point 3, 4 6 79 3,667 0.13 

Crystal River 3 3 84 2,031 0.13 

Oconee 1, 2, 3 9 85 5,991 0.13 

South Texas 1, 2 6 85 3,019 0.17 

Beaver Valley 1, 2 6 85 3,871 0.13 

 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-106 

Table 3.9-6. (cont.) 

Plant 

Number of 

ReactorYears 

Collective TEDE per 

Reactor per Year 

(person-rem) 

Number of 

Workers with 

Measurable TEDE 

Average Annual 

TEDE per 

Worker (rem) 

Salem 1,2 6 86 5,959 0.09 

Diablo Canyon 1,2 6 86 3,189 0.16 

Surry 1,2 6 89 3,533 0.15 

Davis-Besse 3 93 1,785 0.16 

Calvert Cliffs 1,2 6 96 3,818 0.15 

San Onofre 2,3 6 97 3,341 0.17 

Sequoyah 1,2 6 102 4,770 0.13 

Watts Bar 3 105 2,856 0.11 

Millstone 2,3 6 110 3,407 0.19 

Arkansas 1,2 6 113 4,535 0.15 

Callaway 1 3 117 2,976 0.12 

St. Lucie 1,2 6 118 4,356 0.16 

Fort Calhoun 3 169 2,198 0.23 

Palisades 3 195 1,952 0.30 

Totals and averages 207 – – 0.13 

Average per reactor-yr – 81 602 – 

Source: Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006 

Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01. 

Table 3.9-7 presents the average, maximum, and minimum collective and individual 

occupational doses for all commercial nuclear power plants operating between 1993 and 2005. 

For PWRs, the maximum variation in collective dose and annual average occupational dose 

was observed for Indian Point Unit 2. From 1993 to 2005, the collective dose varied from 

11 to 675 person-rem, and the annual average occupational dose varied from 0.02 to 0.45 rem. 

 

For BWRs, the maximum variation in collective dose was observed for the Quad Cities plant. 

From 1993 to 2005, the collective dose varied from 72 to 893 person-rem. The maximum 

variation in the annual average occupational dose was observed for the Brunswick plant; from 

1993 to 2005, it varied from 0.11 to 0.70 rem. 

Table 3.9-8 shows the yearly annual collective occupational dose for all commercial nuclear 

power plants operating between 1993 and 2005 and Table 3.9-9 shows the yearly annual 

individual average occupational dose for all commercial nuclear power plants operating between 
Affected Environment 

 3-107 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

Reactor from 1992 to 2005 (Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006) 

1993 and 2005. The year 1993 was chosen as a starting date because the dose data for years 

before 1993 were presented in the 1996 GEIS. From 1993 through 2005, operating nuclear 

power plants would have gone through many refueling outages, 5-year ISI, 10-year ISI, and also 

some refurbishment activities. To check for trends, data were divided into two time frames: 

from 1993 to 1999 and from 2000 to 2005. The averages for these two time frames were 

calculated and compared. The yearly average collective dose from 2000 to 2005 was mostly 

lower than the dose from 1993 to 1999. For a few nuclear power plants, the average annual 

collective dose from 2000 to 2005 was higher, but in all cases, the yearly average occupational 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-108 

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

Commercial Nuclear Power Plants from 1993 through 2005 

 

Collective Dose 

(person-rem/reactor) Annual Occupational Dose (rem) 

Plant Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum 

PWRs 

Arkansas 1, 2 107 238 50 0.13 0.20 0.09 

Beaver Valley 1, 2 121 311 22 0.17 0.30 0.08 

Braidwood 1, 2 103 167 44 0.16 0.26 0.09 

Byron 1, 2 117 228 30 0.19 0.32 0.08 

Callaway 1 137 321 8 0.14 0.29 0.03 

Calvert Cliffs 1, 2 118 227 68 0.19 0.31 0.12 

Catawba 1,2 104 231 41 0.15 0.25 0.08 

Comanche Peak 1, 2 83 144 33 0.16 0.24 0.09 

Cook 1, 2 110 275 14 0.15 0.30 0.06 

Crystal River 3 117 353 4 0.12 0.30 0.03 

Davis-Besse 1 132 403 6 0.13 0.28 0.03 

Diablo Canyon 1, 2 121 295 59 0.17 0.29 0.11 

Farley 1, 2 125 230 34 0.20 0.31 0.08 

Fort Calhoun 146 273 22 0.21 0.31 0.10 

Ginna 94 193 7 0.16 0.27 0.07 

Harris 1 95 252 7 0.10 0.20 0.04 

Indian Point 2 237 675 11 0.19 0.45 0.02 

Indian Point 3 68 234 4 0.09 0.15 0.02 

Kewaunee 80 200 4 0.18 0.27 0.04 

McGuire 1, 2 116 246 36 0.17 0.27 0.08 

Millstone Unit 2, 3 122 279 57 0.17 0.27 0.10 

North Anna 1, 2 120 454 30 0.18 0.33 0.09 

Oconee 1, 2, 3 102 193 50 0.17 0.29 0.10 

Palisades 201 462 10 0.23 0.38 0.07 

Palo Verde 1, 2, 3 90 197 47 0.16 0.28 0.10 

Point Beach 1, 2 79 138 43 0.22 0.35 0.14 

Prairie Island 1, 2 56 87 31 0.16 0.23 0.10 
Affected Environment 

 3-109 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 3.9-7. (cont.) 

 

Collective Dose 

(person-rem/reactor) Annual Occupational Dose (rem) 

Plant Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum 

PWRs (cont.) 

Robinson 2 117 337 5 0.13 0.28 0.04 

Salem 1, 2 108 204 21 0.15 0.27 0.08 

San Onofre 2, 3 125 384 6 0.16 0.35 0.04 

Seabrook 63 186 6 0.07 0.13 0.02 

Sequoyah 1, 2 130 216 43 0.15 0.23 0.07 

South Texas 1, 2 106 165 24 0.17 0.22 0.07 

St. Lucie 1, 2 152 323 50 0.20 0.34 0.10 

Summer 1 117 374 10 0.13 0.26 0.05 

Surry 1, 2 122 203 44 0.19 0.27 0.10 

Three Mile Island 1 99 213 0 0.10 0.19 0.00 

Turkey Point 3, 4 105 238 37 0.17 0.32 0.09 

Vogtle 1, 2 100 226 41 0.18 0.32 0.10 

Waterford 89 191 3 0.12 0.16 0.04 

Wolf Creek 1 113 265 3 0.13 0.27 0.04 

Watts Bar 1 84 166 3 0.08 0.12 0.03 

BWRs 

Duane Arnold 166 407 19 0.20 0.39 0.09 

Browns Ferry 1, 2, 3 174 290 98 0.21 0.26 0.16 

Brunswick 1, 2 238 500 123 0.24 0.70 0.11 

Clinton 1 195 498 34 0.20 0.40 0.10 

Columbia 291 866 47 0.20 0.46 0.07 

Cooper 155 391 39 0.18 0.35 0.10 

Dresden 2, 3 282 828 130 0.23 0.60 0.11 

Fermi 2 112 213 28 0.11 0.19 0.07 

FitzPatrick 204 358 51 0.18 0.26 0.10 

Grand Gulf 190 357 31 0.17 0.23 0.11 

Hatch 1, 2 201 432 84 0.24 0.39 0.13 

Hope Creek 1 175 350 26 0.14 0.25 0.08 

LaSalle 1, 2 238 427 42 0.24 0.50 0.15 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-110 

Table 3.9-7. (cont.) 

 

Collective Dose 

(person-rem/reactor) Annual Occupational Dose (rem) 

Plant Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum 

BWRs (cont.) 

Limerick 1, 2 114 179 74 0.16 0.20 0.11 

Monticello 186 494 35 0.27 0.52 0.10 

Nine Mile Point 1, 2 210 380 75 0.25 0.33 0.16 

Oyster Creek 263 844 28 0.17 0.35 0.09 

Peach Bottom 2, 3 189 290 133 0.21 0.31 0.17 

Perry 266 691 42 0.19 0.33 0.11 

Pilgrim 1 231 588 38 0.21 0.37 0.08 

Quad Cities 1, 2 388 893 72 0.35 0.52 0.20 

River Bend 229 519 35 0.18 0.26 0.09 

Susquehanna 1, 2 167 238 91 0.20 0.28 0.10 

Vermont Yankee 146 231 38 0.20 0.26 0.15 

Source: Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006 

Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01.

dose was less than 0.4 rem. The yearly average occupational dose was mostly lower from 

2000 to 2005 than from 1993 to 1999. 

The data in Tables 3.9-8 and 3.9-9 show that although there are variations from year to year, 

there is no consistent trend that shows that occupational doses are increasing over time. 

The average, maximum, and minimum collective occupational doses are presented in 

Table 3.9-10 for plants operated between 1993 and 2005. The average collective doses, 

however, are based on widely varying yearly doses. For example, between 1993 and 2005, 

annual collective doses for operating PWRs ranged from 0 to 675 person-rem; for operating 

BWRs, they ranged from 19 to 893 person-rem. From 1993 to 1998, the average collective 

dose decreased more than 50 percent for PWRs and 40 percent for BWRs. From 1999 through 

2005, the average collective dose for PWRs was in a range 71 to 105 person-rem, and for 

BWRs, it was in a range of 138 to 184 person-rem. 

Average, maximum, and minimum individual occupational doses per reactor are presented in 

Table 3.9-11 for plants that operated between 1993 and 2005. From 1993 through 1998, the 

average annual dose per plant worker decreased more than 30 percent for both PWRs and 
Affected Environment

 3-111 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table 3.9-8. Annual Collective Dose for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants from 1993 through 2005 Annual Collective Dose (person-rem/reactor) Plant 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PWRs Arkansas 1, 2 134 86 193 102 60 84 92 121 53 133 50 53 238 Beaver Valley 1, 2 311 22 227 225 153 30 50 169 92 45 139 79 40 Braidwood 1, 2 137 149 118 167 161 130 73 97 51 46 123 48 44 Byron 1, 2 216 140 153 228 121 138 120 97 30 98 44 45 100 Callaway 1 225 14 187 248 12 201 321 16 107 96 8 121 223 Calvert Cliffs 1, 2 203 227 118 120 115 94 96 68 84 123 133 72 84 Catawba 1,2 198 104 231 151 133 81 60 94 58 41 106 62 42 Comanche Peak 1, 2 55 45 90 144 73 116 126 39 58 113 33 68 121 Cook 1, 2 22 240 102 107 275 53 86 169 14 139 105 78 46 Crystal River 3 60 228 8 353 179 19 251 15 148 5 127 4 123 Davis-Besse 1 348 144 7 167 10 155 28 168 6 403 220 7 51 Diablo Canyon 1, 2 141 295 143 88 110 87 225 91 59 75 68 127 62 Farley 1, 2 167 125 230 116 139 216 95 180 161 48 56 54 34 Fort Calhoun 157 23 139 226 41 224 159 35 226 164 212 22 273 Ginna 193 138 136 168 81 15 175 76 10 80 75 7 73 Harris 1 31 222 174 17 149 133 16 101 252 7 68 57 8 Indian Point 2 675 48 548 54 367 290 41 567 22 248 12 196 11 Indian Point 3 60 58 67 22 234 15 117 9 118 7 96 4 74 Kewaunee 106 72 109 126 56 88 5 100 200 4 73 91 4 McGuire 1, 2 232 199 69 119 246 71 129 67 69 91 36 98 87 Millstone Unit 2, 3 279 94 208 63 127 57 126 72 87 146 162 68 101 North Anna 1, 2 454 97 184 146 52 133 47 33 155 72 94 65 30 Oconee 1, 2, 3 79 179 101 86 74 122 67 91 193 75 82 123 50 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-112

Affected Environment Table 3.9-8. (cont.) Annual Collective Dose (person-rem/reactor) Plant 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PWRs (cont.) Palisades 289 60 462 318 48 217 218 26 363 24 203 371 10 Palo Verde 1, 2, 3 197 154 161 101 82 64 49 53 61 47 70 66 67 

Point Beach 1, 2 93 85 95 138 46 85 97 70 66 91 43 55 65 Prairie Island 1, 2 53 55 54 56 87 59 36 53 63 64 31 72 42 Robinson 2 337 63 215 167 13 170 124 8 125 111 5 118 65 Salem 1, 2 204 94 109 150 88 21 159 99 77 147 62 75 121 San Onofre 2, 3 384 16 228 65 171 98 177 58 66 68 82 204 6 Seabrook 6 113 102 10 186 19 106 70 9 67 71 6 52 Sequoyah 1, 2 187 148 184 135 210 133 83 179 73 54 216 43 48 South Texas 1, 2 126 24 146 69 137 92 130 116 119 165 72 60 124 St. Lucie 1, 2 246 253 207 193 323 67 89 50 114 78 71 80 203 Summer 1 297 374 13 97 163 14 120 167 69 60 71 10 72 Surry 1, 2 192 189 203 105 160 95 69 97 165 44 163 60 44 Three Mile Island 1 206 40 213 16 204 17 155 9 197 7 155 3 66 Turkey Point 3, 4 138 238 108 94 207 78 64 110 51 37 124 59 55 Vogtle 1, 2 184 109 100 226 79 81 115 61 65 122 42 41 76 Waterford 15 191 153 27 148 24 123 132 5 109 95 3 136 Wolf Creek 1 183 235 14 171 265 10 148 143 5 100 89 3 107 Watts Bar 1(a) 113 3 99 122 6 94 166 6 144 

BWRs 

Duane Arnold 407 120 357 270 63 237 201 44 138 35 124 19 140 Browns Ferry 1, 2, 3 290 287 138 130 174 123 149 111 98 119 201 224 212 Brunswick 1, 2 436 500 342 358 206 198 209 161 152 138 125 123 153 
Affected Environment

 3-113 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table 3.9-8. (cont.) Annual Collective Dose (person-rem/reactor) Plant 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 BWRs (cont.) Clinton 498 63 316 350 172 177 87 253 34 208 57 283 36 Columbia 469 866 456 373 251 286 155 53 227 47 205 66 325 Cooper 391 79 228 48 174 182 48 200 169 39 135 47 276 Dresden 2, 3 828 417 438 228 234 214 296 131 201 178 179 191 130 Fermi 2 35 213 28 157 49 208 36 146 169 38 168 145 62 FitzPatrick 232 322 327 357 91 358 68 301 63 231 51 186 63 Grand Gulf 332 56 342 357 105 304 226 35 185 176 31 158 168 Hatch 1, 2 335 432 244 221 361 160 165 201 115 107 84 90 104 Hope Creek 1 98 326 196 158 350 55 279 188 156 26 139 240 67 LaSalle 1, 2 427 363 256 410 158 211 288 130 42 225 232 180 168 Limerick 1, 2 109 138 130 117 117 179 136 131 105 80 74 75 94 Monticello 494 395 44 240 106 209 70 216 221 40 169 35 175 Nine Mile Point 1, 2 317 75 380 145 215 189 224 142 172 259 188 225 201 Oyster Creek 416 844 90 449 50 308 42 625 46 266 43 227 28 Peach Bottom 2, 3 276 290 199 141 245 183 160 166 172 167 178 133 153 Perry 278 691 64 307 272 42 326 56 258 70 607 73 417 Pilgrim 1 435 200 482 116 588 71 344 51 180 38 250 41 206 Quad Cities 1, 2 425 564 368 513 327 381 101 447 72 893 219 256 481 River Bend 180 519 85 473 347 58 344 216 208 35 217 236 56 Susquehanna 1, 2 168 221 238 145 217 181 216 166 144 130 125 136 91 Vermont Yankee 217 38 182 231 57 199 176 38 143 150 54 212 198 (a) 1st commercial operation in May 1996. Source: Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006 Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01. 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-114

Affected Environment Table 3.9-9. Annual Average Measurable Occupational Doses at Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Sites from 1993 through 2005 Average Measurable Occupational Doses (rem) Plant 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PWRs Arkansas 1, 2 0.14 0.13 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.17 0.10 0.09 0.20 

Beaver Valley 1, 2 0.30 0.09 0.29 0.27 0.22 0.08 0.12 0.20 0.15 0.09 0.17 0.12 0.08 Braidwood 1, 2 0.26 0.24 0.21 0.25 0.19 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.10 Byron 1, 2 0.32 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.20 0.08 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.13 

Callaway 1 0.20 0.07 0.18 0.25 0.05 0.22 0.29 0.07 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.11 0.14 Calvert Cliffs 1, 2 0.28 0.31 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.18 

Catawba 1, 2 0.25 0.16 0.24 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.09 0.15 0.11 0.08 Comanche Peak 1, 2 0.12 0.09 0.19 0.20 0.17 0.24 0.19 0.10 0.13 0.20 0.10 0.16 0.18 

Cook 1, 2 0.07 0.27 0.15 0.19 0.30 0.09 0.10 0.14 0.06 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.11 

Crystal River 3 0.09 0.21 0.04 0.30 0.18 0.06 0.19 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.13 0.03 0.13 Davis-Besse 1 0.28 0.17 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.16 0.07 0.15 0.05 0.20 0.21 0.04 0.09 Diablo Canyon 1, 2 0.19 0.26 0.18 0.12 0.17 0.13 0.29 0.17 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.13 

Farley 1, 2 0.26 0.24 0.29 0.20 0.25 0.31 0.17 0.21 0.18 0.13 0.14 0.09 0.08 

Fort Calhoun 0.22 0.11 0.22 0.31 0.16 0.28 0.24 0.14 0.29 0.22 0.23 0.10 0.26 Ginna 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.09 0.27 0.18 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.13 Harris 1 0.09 0.20 0.16 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.05 Indian Point 2 0.45 0.13 0.32 0.14 0.27 0.25 0.12 0.28 0.06 0.18 0.05 0.17 0.02 Indian Point 3 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.15 0.07 0.13 0.06 0.12 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.08 Kewaunee 0.24 0.20 0.26 0.27 0.20 0.23 0.05 0.25 0.18 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.04 McGuire 1, 2 0.27 0.24 0.11 0.15 0.22 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.08 0.18 0.12 Millstone Unit 2, 3 0.27 0.15 0.25 0.13 0.18 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.13 0.19 0.25 0.17 0.15 

North Anna 1, 2 0.33 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.22 0.13 0.09 0.25 0.16 0.18 0.13 0.09 
Affected Environment

 3-115 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table 3.9-9. (cont.) Average Measurable Occupational Doses (rem) Plant 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PWRs (cont.) Oconee 1, 2, 3 0.16 0.28 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.22 0.13 0.16 0.29 0.13 0.11 0.16 0.10 Palisades 0.32 0.15 0.38 0.29 0.14 0.24 0.23 0.10 0.35 0.11 0.25 0.38 0.07 Palo Verde 1, 2, 3 0.28 0.23 0.26 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.15 0.10 Point Beach 1, 2 0.33 0.31 0.35 0.27 0.14 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.14 0.17 0.15 Prairie Island 1, 2 0.20 0.10 0.21 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.13 0.17 0.18 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.11 Robinson 2 0.28 0.15 0.20 0.16 0.04 0.17 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.13 0.04 0.12 0.08 Salem 1, 2 0.11 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.10 0.27 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.08 San Onofre 2, 3 0.35 0.06 0.24 0.10 0.21 0.18 0.24 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.23 0.04 Seabrook 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.12 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.05 Sequoyah 1, 2 0.23 0.17 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.18 0.11 0.09 0.17 0.07 0.08 South Texas 1, 2 0.22 0.07 0.20 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.22 0.16 0.14 0.20 St. Lucie 1, 2 0.34 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.11 0.16 0.10 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.18 Summer 1 0.26 0.24 0.05 0.14 0.20 0.05 0.15 0.18 0.14 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.10 Surry 1, 2 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.24 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.26 0.11 0.20 0.12 0.10 Three Mile Island 1 0.11 0.09 0.17 0.06 0.19 0.06 0.13 0.05 0.16 0.04 0.13 0.03 0.07 Turkey Point 3, 4 0.22 0.32 0.19 0.16 0.26 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.17 0.11 0.10 Vogtle 1, 2 0.27 0.21 0.21 0.32 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.21 0.10 0.11 0.14 Waterford 0.08 0.16 0.14 0.08 0.13 0.09 0.15 0.16 0.05 0.14 0.13 0.04 0.15 Wolf Creek 1 0.19 0.22 0.06 0.17 0.27 0.05 0.18 0.17 0.05 0.12 0.11 0.04 0.12 Watts Bar 1(a) 0.10 0.03 0.10 0.12 0.03 0.10 0.12 0.03 0.12 BWRs Duane Arnold 0.39 0.24 0.32 0.25 0.18 0.23 0.24 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.09 0.16 Browns Ferry 1, 2, 3 0.24 0.26 0.16 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.23 0.21 0.17 Brunswick 1, 2 0.30 0.70 0.26 0.26 0.19 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.16 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-116

Affected Environment Table 3.9-9. (cont.) Average Measurable Occupational Doses (rem) Plant 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 BWRs (cont.) Clinton 1 0.40 0.15 0.27 0.30 0.23 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.12 Columbia 0.34 0.46 0.27 0.26 0.21 0.23 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.07 0.13 0.09 0.19 

Cooper Station 0.35 0.24 0.21 0.10 0.16 0.19 0.15 0.21 0.13 0.11 0.15 0.10 0.22 

Dresden 2, 3 0.60 0.36 0.35 0.26 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.17 0.19 0.13 

Fermi 2 0.10 0.19 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.08 0.14 0.11 0.11 FitzPatrick 0.16 0.20 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.20 0.12 0.24 0.10 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16 Grand Gulf 0.18 0.12 0.22 0.23 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.13 0.13 

Hatch 1, 2 0.39 0.39 0.33 0.29 0.37 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.15 0.16 

Hope Creek 1 0.14 0.18 0.12 0.15 0.20 0.09 0.25 0.15 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.08 LaSalle 1, 2 0.50 0.40 0.32 0.31 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.14 0.15 0.22 0.21 0.15 0.16 Limerick 1, 2 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.15 0.20 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.13 Monticello 0.52 0.50 0.22 0.32 0.27 0.31 0.16 0.27 0.26 0.10 0.20 0.13 0.19 Nine Mile Point 1, 2 0.27 0.19 0.33 0.18 0.30 0.22 0.26 0.16 0.25 0.21 0.25 0.33 0.29 

Oyster Creek 0.16 0.35 0.12 0.24 0.10 0.22 0.09 0.30 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.17 0.09 Peach Bottom 2, 3 0.31 0.27 0.21 0.17 0.26 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.24 0.17 0.22 0.19 0.17 

Perry 0.23 0.33 0.11 0.19 0.18 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.19 0.16 0.32 0.15 0.24 

Pilgrim 1 0.33 0.26 0.37 0.22 0.36 0.13 0.28 0.12 0.16 0.08 0.17 0.10 0.17 

Quad Cities 1, 2 0.39 0.52 0.36 0.46 0.26 0.35 0.20 0.32 0.20 0.47 0.44 0.22 0.33 

River Bend 0.21 0.24 0.13 0.23 0.21 0.12 0.26 0.20 0.17 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.11 

Susquehanna 1, 2 0.23 0.28 0.27 0.20 0.26 0.23 0.24 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.10 

Vermont Yankee 0.26 0.17 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.18 

(a) 1st commercial operation in May 1996. Source: Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006 Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01. 
Affected Environment 

 3-117 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 3.9-10. Annual Collective Occupational Dose per Plant for 

Commercial Nuclear Power Plants 

Collective Occupational Dose 

(person-rem) per Plant for PWRs 

Collective Occupational Dose 

(person-rem) per Plant for BWRs 

Year Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum 

1993 194 675 6 330 828 35 

1994 137 374 14 327 866 38 

1995 168 548 7 256 482 28 

1996 131 353 10 256 513 48 

1997 133 367 10 205 588 49 

1998 92 290 3 190 381 42 

1999 105 321 5 184 344 36 

2000 95 567 8 174 614 35 

2001 91 363 5 138 258 34 

2002 87 403 4 175 893 26 

2003 91 220 5 162 607 31 

2004 71 371 0 156 283 19 

2005 79 273 4 171 481 28 

Source: Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006 

Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01. 

BWRs. From 1999 through 2005, the average annual dose per plant worker for PWRs ranged 

from 0.12 to 0.17 rem, and for BWRs, ranged from 0.16 to 0.20 rem. The annual dose per plant 

worker for operating PWRs ranged from 0.0 to 0.45 rem; for operating BWRs, it ranged from 

0.07 to 0.70 rem. 

Table 3.9-12 provides the distribution of individual doses for 2005. The dose distribution 

indicates that no worker received doses greater than 3 rem in 2005. Only 17 workers 

(0.01 percent) received whole-body doses exceeding 2 rem during 2005. At BWRs, less than 

0.03 percent of the workers received doses greater than 2 rem. At PWRs, no worker received a 

dose greater than 2 rem, and less than 0.3 percent of the workers received a dose greater than 

1 rem. No worker exposure exceeded 5 rem during that calendar year. Figure 3.9-2 shows the 

collective dose distribution by dose range for all commercial U.S. reactors from 2001 to 2005. 

The distribution of collective dose has been fairly constant over the past 5 years, with a slight 

decrease noted from 2002 to 2005 in each dose range. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-118 

Table 3.9-11. Annual Individual Occupational Dose for Commercial 

Nuclear Power Plants 

Whole-Body Dose (rem) 

per Plant for PWRs 

Whole-Body Dose (rem) 

per Plant for BWRs 

Year Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum 

1993 0.25 0.45 0.05 0.31 0.60 0.10 

1994 0.22 0.32 0.06 0.31 0.70 0.12 

1995 0.24 0.38 0.03 0.27 0.37 0.07 

1996 0.20 0.32 0.04 0.25 0.46 0.10 

1997 0.19 0.30 0.04 0.22 0.37 0.08 

1998 0.17 0.31 0.03 0.21 0.35 0.09 

1999 0.17 0.29 0.05 0.20 0.28 0.08 

2000 0.15 0.28 0.05 0.20 0.32 0.08 

2001 0.16 0.35 0.02 0.17 0.26 0.10 

2002 0.14 0.22 0.04 0.20 0.47 0.07 

2003 0.14 0.25 0.03 0.18 0.44 0.09 

2004 0.14 0.38 0.00 0.16 0.33 0.09 

2005 0.12 0.26 0.02 0.18 0.33 0.08 

Source: Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006 

Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01. 

As mentioned in Section 3.9.1.1, under 10 CFR 20.2206, the NRC requires licensees to submit 

an annual report of the results of individual monitoring. In addition to reporting data on external 

exposures, licensees are required to report information about internal exposures. Licensees are 

required to list for each intake, the radionuclide, pulmonary clearance class, intake mode, and 

amount of the intake in microcuries. Twenty-five intakes by ingestion and other modes were 

reported by licensees during 2005 (5 for cobalt-58, 14 for cobalt-60, 1 for cesium-134, 1 for iron59, and 1 for manganese-54). Many more intakes were reported for the inhalation mode. The 

inhalation intakes were mainly from cobalt-60, cobalt-58, manganese-54, americium-241, 

curium-242, curium-243, plutonium-238, and plutonium-239 (Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006). 

Table 3.9-13 lists the number of individuals with measurable committed effective dose 

equivalent (CEDE), collective CEDE, and average measurable CEDE per individual as reported 

by different nuclear power reactor stations. 

A portion of the total workforce can be defined as “transient.” These individuals are usually 

employed for special functions and may be employed at multiple reactor sites during a given 

year. Data for individual reactors described earlier include these people, but only for each 
Affected Environment 

 3-119 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 3.9-12. Number of Workers at BWRs 

and PWRs Who Received 

Whole-Body Doses within 

Specified Ranges during 2005 

Dose Range (rem) BWRs PWRs Total 

<0.1 (measurable) 18,235 28,209 46,444 

0.1 to 0.25 7,443 10,311 17,754 

0.25 to 0.50 4,848 4,343 9,191 

0.50 to 0.75 174 1,160 2,904 

0.75 to 1.00 706 398 1,104 

1.00 to 2.00 521 162 683 

2.00 to 3.00 17 0 17 

3.00 to 4.00 0 0 0 

4.00 to 5.00 0 0 0 

5.00 to 6.00 0 0 0 

6.00 to 12.00 0 0 0 

>12 0 0 0 

Total 25,449 57,125 82,574 

Source: Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006 

Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01. 

power plant. Thus, some people are counted more than once, and some people receive greater 

annual doses than are reported by individual plants. In 1993, there were about 27,000 of these 

people (Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006). Over the years, doses to transient workers at nuclear 

power plants have been decreasing in the same way as doses to more permanent workers, 

going from an average of 0.49 rem in 1993 to 0.32 rem in 2005 (Burrows and 

Hagemeyer 2006). In 2005, three transient workers received whole body doses between 3 and 

4 rem, and none received more than 4 rem (Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006). 

A decreasing trend in the highest annual collective dose is somewhat apparent, as is a 

decreasing trend for the average collective dose. In addition to decreases in collective dose, 

the average annual dose per nuclear plant worker decreased during this period (1993 through 

2005) from 0.31 to 0.18 rem for BWRs and from 0.25 to 0.12 rem for PWRs (Table 3.9-11). 

A breakdown of the number of individual workers receiving doses in different ranges for 2005 is 

provided in Table 3.9-12. These data demonstrate that 94 percent of plant radiation workers 

received less than 1 rem, and no worker received more than 4 rem. Overall data presented in 

Tables 3.9-1 through 3.9-6 provide evidence that doses to nearly all radiation workers are far 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-120 

Figure 3.9-2. Collective Dose Distribution for All Commercial 

U.S. Reactors by Dose Range (rem) for 2001 

through 2005 (Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006) 

below the worker dose limit established by 10 CFR Part 20, and that the continuing efforts to 

maintain doses at ALARA levels have been successful. 

As mentioned in Section 3.9.1.1, under 10 CFR 20.2202 and 10 CFR 20.2203, the NRC 

requires that all licensees submit reports of all occurrences involving personnel radiation 

exposures and releases of radioactive material that exceed certain control levels. For 2003 

through 2005, there was no occurrence reported for nuclear power reactors (Burrows and 

Hagemeyer 2006). 

3.9.1.3 Public Radiological Exposures 

Commercial nuclear power plants, under controlled conditions, release small amounts of 

radioactive materials to the environment during normal operation. Radioactive waste 

management systems are incorporated into each plant. They are designed to remove most of 

the fission-product radioactivity that leaks from the fuel, as well as most of the activation- and 

corrosion-product radioactivity produced by neutrons in the vicinity of the reactor core. The 

amounts of radioactivity released through vents and discharge points to areas outside the plant 
Affected Environment 

 3-121 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

Power Plant Sites in 2005 

Plant 

Number of 

Individuals with 

Measurable CEDE 

Collective CEDE 

(person-rem) 

Average Measurable 

CEDE (rem) 

Duane Arnold 1 0.010 0.010 

Arkansas 6 0.226 0.038 

Browns Ferry 117 0.396 0.003 

Brunswick 1 0.029 0.029 

Columbia 2 0.019 0.010 

Comanche Peak 3 0.072 0.024 

Cooper 12 0.189 0.016 

Davis-Besse 1 0.002 0.002 

Hatch 1 0.022 0.022 

Limerick 11 0.074 0.007 

Millstone 1 2 0.025 0.013 

Monticello 1 0.011 0.011 

North Anna 1 0.017 0.017 

Oconee 11 0.224 0.020 

Palo Verde 9 0.264 0.029 

Point Beach 2 0.018 0.009 

Quad Cities 5 0.070 0.014 

San Onofre 1 0.001 0.001 

Sequoyah 23 0.063 0.003 

St. Lucie 6 0.039 0.007 

Summer 3 0.030 0.010 

Susquehanna 4 0.021 0.005 

Three Mile Island 1 1 0.018 0.018 

Vermont Yankee 10 0.072 0.007 

Vogtle 1 0.015 0.015 

Watts Bar 170 2.869 0.017 

Wolf Creek 3 0.007 0.002 

Source: Burrows and Hagemeyer 2006 

Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-122 

boundaries are recorded and published annually in the radioactive effluent release reports for 

each facility. These reports are publicly available on the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS). The effluent releases result in radiation doses to humans. 

Nuclear power plant licensees must comply with Federal regulations (e.g., 10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 50.36a, and 40 CFR Part 190) and technical 

specifications in the operating license. 

Potential environmental pathways through which persons may be exposed to radiation 

originating in a nuclear power plant include the atmospheric and water pathways. Radioactive 

materials released under controlled conditions include fission products and activation products. 

Fission product releases consist primarily of the noble gases and some of the more volatile 

materials like tritium, isotopes of iodine, and cesium. These materials are monitored before 

release to determine whether the limits on releases can be met. Releases to the aquatic 

pathways are similarly monitored. Radioactive materials in the liquid effluents are processed in 

radioactive waste treatment systems. The major radionuclides released to aquatic systems 

have been tritium, isotopes of cobalt, and cesium. 

When an individual is exposed to radioactive materials released by the plant into air or water 

pathways, the dose is determined in part by the amount of time spent in the vicinity of the 

source or the amount of time the radionuclides inhaled or ingested are retained in the 

individual’s body (exposure). The consequences associated with this exposure are evaluated 

by calculating the dose. The major exposure pathways include the following: 

• Inhalation of contaminated air; 

• Drinking milk or eating meat from animals that graze on open pasture on which 

radioactive contamination may be deposited; 

• Eating vegetables grown near the site; and 

• Drinking (untreated) water or eating fish caught near the point of discharge of liquid 

effluents. 

Radiation doses are calculated for the maximally exposed individual (MEI) (that is, a 

hypothetical individual potentially subject to maximum exposure). Doses are calculated by 

using site-specific data where available. For those cases in which site-specific data are not 

readily available, conservative (overestimating) assumptions are used to estimate dose. 

Members of the general public are also exposed when the LLW is shipped offsite. The public 

radiation exposures from radioactive material transportation have been addressed in Table S-4 

of 10 CFR Part 51. Table S-4 indicates that the cumulative dose to the exposed public from the 
Affected Environment 

 3-123 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

transport of both LLW and spent fuel is estimated to be about 0.03 person-Sv (3 person-rem) 

per reactor year (see Section 4.12.1.1). 

Effluent Pathways for Calculations of Dose to the Public

Radioactive effluents can be divided into several groups on the basis of their physical 

characteristics. Among the airborne effluents, the radioisotopes of the noble gases krypton, 

xenon, and argon neither deposit on the ground nor are absorbed and accumulated within living 

organisms; therefore, the noble gas effluents act primarily as a source of direct external 

radiation emanating from the effluent plume. For these effluents, dose calculations are 

performed for the site boundary where the highest external-radiation doses to a member of the 

general public are estimated to occur. 

A second group of airborne radioactive effluents—the fission-product radioiodines and 

tritium—are also gaseous, but some of them can be deposited on the ground or inhaled during 

respiration. For this class of effluents, estimates are made of direct external radiation doses 

from ground deposits (as well as exposure to the plume). Estimates are also made of internal 

radiation doses to total body, thyroid, bone, and other organs from inhalation and from 

vegetable, milk, and meat consumption. 

A third group of airborne effluents consists of particulates and includes fission products, such as 

cesium and strontium, and activated corrosion products, such as cobalt and chromium. These 

effluents contribute to direct external radiation doses and to internal radiation doses through the 

same pathways as those described above for the radioiodine. Doses from the particulates are 

combined with those from the radioiodines and tritium for comparison with one of the design 

objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

Liquid effluent constituents could include fission products such as strontium and iodine; 

activation and corrosion products, such as sodium, iron, and cobalt; and tritiated water. These 

radionuclides contribute to the internal doses through the pathways described above from fish 

consumption, water ingestion (as drinking water), and consumption of meat or vegetables raised 

near a nuclear plant and using irrigation water, as well as from any direct external radiation from 

recreational use of the water near the point of a plant’s discharge. 

The release of each radioisotope and the site-specific meteorological and hydrological data 

serve as input to radiation-dose models that estimate the maximum radiation dose that would be 

received outside the facility by way of a number of pathways for individual members of the 

public and for the general public as a whole. These models and the radiation-dose calculations 

are discussed in Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977). 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-124 

Doses from gaseous radioactive iodine and radioactive material in particulate form in gaseous 

effluents are calculated for individuals at the location or source point (e.g., site boundary, 

garden, residence, milk cow or goat, meat animal) where the highest radiation dose to a 

member of the public has been established from each applicable pathway (e.g., ground 

deposition, inhalation, vegetable consumption, milk consumption, meat consumption). Only 

those pathways associated with airborne effluents that are known to exist at a single location 

are combined to calculate the total maximum exposure to an exposed individual. Pathway 

doses associated with liquid effluents are conservatively combined without regard to any single 

location but are assumed to be associated with the maximum exposure of an individual. 

A number of possible exposure pathways to humans are evaluated to determine the impact of 

routine releases from each nuclear facility on members of the general public living and working 

outside the site boundaries. A listing of these exposure pathways include external radiation 

exposure from gaseous effluents, inhalation of iodines and particulate contaminants in the air, 

drinking milk from a cow or goat or eating meat from an animal that grazes on open pasture 

near the site on which iodines or particulates may be deposited, eating vegetables from a 

garden near the site (that may be contaminated by similar deposits), and drinking water or 

eating fish or invertebrates caught near the point of liquid effluent discharge. Other exposure 

pathways may include external irradiation from surface deposition; eating of animals and crops 

grown near the site and irrigated with water contaminated by liquid effluents; shoreline, boating, 

and swimming activities; drinking potentially contaminated water; and direct radiation being 

emitted from the plant itself. Calculations for most pathways are limited to a radius of 50 mi 

(80 km). For this study, effluent and MEI dose information was collected from a series of 

publicly available annual radioactive effluent release reports that licensees submit to NRC every 

year. 

Radiological Monitoring 

Background radiation measurements at all reactor sites were obtained prior to operation of the 

nuclear reactor. Thus, each facility has characterized the natural background levels of 

radioactivity and radiation and their variations among the anticipated important exposure 

pathways in the areas surrounding the facilities. The operational, radiological environmental 

monitoring program (REMP) is conducted at each site to provide data on measurable levels of 

radiation and radioactive materials in the site environs in accordance with 10 CFR Parts 20 

and 50. The REMP quantifies the environmental impacts associated with radioactive effluent 

releases from the plant. The REMP monitors the environment throughout the plant’s operating 

lifetime to monitor radioactivity in the local environment. The REMP provides a mechanism for 

determining the levels of radioactivity in the environment to ensure that any accumulation of 

radionuclides released into the environment will not become significant as a result of plant 

operations. The REMP also measures radioactivity from other nuclear facilities that may be in 

the area (i.e., other nuclear power plants, hospitals using radioactive material, research facilities 
Affected Environment 

 3-125 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

or any other facility licensed to use radioactive material). Thus, the REMP monitors the 

cumulative impacts from all sources of radioactivity in the vicinity of the power plant. To obtain 

information on radioactivity around the plant, samples of environmental media (e.g., surface 

water, groundwater, drinking water, air, milk, locally grown crops, locally produced food 

products, river, ocean, or lake sediment, and fish and other aquatic biota) are collected from 

areas surrounding the plant for analysis to measure the amount of radioactivity, if any, in the 

samples. The media samples reflect the radiation exposure pathways (i.e., inhalation, 

ingestion, and physical location near the plant) to the public from radioactive effluents released 

by the nuclear power plant and from background radiation (i.e., cosmic sources, naturally 

occurring radioactive material, including radon and global fallout). The NRC has standards for 

the amount of radioactivity in the sample media, which if exceeded, must be reported to the 

NRC and the licensee must conduct an investigation. The REMP supplements the radioactive 

effluent monitoring program by verifying that measurable concentrations of radioactive materials 

and levels of radiation in the environment are not higher than expected when compared against 

data on the amount of radioactive effluent discharged. 

The REMP can also identify the existence of effluents from unmonitored release points. A 

periodic land use survey identifies changes in the use of unrestricted areas to provide a basis 

for modifying the monitoring programs to reflect a new exposure pathway or a different sitespecific dose calculation parameter. The results of the REMP are documented by each 

licensee in the annual radiological environmental monitoring reports and submitted to NRC 

every year and are publically available in NRC’s ADAMS document system. 

Public Radiation Doses

Table 3.9-14 shows the total body dose to the public, ground-level air dose, and dose to a 

critical organ for three years (2004 through 2006) from gaseous effluent releases for several 

PWRs and BWRs. The dose varies from year to year and also from reactor to reactor. The 

maximum total body dose is 0.14 mrem, maximum dose to a critical organ is 0.17 mrem, 

maximum ground-level air dose from gamma radiation is 0.04 mrad, and maximum ground-level 

dose from beta radiation is 0.06 mrad. All doses are much less than the design objectives 

shown in Table 3.9-2. 

Table 3.9-15 shows the total body dose to the public and dose to a critical organ for 3 years 

(2004 through 2006) from liquid effluent releases for the same PWRs and BWRs. The total 

body dose and dose to critical organ of the MEI from liquid effluent releases varies from year to 

year and also from reactor to reactor. The maximum total body dose is 0.06 mrem, and the 

maximum dose to a critical organ is 0.06 mrem. The doses are much less than the design 

objectives shown in Table 3.9-2. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-126 

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

 2004 

Reactor 

Name 

No. of 

Reactors 

Total Body 

(mrem) 

Gamma(a)

(mrad) 

Beta(a)

(mrad) 

Critical 

Organ 

(mrem) 

PWRs 

Comanche Peak(b) 2 1.95  10-2 2.05  10-3 8.00  10-4 1.95  10-2

Cook(b) 2 8.00  10-2 9.50  10-4 2.65  10-3 NR(c)

Indian Point 2 1 NR 4.35  10-3 1.75  10-2 6.00  10-3

Indian Point 3 1 NR 1.20  10-4 7.70  10-4 8.00  10-4

Robinson 1 NR 4.00  10-3 1.70  10-3 8.20  10-2

San Onofre(b) 2 NR 4.05  10-2 5.00  10-2 6.50  10-3

Surry(b) 2 NR 3.40  10-4 4.55  10-4 3.75  10-2

BWRs

Hatch 1 1 7.20  10-3 5.20  10-5 6.80  10-5 7.20  10-3

Hatch 2 1 1.00  10-2 4.30  10-5 5.80  10-5 1.10  10-2

Vermont Yankee 1 NR 0 0 8.00  10-3

Limerick(b) 2 1.05  10-3 1.65  10-3 1.00  10-3 3.55  10-3

Columbia 1 3.70  10-2 1.90  10-3 6.80  10-4 3.80  10-2

 2005

Reactor 

Name 

No. of 

Reactors 

Total Body 

(mrem) 

Gamma(a)

(mrad) 

Beta(a)

(mrad) 

Critical 

Organ 

(mrem) 

PWRs 

Comanche Peak(b) 2 1.85  10-2 2.05  10-2 5.00  10-2 1.65  10-1

Cook(b) 2 7.00  10-2 1.30  10-3 2.00  10-3 NR 

Indian Point 2 1 NR 9.00  10-5 6.00  10-4 6.50  10-4

Indian Point 3 1 NR 1.10  10-3 6.00  10-3 3.60  10-3

Robinson 1 NR 9.70  10-3 3.60  10-3 7.40  10-2

San Onofre(b) 2 NR 3.50  10-2 4.90  10-2 1.95  10-3

Surry(b) 2 NR 8.00  10-4 1.45  10-3 7.50  10-2

BWRs

Hatch 1 1 8.60  10-3 0 0 8.70  10-3

Hatch 2 1 1.20  10-2 0 0 1.20  10-2

Vermont Yankee 1 NR 3.30  10-2 3.20  10-3 1.10  10-2

Limerick(b) 2 1.20  10-3 1.80  10-3 1.25  10-3 4.35  10-2

Columbia 1 2.80  10-2 2.70  10-3 9.50  10-4 3.00  10-2
Affected Environment 

 3-127 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 3.9-14. (cont.) 

 2006 

Reactor 

Name 

No. of 

Reactors 

Total Body 

(mrem) 

Gamma(a)

(mrad) 

Beta(a)

(mrad) 

Critical 

Organ 

(mrem) 

PWRs

Comanche Peak(b) 2 2.30  10-2 3.60  10-3 9.00  10-4 8.50  10-2

Cook(b) 2 1.35  10-1 2.60  10-3 2.80  10-2 NR 

Indian Point 2 1 NR 2.55  10-3 9.00  10-3 6.00  10-3

Indian Point 3 1 NR 5.40  10-5 1.60  10-4 1.10  10-3

Robinson 1 NR 2.50  10-3 8.80  10-4 1.40  10-1

San Onofre(b) 2 NR 3.70  10-2 6.00  10-2 6.30  10-3

Surry(b) 2 NR 5.50  10-4 8.50  10-4 7.00  10-2

BWRs 

Hatch 1 1 7.20  10-3 4.40  10-6 1.30  10-5 7.20  10-3

Hatch 2 1 2.30  10-2 0 0 2.30  10-2

Vermont Yankee 1 NR 8.80  10-5 1.40  10-2 9.60  10-3

Limerick(b) 2 7.50  10-4 1.10  10-3 7.00  10-4 2.35  10-3

Columbia 1 2.00  10-2 6.10  10-3 2.10  10-3 2.00  10-2

(a) Values represent ground-level air doses. 

(b) There is more than one plant operating at these reactor sites, and the combined doses were reported 

in the annual effluent release report. The reported doses were divided by the number of reactors to get 

the dose per reactor. 

(c) NR = not reported in the site’s effluent release report. 

Sources: Each site’s annual effluent release reports 

Note: To convert mrem to mSv, multiply by 0.01. 

Table 3.9-16 presents the dose to the MEI for the years 2004 to 2006 for a few PWRs and 

BWRs. Under most circumstances, the dose calculations, which were made by the sites, 

overestimate the dose because of conservative assumptions. The table shows that the MEI 

doses varied from about 0.02 mrem at the Columbia Generating Station in 2006 to about 

15 mrem at Vermont Yankee in 2006. For most reactors, the annual MEI doses are a few 

millirem or less. At Vermont Yankee, the dose is relatively high because of the close proximity 

of the MEI to the plant. Over 99.9 percent of the individual’s dose is attributed to direct radiation 

from the plant (NRC 2007f). 

Radiological Exposure from Naturally Occurring and Artificial Sources 

Table 3.9-17 identifies background doses to a typical member of the U.S. population as 

summarized in NCRP (2009). In the table, the annual values are rounded to the nearest 

1 percent. A total average annual effective dose equivalent of 620 mrem/yr to members of the 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-128 

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

 2004 2005 2006 

Reactor Name 

No. of 

Reactors 

Total Body 

(mrem) 

Critical 

Organ 

(mrem) 

Total 

Body 

(mrem) 

Critical 

Organ 

(mrem) 

Total 

Body 

(mrem) 

Critical 

Organ 

(mrem) 

PWRs 

Comanche Peak(a) 2 5.50  10-2 5.50  10-2 6.00  10-2 6.00  10-2 5.00  10-2 5.00  10-2

Cook(a) 2 1.30  10-2 1.40  10-2 8.50  10-3 1.00  10-2 1.30  10-2 1.30  10-2

Robinson 1 6.60  10-4 7.20  10-4 9.20  10-5 9.60  10-5 3.50  10-4 3.60  10-4

Indian Point 2 1 3.20  10-3 1.10  10-2 8.10  10-4 1.30  10-3 8.80  10-4 1.30  10-3

Indian Point 3 1 2.00  10-4 5.50  10-4 4.50  10-4 5.40  10-4 1.30  10-4 1.60  10-4

San Onofre(a) 2 2.55  10-3 1.00  10-2 1.35  10-3 4.00  10-3 1.10  10-3 3.90  10-3

Surry(a) 2 1.30  10-4 3.60  10-4 1.20  10-4 4.55  10-4 1.55  10-4 5.50  10-4

BWRs 

Hatch 1 1 4.20  10-3 6.30  10-3 3.20  10-3 4.80  10-3 2.60  10-3 3.80  10-3

Hatch 2 1 9.50  10-4 1.40  10-3 1.20  10-3 1.90  10-3 3.50  10-4 4.50  10-4

Vermont Yankee 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Limerick(a) 2 7.50  10-4 1.05  10-3 5.50  10-4 5.50  10-4 1.10  10-3 1.15  10-3

Columbia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(a) There are two or more plants operating at these reactor sites. The reported doses in the annual effluent release reports were divided by 2 to 

get the dose per reactor. 

Source: Each site’s annual effluent release reports 

Note: To convert mrem to mSv, multiply by 0.01. 

U.S. population is contributed by two primary sources: naturally occurring background radiation 

and medical exposure to patients. 

Natural radiation sources other than radon result in 13 percent of the typical radiation dose 

received. The larger source of radiation dose in ubiquitous background (37 percent) is from 

radon, particularly because of homes and other buildings that trap radon and significantly 

enhance its dose contribution over open-air living. The remaining 50 percent of the average 

annual effective dose equivalent consists of radiation mostly from medical procedures 

(computed tomography, 24 percent; nuclear medicine, 12 percent; interventional fluoroscopy, 

7 percent; and conventional radiography and fluoroscopy, 5 percent) and a small fraction from 

consumer products (2 percent). The consumer product exposure category includes exposure to 

members of the public from building materials, commercial air travel, cigarette smoking, mining 

and agriculture products, combustion of fossil fuels, highway and road construction materials, 

and glass and ceramic. The industrial, security, medical, education, and research exposure 

category includes exposure to the members of the public from nuclear power generation; DOE 
Affected Environment 

 3-129 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 3.9-16. Total Effective Dose Equivalent (mrem) 

to the Maximally Exposed Individual 

(MEI) for 2004 through 2006 

Site(a) 

No. of 

Reactors 2004 2005 2006 

PWRs 

Cook 2 0.108 0.095 0.182 

Indian Point 2 <4.0 <4.1 <7.1 

San Onofre 2 0.29 0.4 0.6 

BWRs 

Vermont Yankee 1 13.3 13.5 15.3 

Columbia 1 0.037 0.028 0.019 

(a) Some of the reactors in Tables 3.9-9 and 3.9-10 are not included 

because the dose to the MEI was not reported in the site’s effluent 

release reports for these reactors. 

Source: Each site’s annual effluent release reports 

installation; decommissioning and radioactive waste; industrial, medical, education, and 

research activities; contact with nuclear medicine patients; and security inspection systems. 

The occupational exposure category includes exposure to workers from medical, aviation, 

commercial nuclear power, industry and commerce, education and research, government, the 

DOE, and military installations. Radiation exposures from occupational activities, industrial, 

security, medical, educational and research contribute insignificantly to the total average 

effective dose equivalent. 

Inadvertent Liquid Radioactive Releases 

As mentioned before, all commercial nuclear power plants routinely release radioactive material 

to the environment in the form of liquids and gases in accordance with regulations (Table 3.9-2). 

Each year, plant operators submit an effluent release report that documents the amount of 

radioactive material released to the environment during the year. This report also includes the 

public dose impact from the releases. Plant operators also conduct environmental monitoring in 

the vicinity and submit an environmental monitoring report every year to the NRC. However, 

some sites have had inadvertent radioactive liquid releases that were not initially monitored. 

After the discovery of a leak, each licensee performed appropriate monitoring and assessed the 

radiation exposure to a member of the public. In all cases, the calculated dose to a member of 

the public was below the ALARA design objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-130 

Table 3.9-17. Average Annual Effective Dose Equivalent 

of Ionizing Radiation to a Member of the 

U.S. Population for 2006 

Effective Dose Equivalent 

Source mrem Percent of Total 

Ubiquitous background 

Radon and thoron 228 37 

Natural 

Cosmic 33 5 

Terrestrial 21 3 

Internal 29 5 

Total ubiquitous background 311 50 

Medical 

Computed tomography 147 24 

Nuclear medicine 77 12 

Interventional fluoroscopy 43 7 

Conventional radiography and 

fluoroscopy 

 33 5 

Total medical 300 48 

Consumer products 13 2 

Industrial, security, medical, 

educational and research 

 0.3 0.05 

Occupational 0.5 0.08 

Total 624.8 100 

Source: Adapted from NCRP 2009 

Table 3.9-18 provides a list of the known inadvertent releases to the environment primarily from 

1996 through 2006. 

After inadvertent releases of tritium that resulted in groundwater contamination at the 

Braidwood, Indian Point, Byron, and Dresden nuclear sites were recently detected, the NRC 

chartered a taskforce to conduct a lessons-learned review of these incidents. The taskforce 

also reviewed and evaluated public health and environmental impacts, along with many other 

aspects, such as regulatory framework and NRC inspection. 

The impacts from inadvertent releases would be in addition to the impacts from routine effluent 

releases and would depend on many factors, such as the amount and type of radionuclide, 
Affected Environment 

 3-131 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

Site 

Date of Release 

Discovery Source of Release Radionuclides Detected 

Braidwood March 2005 Vacuum breaker valves on the 

circulating water blowdown line 

Tritium 

Byron February 2006 Vacuum breaker valves on the 

circulating water blowdown line 

Tritium 

Callaway June 2006 Air release valves on the 

circulating water blowdown line 

Tritium, cobalt-58, 

cobalt-60, cesium-134, 

and cesium-137 

Dresden August 2004, January 2006 Non-safety-related high-pressure 

coolant injection suction and 

return line 

Tritium 

Hatch December 1986 Fuel transfer canal, because of 

operator action 

Tritium 

Indian Point August 2005—Unit 1 

leakage predates August 

2005 

Unit 1 and Unit 2 spent fuel pools Tritium, nickel-63, cesium137, strontium-90, and 

cobalt-60 

Oyster Creek September 1996 Condensate transfer system, 

because of operator action 

Tritium 

Palo Verde March 2006 Rain condensing onto property 

after a gaseous release 

Tritium 

Perry March 2006 Feedwater system venturi Tritium 

Point Beach 1999 Retention pond Tritium, cesium-137 

Seabrook June 1999 Spent fuel pool Tritium 

Salem September 2002 Spent fuel pool Tritium 

Three Mile Island May 2006 Condensate storage tank Tritium 

Watts Bar August 2002 Effluent release pipe and spent 

fuel pool transfer tube sleeve 

Tritium and mixed fission 

products 

Source: NRC 2006c 

environmental transport, and how the receptor would come in contact with the contaminated 

media. For example, tritium enters the body when people eat or drink food or water that 

contains tritium or when they absorb it through their skin. People can also inhale tritium as a 

gas in the air. Once tritium enters the body, it quickly distributes uniformly throughout the soft 

tissue. At the Braidwood site between March 2005 and 2006, the plant operator sampled water 

in the drinking water wells of several nearby residents and found tritium contamination levels in 

a range of 1,400 to 1,600 pCi/L above background levels. These tritium contamination levels 

are much lower than the EPA’s drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L for tritium. 

 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-132 

The task force focused on the inadvertent releases that had the potential to have a measurable 

dose impact on a member of the public and/or the offsite environment on the basis of the 

source’s strength and its potential for movement offsite. Table 3.9-19 lists the maximum tritium 

contamination detected onsite and at offsite locations from the inadvertent release events. The 

table shows that currently, for most locations, contamination has not migrated offsite. 

The most significant conclusion of the task force regarded the lack of public health impacts. 

Although there have been number of industry events in which radioactive liquid was released to 

the environment in an unplanned and unmonitored fashion, based on the data available, the 

task force did not identify any instances where the health of the public was impacted 

(NRC 2006c). 

Radiation Health Effects Studies 

Studies published by the Radiation Public Health Project assert that strontium-90 levels in the 

environment are rising and are responsible for cancers in children and infant mortality. This 

group of studies also claims that radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants are directly 

responsible for the increases in strontium-90 concentrations in baby teeth (Gould et al. 2000; 

Mangano et al. 2003). 

Strontium-90 does not occur naturally. It comes from three sources: (1) fallout from 

aboveground explosions from testing of nuclear weapons worldwide from 1963 to 1980, 

(2) radioactive releases from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in the Ukraine, 

and (3) radioactive releases from nuclear power plants into the environment. 

Approximately 16.8 million Ci of strontium-90 were produced and globally dispersed in 

atmospheric nuclear weapons testing until 1980. Also, as a result of the Chernobyl accident, 

approximately 216,000 Ci of strontium-90 were released into the atmosphere 

(UNSCEAR 2000). The total annual release of strontium-90 into the atmosphere from all 

104 commercial nuclear power plants operating in the United States is typically 1/1,000th of a 

curie (NRC 1993). At an individual nuclear power plant, the amount of strontium-90 released in 

gaseous effluent is so low that it is usually at or below the minimum detectable activity of 

sensitive detection equipment. For this reason, any strontium-90 detected in the environment 

near a nuclear power plant would probably not have come from the plant but would instead be 

attributed to fallout from nuclear weapons testing or from the Chernobyl accident. 

The NRC has established strict limits on the amount of radioactive emissions allowed to be 

released from nuclear plants to the environment and the resulting exposure for members of the 

public and plant workers (see Table 3.9-2). All power plant operators are required to monitor 

radioactive airborne and liquid discharges from the plant and to file a report of these discharges 

annually with the NRC. These reports, which are publicly available, list the radioactive isotopes 
Affected Environment 

 3-133 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

Site 

Maximum Tritium 

Contamination (pCi/L) 

Detected within the 

Site Boundary 

Maximum Water 

Contamination (pCi/L) 

at Offsite Locations 

Receptor and 

Pathways 

Yearly Dose 

(mrem) 

Braidwood 225,000 to 250,000 1,400 to 1,600 Child: water ingestion; 

Adult: fish and water 

ingestion 

Child: 0.16 

Adult: 0.07 

Byron 3,800 None detected NA(a) NA 

Callaway 20,000 to 200,000 None detected NA NA 

Dresden 486,000 to 680,000 None detected NA NA 

Hatch(b)

 See footnote (a) None detected at offsite 

water sources—long-term 

monitoring in place

Negligible Negligible 

Indian Point(c) 200,000 for tritium 

100 for nickel-63 

50 for strontium-90 

Dose calculated 

conservatively 

MEI(d) 0.0021 

Oyster Creek 16,000 None detected NA NA 

Palo Verde 71,400 None detected NA NA 

Perry 60,000 None detected NA NA 

Point Beach 14,250 None detected NA NA 

Seabrook 750,000 Groundwater plume has 

not migrated offsite 

Negligible Negligible 

Salem(e)

 15,000,000 None detected NA NA 

Three Mile 

Island 

45,000 None detected NA NA 

Watts Bar 30,000 Groundwater plume has 

not migrated offsite 

Negligible Negligible 

(a) NA = Not applicable because water contamination was not detected at offsite locations. 

(b) Approximately 124,000 gal of liquid containing 0.2 Ci of tritium and 0.373 Ci of mixed fission products were released to a swamp 

onsite. 

(c) Source for data is Indian Point (2005). 

(d) MEI = Maximally Exposed Individual. 

(e) Extensive groundwater remediation program in place. 

Source: NRC 2006c 

Note: To convert mrem to mSv, multiply by 0.01. 

 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-134 

released, the quantity released, and the radiation dose to the public. The concentrations of 

radionuclides released into the environment from a nuclear facility are generally too low to be 

measurable outside the plant’s boundary. In addition to limits on effluent releases, plant 

operators maintain an environmental monitoring program that is reviewed and inspected 

regularly by the NRC to ensure that the program complies with its requirements. To 

demonstrate that the plant is within the regulatory limits, operators regularly sample and analyze 

the surrounding soil, vegetation, cow’s milk, air, aquatic biota, and water. In a given year, a 

plant operator samples and analyzes hundreds of environmental samples. The results of 

environmental monitoring and assessment efforts are provided to the NRC in an annual report, 

which is available to the public. It is reasonable to conclude that strontium-90 would be seen in 

the environment well before it is seen in baby teeth. In order for it to be in the environment from 

nuclear power plants, it would have to be seen in significant quantities in the effluent stream 

from these facilities. However, strontium-90 is not present in the effluents at such levels 

(NRC 2007g). 

Several studies have been conducted to examine health effects around nuclear power plants 

(National Cancer Institute 1990; ACS 2001; FDOH 2001; IDPH 2000, 2006). The National 

Cancer Institute looked at cancer mortality rates around 52 nuclear power plants and 10 other 

nuclear facilities. The study concluded there was no evidence that nuclear facilities may be 

linked causally with excess deaths from leukemia or from other cancers in populations living 

nearby. In light of the information that has become available since 1990 and due to the 

demographic changes in the last 20 years, the NRC has asked the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS) to perform a state-of-the-art study on cancer risk for populations surrounding 

nuclear power facilities (NRC 2012). The NAS study will update the 1990 National Cancer 

Institute report. The study began in the summer of 2010 and is expected to be completed within 

four years. The ACS in 2001 concluded that cancer clusters do not occur more often near 

nuclear plants than they do by chance elsewhere. In 2001, the Florida Bureau of Environmental 

Epidemiology reviewed claims that there are striking increases in cancer rates in southeastern 

Florida counties caused by increased radiation exposures from nuclear power plants. However, 

when they used the same data to reconstruct the calculations on which the claims were based, 

Florida officials were not able to identify unusually high rates of cancers in these counties when 

rates were compared with rates in the rest of the State of Florida and the nation (FDOH 2001). 

In 2000, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) compared childhood cancer statistics 

for counties with nuclear power plants to similar counties without nuclear plants and found no 

statistically significant difference (IDPH 2000). In 2006, the IDPH studied pediatric cancer 

incidence and mortality rates for children near nuclear reactor sites. No evidence of an 

increased trend in the cancer incidence rate after startup of nuclear power plants was found 

(IDPH 2006). Boice et al. (2005) evaluated the rates of total cancer, leukemia, and cancer of 

brain tissue and other nervous tissue in children and across all ages in St Lucie County with 

respect to the years before and after the nuclear power station began operation and compared 

the results with rates in two similar counties in Florida (Polk and Volusia). Over the prolonged 
Affected Environment 

 3-135 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

period 1950 through 2000, no unusual patterns of childhood cancer mortality were found for 

St Lucie County as a whole. In particular, no unusual patterns of childhood cancer mortality 

were seen in relation to the startup of the St Lucie nuclear power station in 1976. Further, there 

were no significant differences in mortality between the study and comparison counties for any 

cancer in the time period after the power station was in operation (Boice et al. 2005). 

On the basis of all the preceding discussion, several studies appear to refute the claims made in 

the studies published by the Radiation Public Health Project. 

3.9.1.4 Risk Estimates from Radiation Exposure 

In estimating the health effects resulting from both occupational and offsite radiation exposures 

as a result of operating nuclear power facilities, the normal probability coefficients for stochastic 

effects recommended by the ICRP (ICRP 1991) were used. The coefficients consider the most 

recent radiobiological and epidemiological information available and are consistent with the 

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. The coefficients used 

(Table 3.9-20) are the same as those published by ICRP in connection with a revision of its 

recommendations (ICRP 1991). Excess hereditary effects are listed separately because 

radiation-induced effects of this type have not been observed in any human population, as 

opposed to excess malignancies that have been identified among populations receiving 

instantaneous and near-uniform exposures in excess of 10 rem. Details regarding the risk of 

radiation-induced health effects are provided in Section D.8 in Appendix D. 

In 2006, the National Research Council’s Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of 

Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) published BEIR-VII, entitled Health Risks from Exposure to Low 

Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR 2006). 

BEIR-VII provides estimates of the risk of incidence 

and mortality for males and females (see Table D.8-4 

in Appendix D). If the total fatal cancer risk is the sum 

of cancer deaths from all solid cancers and leukemia, 

then the fatal cancer risk coefficient for the general 

public would be 6  10-4/person-rem (see Table D.8-5 

in Appendix D). The fatal cancer risk for the general 

public based on ICRP is 5  10-4/person-rem 

(Table 3.9-20). There is a difference of approximately 

20 percent in the fatal cancer risk coefficient based on 

ICRP recommendation and the BEIR-VII report. The 

difference of 20 percent is within the margin of 

uncertainty associated with these estimates. See 

Section D.8.1.4 in Appendix D for a detailed discussion of the BEIR VII report. 

Table 3.9-20. Nominal Probability 

Coefficients Used 

in ICRP (1991)(a) 

Health Effect Occupational Public 

Fatal cancer 4 5 

Hereditary 0.6 1 

(a) Estimated number of excess effects among 

10,000 people receiving 10,000 person-rem. 

Coefficients are based on “central” or “best” 

estimates. 

Source: ICRP 1991 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-136 

The NRC completed a review of the BEIR VII report and documented its findings in the 

Commission paper SECY-05-0202, Staff Review of the National Academies Study of the Health 

Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII), dated October 29, 2005 

(NRC 2005b) (ADAMS Accession No. ML052640532). In this paper, the NRC concluded that 

the findings presented in the BEIR VII report agree with the NRC’s current understanding of the 

health risks from exposure to ionizing radiation. The NRC agreed with the BEIR VII report’s 

major conclusion that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a 

linear, no-threshold dose response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the 

development of cancer in humans. This conclusion is consistent with the process the NRC uses 

to develop its standards of radiological protection. Therefore, the NRC’s regulations continue to 

be adequately protective of public health and safety and the environment. 

If the occupational worker is exposed at 10 CFR Part 20 dose limits for 1 year, the probability of 

developing fatal cancer (on the basis of ICRP recommendations) from exposure due to an 

operating nuclear reactor is equal to 2  10-3 on the basis of ICRP recommendations. However, 

the average individual worker doses are much less than the dose limits (see Table 3.9-4), and, 

at the doses observed, the probability of developing fatal cancer would be in the range of 

1.2  10-4 to 4.8  10-5. 

If the member of the public is exposed at 40 CFR Part 190 dose limits, the probability of 

developing fatal cancer (on the basis of ICRP recommendations) from exposure resulting from 

operating a nuclear reactor is equal to 1.25  10-5. However, the MEI doses are much less than 

the dose limits (see Table 3.9-16), and, at the doses observed, the probability of developing 

fatal cancer would be in the range of 7.7  10-6 to 1.0  10-8. 

3.9.1.5 Conclusion 

Radiation doses to nuclear power plant workers and members of the public from the current 

operation of nuclear power plants have been examined, and the radiation doses were found to 

be well within design objectives and regulations in each instance. Therefore, the health impacts 

from radiation to the workers and the public are considered to be SMALL. 

3.9.2 Chemical Hazards 

Chemicals enter the body through the skin, by inhalation, or by ingestion. Chemical exposure 

produces different effects on the body depending on the chemical and the amount of exposure. 

Chemicals can cause cancer, affect reproductive capability, disrupt the endocrine system, or 

have other health effects. Acute effects from chemical exposure occur immediately (e.g., when 

somebody inhales or ingests a poisonous substance such as cyanide). Chronic or delayed 

effects result in symptoms such as skin rashes, headaches, breathing difficulties, and nausea. 
Affected Environment 

 3-137 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

In nuclear power plants, chemical effects could result from discharges of chlorine or other 

biocides, small-volume discharges of sanitary and other liquid wastes, chemical spills, and 

heavy metals leached from cooling system piping and condenser tubing. Impacts of chemical 

discharges to human health are considered to be SMALL if the discharges of chemicals to water 

bodies are within effluent limitations designed to ensure protection of water quality and if 

ongoing discharges have not resulted in adverse effects on aquatic biota. 

The discharged chemicals, including chlorine and other biocides, are regulated by the NPDES 

permitting system of each nuclear power plant. Regulatory concerns about the toxic effects of 

chlorine and its combination products, as well as operating experience with controlling 

biofouling, have led many plants to eliminate the use of chlorine or reduce the amount used 

below the levels that were originally anticipated in the environmental statements associated with 

issuing the construction permit and operating license. Some power plants use mechanical 

cleaning methods or, because of the abrasive properties of particulates in the intake water, do 

not have to clean the condenser cooling system at all. Other plants chlorinate the condenser 

cooling or service water systems but can isolate certain portions for treatment (e.g., a single unit 

of a multi-unit plant), thereby allowing dilution to reduce the concentration of chlorine in the 

discharge. Because of these refinements and the process for modifying NPDES permit 

conditions as needed, water quality degradation from existing biocide usage at once-through 

nuclear power plants is controlled (see Section 3.5). 

Minor chemical spills or temporary off-specification discharges from sanitary waste treatment 

systems and other low-volume effluents (e.g., excessive coliform counts or total suspended 

solids levels, pH outside of permitted range) were cited as common NPDES permit violations in 

the 1996 GEIS (NRC 1996). Such NPDES noncompliances have been variable, random in 

occurrence, and readily amenable to correction. These minor discharges or spills do not 

constitute widespread, consistent water quality degradation. Effects on water quality from minor 

chemical discharges and spills have been of small significance and have been mitigated as 

needed (NRC 1996). Significant cumulative impacts to water quality would not be expected 

because the small amounts of chemicals released by these minor discharges or spills are 

readily dissipated in the receiving water body. Spills and off-specification discharges occur 

seldom enough that regulatory agencies have expressed no concern about them with regard to 

operating nuclear power plants (NRC 1996). 

Heavy metals (e.g., copper, zinc, and chromium) may be leached from condenser tubing and 

other heat exchangers and discharged by power plants as small-volume waste streams or 

corrosion products. Although all are found in small quantities in natural waters (and many are 

essential micronutrients), concentrations in the power plant discharge are controlled in the 

NPDES permit because excessive concentrations of heavy metals can be toxic to aquatic 

organisms (see Section 3.6). The ability of aquatic organisms to bioaccumulate heavy metals, 

even at low concentrations, has led to concerns about toxicity to both the humans and the biota 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-138 

that consume contaminated fish and shellfish. For example, the bioconcentration of copper 

discharged from the Chalk Point plant (a fossil-fuel power plant on Chesapeake Bay) resulted in 

oyster “greening” (Roosenburg 1969). The bioaccumulation of copper released from the 

Robinson plant resulted in malformations and decreased reproductive capacity among bluegill in 

the cooling reservoir (Harrison 1985). At the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, it was observed that 

the concentration of soluble copper in effluent water was high during the startup of water 

circulation through the condenser system after a shutdown (Harrison 1985). In all three 

examples of excessive accumulation of copper (Diablo Canyon, Chalk Point, and Robinson), 

replacement of the copper alloy condenser tubes with another material (e.g., titanium) 

eliminated the problem. 

The EPA is responsible for the regulation of most chemicals that can enter the environment. 

The EPA administers the following Federal acts related to chemical contamination: the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Clean Water Act (CWA); Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA); Clean Air Act (CAA); and Comprehensive Environmental Response 

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). 

Nuclear power plants may be required in some instances to submit annual reports of the 

environmental releases of listed toxic chemicals manufactured, processed, or otherwise used 

that are above threshold quantities, depending on State regulations or other specific 

circumstances. In addition, management, including treatment, storage, disposal, and release to 

the environment, of essentially all of the hazardous chemicals used at nuclear power plants is 

regulated by RCRA, FIFRA, TSCA, or the CWA. In the case of releases to State and Federal 

waters, the CWA requires that nuclear power plants obtain NPDES permits, which establish 

protective release limits and controls as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. RCRA, 

FIFRA, and TSCA also establish reporting requirements that frequently apply to management of 

nonradioactive hazardous chemicals at nuclear power plants, and some nuclear power plants 

may undertake activities that require a RCRA permit. Nuclear power plants are required by the 

NRC to operate in compliance with all applicable environmental laws, regulations, and permits, 

therefore minimizing the impact on the environment, workers, and the public. Therefore, the 

health impacts from chemicals on workers and the public are considered SMALL. 

3.9.3 Microbiological Hazards 

Some microorganisms associated with nuclear power plant cooling towers and thermal 

discharges can have deleterious impacts on the health of plant workers and the public. 

Microorganisms of concern include the enteric pathogens Salmonella spp. and Shigella spp., 

as well as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and thermophilic fungi. Tests for these pathogens are well 

established, and factors germane to their presence in aquatic environments are known and, in 

some cases, controllable. Other aquatic microorganisms normally present in surface waters 
Affected Environment 

 3-139 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

have only recently been recognized as pathogenic for humans. Among these are Legionnaires’ 

disease bacteria (Legionella spp.) and free-living amoebae of the genera Naegleria and 

Acanthamoeba, the causative agents of various, although rare, human infections. Factors 

affecting the distribution of Legionella spp. and pathogenic free-living amoebae are not well 

understood. Simple, rapid tests for their detection and procedures for their control are not yet 

available. 

Potential adverse health effects of microorganisms on nuclear power plant workers are an issue 

for plants that use cooling towers. The potential for adverse health effects on the public from 

microorganisms in thermal effluents is an issue for nuclear plants that use cooling ponds, lakes, 

or canals and that discharge to small rivers (defined in NRC 1996 as having an average flow of 

less than 2,830 m3

/s [100,000 ft3/s]). These issues are evaluated here by reviewing what is 

known about the organisms that are potentially enhanced by plant operation. Potential effects 

are described below. 

3.9.3.1 Background Information on Microorganisms of Concern 

Salmonella typhimurium and S. enteritidis are two of the more common species of the 

Enterobacteriaceae that cause fever, abdominal cramps, and diarrhea. Salmonella spp. can 

occasionally establish localized infection (e.g., septic arthritis) or progress to sepsis. The 

affected groups include all ages, but groups at greatest risk for severe or complicated disease 

include infants, the elderly, and persons with compromised immune systems. Salmonella spp. 

can thrive at temperatures from 50 to 120°F (CDC 2007; Kendall 2007). 

Shigella spp. is similar to Salmonella spp. in its mode of transmission but has a much shorter 

incubation period (1 to 7 days). It produces severe dysentery with production of a potent 

exotoxin. The optimum growth temperature for the organism is 99°F, but it can grow at much 

higher temperatures (NRC 1996). 

Pseudomonas aeruginosa can be found in soil, humidifiers, hospital respirators, water, and 

sewage, and on the skin of healthy individuals. Certain strains can produce a potent endotoxin, 

and the organism can cause symptoms that include fever, bacteriuria, bacteremia, pneumonia, 

otitis, and opportunistic wound and ophthalmic infections. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an 

opportunistic pathogen that causes serious and sometimes fatal infections in 

immunocompromised individuals. The organism produces toxins that are harmful to humans 

and animals. It has an optimal growth temperature of 98.6°F and can tolerate a temperature as 

high as 107.6°F (Todar 2004). 

Thermophilic microorganisms can have optimum growth at temperatures of 122°F or more, a 

maximum temperature tolerance of up to 158°F, and a minimum tolerance of about 68°F 

(Deacon 2003). 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-140 

Legionella spp. consists of at least 46 species and 70 serogroups. It is responsible for 

Legionnaires’ disease, with the onset of pneumonia in the first two weeks of exposure. Risk 

groups for Legionella spp. include the elderly, cigarette smokers, persons with chronic lung or 

an immunocompromising disease, and persons receiving immunosuppressive drugs. 

A temperature range of 90 to 105°F is best for Legionella spp. growth (CDC 2005). 

Populations of the pathogenic amoeba flagellate Naegleria fowleri is the causative agent of 

human primary amoebic meningoencephalitis. The affected groups include all ages, but groups 

at greatest risk for severe or complicated disease include infants, the elderly, and persons with 

compromised immune systems. Naegleria spp. is ubiquitous in nature and can be enhanced in 

heated water bodies at temperatures ranging from 95 to 106°F or higher. This organism is 

rarely found in water cooler than 95°F, and infection rarely occurs in water temperatures of 95°F 

or less (Tyndall et al. 1989). 

During the scoping meeting for the Calvert Cliffs license renewal SEIS, one member of the 

public raised an issue about the microorganisms that live in high radiation and extreme heat 

conditions (such as within the spent fuel pool) based on the article “Something’s Bugging 

Nuclear Fuel” published in Science News (1998). The commenter asked that consideration be 

given to these types of organisms, the possibility of their mutation, and consequences if they 

escaped from the plant into the natural aquatic environment. The NRC consulted specialists in 

the field; the following is a summary of their conclusions as presented in the SEIS (NRC 1999): 

• Many types of organisms can live in the temperature range of the spent fuel pools 

(100 to 150°F). 

• There is a potential for mutation in all living organisms, but microbes that have high 

levels of radiation resistance have also developed extremely efficient repair systems. 

• Organisms that are associated with thermal waters of the spent fuel pool are likely to die 

if they are transferred into the relatively much lower water temperatures typical of 

surface waters. If the organisms are truly adapted to the high temperatures typical of the 

spent fuel pool, they probably would not be able to survive and compete with the 

indigenous microorganisms of the relatively cold waters of the natural water sources. 

In summary, the NRC concluded that microorganisms that live in high radiation and extreme 

heat conditions typical of the spent fuel pool do not pose a risk to humans or the environment. 

3.9.3.2 Studies of Microorganisms in Cooling Towers 

In 1981, cooling water systems at 11 nuclear power plants and associated control source waters 

were studied for the presence of thermophilic free-living amoebae, including N. fowleri. The 
Affected Environment 

 3-141 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

presence of pathogenic N. fowleri in these waters was tested, and while all but one test site was 

positive for thermophilic free-living amoebae, only two test sites were positive for pathogenic N. 

fowleri. Pathogenic N. fowleri were not found in any control source waters (Tyndall 1981). In 

addition to testing for pathogenic amoebae in cooling water, testing for the presence of 

Legionella spp. was also done (Tyndall 1981). The concentrations of Legionella spp. in these 

waters were determined. In general, the artificially heated waters showed only a slight increase 

(i.e., no more than tenfold) in concentrations of Legionella spp. relative to source water. In a 

few cases, source waters had higher levels than did heated waters. Infectious Legionella spp. 

were found in 7 of 11 test waters and 5 of 11 control source waters. 

Subsequently, a more detailed study of Legionella spp. in the environs of coal-fired power plants 

was undertaken to determine the distribution, abundance, infectivity, and aerosolization of 

Legionella spp. in power plant cooling systems (Tyndall 1983; Christensen et al. 1983; 

Tyndall et al. 1985). This study found that positive air samples did not occur often at locations 

that were not next to cleaning operations, which suggests that aerosolized Legionella spp. 

associated with downtime procedures have minimal impact beyond these locations. Even within 

plant boundaries, detectable airborne Legionella spp. appear to be confined to very limited 

areas. In these areas, however, the more contact individuals have with the most concentrated 

Legionella spp. populations, particularly if they become aerosolized (as they do in some 

downtime operations), the more likely it is that workers are exposed. 

There is new evidence that suggests that Legionella-like amoebal pathogens (LLAPs) may be 

an unrecognized significant cause of respiratory disease (Berk et al. 2006). In this study, the 

occurrence of infected amoebae in water, biofilm, and sediment samples from 40 cooling towers 

(non-nuclear sites) and 40 natural aquatic environments were compared. The natural samples 

were collected from rivers, creeks, lakes, and ponds from Tennessee, Kentucky, New Jersey, 

Florida, and Texas. The cooling tower samples were collected from industries, hospitals, 

municipal buildings, universities, and other public sites from Tennessee, Kentucky, and Texas. 

The infected amoebae were found in 22 cooling tower samples and 3 natural samples. 

According to this study, the probability of infected amoebae occurring in cooling towers is 

16 times higher than in natural environments. 

3.9.3.3 Microbiological Hazards to Plant Workers 

Exposure to Legionella spp. from power plant operations is a potential problem for a subset of 

the workforce. Plant personnel most likely to come in contact with Legionella aerosols would be 

workers who dislodge biofilms, where Legionella are often concentrated, such as during the 

cleaning of condenser tubes and cooling towers. Since Legionellosis is a respiratory disease, 

workers engaged in such activities should be protected by wearing appropriate respiratory 

protection. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-142 

Because the route of infection for N. fowleri is nasal, workers exposed to aerosols of this 

pathogen also should be protected with respiratory protection. If workers are involved in 

underwater maintenance or other activities associated with thermally altered discharge waters 

known to harbor N. fowleri, they should wear appropriate gear to prevent entry of the amoebae 

into the nasal cavity. 

In response to these various studies, workers at nuclear power plants are typically required to 

use respiratory protection when cleaning cooling towers and condensers. Also, for worker 

protection, one nuclear plant with high concentrations of N. fowleri in the circulating water 

successfully controlled the pathogen through chlorination before its yearly downtime operation 

(Tyndall 1983). It is anticipated that plant operators would continue to use proven industrial 

hygiene principles to minimize worker exposures to these organisms in mists of cooling towers 

(NRC 1996). 

3.9.3.4 Microbiological Hazards to the Public 

From the above studies, it is clear that heavily used bodies of freshwater merit special attention 

and possibly routine monitoring for pathogenic Naegleria. Since Naegleria concentrations in 

freshwater can be enhanced by thermal additions, nuclear power plants that utilize cooling 

lakes, canals, ponds, or small rivers may enhance the naturally occurring thermophilic 

organisms. The observed risk to swimmers from waters infected with N. fowleri is low but not 

zero (Hallenbeck and Brenniman 1989). Exposure to Legionella spp. from power plant 

operations would not generally impact the public because concentrated aerosols of the bacteria 

would not traverse plant boundaries. On the basis of the information available on 

microorganisms that may inhabit high-radiation, high-temperature environments (such as the 

spent fuel pool), the NRC concludes they have little potential for significantly increasing in 

number in the environment, and they would not have a deleterious effect on public health. 

It is possible that the operations of the plants that use cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or small 

rivers may enhance the presence of thermophilic organisms (NRC 1996). There are currently 

23 reactor sites that fit this category. Data for 14 sites from this category (Arkansas, Browns 

Ferry, Dresden, Farley, Fort Calhoun, Hatch, McGuire, Monticello, North Anna, Oconee, Peach 

Bottom, Quad Cities, Robinson, and Vermont Yankee) that have gone through or are going 

through license renewal were reviewed to predict the level of thermophilic microbiological 

organism enhancement at any given site. Health departments were contacted by many sites 

(Arkansas, Browns Ferry, Dresden, Farley, McGuire, Quad Cities, Oconee, and Robinson), and 

none of them had any concerns regarding the threat to the public from the thermophilic 

pathogens attributable to the plant operations. For some plants, such as Hatch, Quad Cities, 

and Monticello, NPDES permits had set limits on the maximum daily temperature for the 

discharge. At most of the sites where the public has access to the freshwater sources, 

temperatures could support survival of the thermophilic microorganisms in the summer but are 
Affected Environment 

 3-143 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

generally below the range that is known to be conducive to their growth. For all 14 sites, the 

actual hazard to public health from enhancement of thermophilic microbiological organisms was 

not identified, documented, or substantiated. 

3.9.4 Electromagnetic Fields 

All nuclear power plants have power transmission systems associated with them. They consist 

of switching stations (or substations) located on the plant site and the transmission lines needed 

to connect the plant to the regional electrical distribution grid. Transmission lines operate at a 

frequency of 60 Hz (60 cycles per second), which is low compared with the frequencies of 55 to 

890 MHz for television transmitters and 1,000 MHz and greater for microwaves. 

Electric fields are produced by voltage, and their strength increases with increases in voltage. 

An electric field is present as long as equipment is connected to the source of electric power. 

The unit of electric field strength is V/m or kV/m (1 kV/m = 1,000 V/m). A magnetic field is 

produced from the flow of current through wires or electrical devices, and its strength increases 

as the current increases. The unit of magnetic field strength is gauss (G), milligauss (mG), or 

tesla (T). One tesla equals 10,000 G and 1 G equals 1,000 mG. Electric and magnetic fields, 

collectively referred to as the electromagnetic field (EMF), are produced by operating 

transmission lines. Members of the public near transmission lines may be exposed to the EMFs 

produced by the transmission lines. The EMF varies in time as the current and voltage change, 

so that the frequency of the EMF is the same (e.g., 60 Hz for standard alternating current, or 

AC). Electrical fields can be shielded by objects such as trees, buildings, and vehicles. 

Magnetic fields, however, penetrate most materials, but their strength decreases with increasing 

distance from the source. 

Power lines associated with nuclear plants usually have voltages of 230 kV, 345 kV, 500 kV, or 

765 kV (a voltage occurring primarily in the eastern United States). EMF strength at ground 

level varies greatly under these lines, generally being stronger for higher-voltage lines, a flat 

configuration of conductors, relatively flat terrain, terrain with no shielding obstructions 

(e.g., trees or shrubs), and a closer approach of the lines to the ground. At locations where the 

field strength is at a maximum, the measured values under 500-kV lines often average about 

4 kV/m but sometimes exceed 6 kV/m. Maximum electric field strengths at ground level are 

9 kV/m for 500-kV lines and 12 kV/m for 765-kV lines (NRC 1996). 

Measured magnetic field strengths at the location of maximum values beneath 500-kV lines 

often average about 70 mG. During peak electricity use, when line current is high, the field 

strength may peak at 140 mG (about 1 percent or less of the time) (NRC 1996). 

The EMFs resulting from 60-Hz power transmission lines fall under the category of nonionizing 

radiation. Much of the general population has been exposed to power line fields since near the 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-144 

turn of the 20th century. There was little concern about health effects from such exposures until 

the 1960s. A series of events during the 1960s and 1970s heightened public interest in the 

possibility of health effects from nonionizing radiation exposures and resulted in increased 

scientific investigation in this area (NRC 1996). Then, in 1979, results of an epidemiological 

study suggested a correlation between proximity to high-current wiring configurations and 

incidence of childhood leukemia (Wertheimer and Leeper 1979). This report resulted in 

additional interest and scientific research; however, no consistent evidence linking harmful 

effects with 60-Hz exposures has been presented. Many studies have been conducted on the 

safety of the electric field, but no health effects have been associated with the magnitude of the 

electric fields that are associated with electrical power usage (Patty and Hill 2006). Most 

research on health effects has focused on magnetic fields. 

3.9.5 Other Hazards 

Nuclear power plants are industrial facilities having many of the typical occupational hazards 

found at any other electric power generation utility. Workplace hazards can be grouped into 

physical hazards (e.g., slips and trips, falls from height, and those related to transportation, 

temperature, humidity, and electricity), physical agents (noise, vibration, and ionizing radiation), 

chemical agents, biological agents, and psychosocial issues (work-related stress due to 

excessive working time and overnight shifts). The hazards from ionizing radiation, chemical 

agents, and biological hazards are discussed in Sections 3.9.1, 3.9.2, and 3.9.3, respectively. 

Power plant and maintenance workers could be working under potentially hazardous physical 

conditions (e.g., excessive heat, cold, and pressure), including electrical work, power line 

maintenance, and repair work. 

Transmission lines are necessary to transfer energy from all types of electrical generating 

facilities, including nuclear power plants, to consumers. The potential exposure to workers and 

the public from the EMFs is discussed in Section 3.9.4. The workers and general public at or 

around the nuclear power plants and along the transmission lines are exposed to the potential 

for acute electrical shock from transmission lines. This hazard is discussed in the following 

section. 

3.9.5.1 Occupational Hazards 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for developing and 

enforcing workplace safety regulations. OSHA was created by the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970 (29 USC 651 et seq.), which was enacted to safeguard the health of 

workers. With specific regard to nuclear power plants, plant conditions which result in an 

occupational risk, but do not affect the safety of licensed radioactive materials, are under the 

statutory authority of OSHA rather than the NRC as set forth in a Memorandum of 

Understanding (53 FR 47279, November 22, 1988) between the NRC and the Occupational 
Affected Environment 

 3-145 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Regardless, occupational hazards can be minimized 

when workers adhere to safety standards and use appropriate protective equipment; however, 

fatalities and injuries from accidents can still occur. 

Table 3.9-21 lists the total number of fatal occupational injuries that occurred in 2005 in different 

industry sectors. For the utility sector, of which the nuclear industry is a part, 30 workers 

suffered fatal occupational injuries, 22 of which were from electric power generation, 

transmission, and distribution. The rate of fatal injuries in the utility sector was less than the rate 

in the construction; transportation and warehousing; agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting; 

wholesale trade; and mining sectors. Table 3.9-22 lists the incidence rates of nonfatal 

occupational injuries and illnesses in different utilities for 2005. The incidence rate of nonfatal 

occupational injuries and illnesses is least for electric power generation, followed by electric 

power transmission control and distribution. 

Table 3.9-23 lists the number and rate of fatal occupational injuries that occurred in 2005 for 

selected occupations. The fatality rate for installers and repairers of electrical power lines can 

be estimated at 0.032 percent (BLS 2005b). The occupational safety and health hazards issue 

is 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. 

3.9.5.2 Shock Hazard 

As described in Section 3.1.6.5, in-scope transmission lines include only those lines that would 

not continue to operate if a plant’s license was not renewed. Using this criterion, in-scope 

transmission lines are those lines that connect the plant to the first substation of the regional 

electric grid. This substation is frequently, but not always, located on the plant property. The 

greatest hazard from a transmission line is direct electrical contact with the conductors. The 

electrical contact can occur without physical contact between a grounded object and the 

conductor (e.g., when arcing occurs across an air gap) (BPA 1998). The electric field created 

by a high-voltage line extends from the energized conductors to other conducting objects, such 

as the ground, vegetation, buildings, vehicles, and persons. Potential field effects can include 

induced currents, steady-state current shocks, spark-discharge shocks, and, in some cases, 

field perception and neurobehavioral responses. 

The shock hazard issue is evaluated by referring to the National Electric Safety Code (NESC). 

The purpose of the NESC is the practical safeguarding of persons during the installation, 

operation, or maintenance of electric supply and communication lines and associated 

equipment. The NESC contains the basic provisions that are considered necessary for the 

safety of employees and the public under the specified conditions (IEEE 2007). 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-146 

Table 3.9-21. Number and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries by 

Industry Sector in 2005 

Industry Sector Number 

Rate 

(per 100,000 

employees) 

Construction 1,192 11.0 

Transportation and warehousing 885 17.6 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 715 32.6 

Government 520 2.4 

Professional and business services 482 3.5 

Manufacturing 393 2.4 

Retail trade 400 2.4 

Leisure and hospitality 213 1.8 

Wholesale trade 204 4.4 

Mining 159 25.6 

Other services 210 3.0 

Educational and health services 150 0.8 

Financial activities 99 1.0 

Information 65 2.1 

Utilities(a) 30 3.6 

 Electric utilities(b) 22 NA(c) 

 Power generation(d) 11 NA 

 Hydroelectric power generation 4 NA 

 Fossil fuel electric power generation 4 NA 

 Power transmission control and distribution(e)

 9 NA 

 Natural gas distribution 4 NA 

 Water sewage and other system 3 NA 

All sectors 5,734 4.0 

(a) The numbers of fatalities from transportation, falls, and exposure to harmful substances or 

the environment were 10, 7, and 11, respectively. 

(b) The numbers of fatalities from transportation, falls, and exposure to harmful substances or 

the environment were 7, 5, and 9, respectively. 

(c) NA = not available. 

(d) The numbers of fatalities from transportation, falls, and exposure to harmful substances or 

the environment were 3, 3, and 5, respectively. 

(e) The numbers of fatalities from transportation and exposure to harmful substances or the 

environment were 3 and 4, respectively. 

Source: BLS 2005a,b 
Affected Environment 

 3-147 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 3.9-22. Employment and Incidence Rate of Nonfatal Occupational 

Injuries and Illnesses in Different Utilities in 2005 

Utility 

Rate 

(per 100 Employees)

Employment 

(in 1000s) 

Electric utilities 4.0 400.6 

 Power generation 3.3 240.1 

 Power transmission control and distribution 5.1 160.5 

Natural gas distribution 5.9 107.0 

Water sewage and other system 7.6 45.7 

Overall 4.6 553.3 

Source: BLS 2005c 

Table 3.9-23. Number and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries 

for Selected Occupations in 2005 

Occupation Number 

Rate per 

100,000 Employed 

Fishers and related fishing work 48 118.4 

Aircraft pilots and flight engineers 81 66.9 

Logging workers 80 92.9 

Structural iron and steel workers 35 55.6 

Refuse and recyclable material collectors 32 43.8 

Farmers and ranchers 341 41.1 

Electrical power-line installers and repairers 36 32.7 

Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers 993 29.1 

Miscellaneous agricultural workers 176 23.2 

Construction laborers 339 22.7 

Source: BLS 2005b 

Primary shock currents are produced mainly through direct contact with conductors and have 

effects ranging from a mild tingling sensation to death by electrocution. Tower designs preclude 

direct public access to the conductors. Secondary shock currents are produced when humans 

make contact with (1) capacitively charged bodies, such as a vehicle parked near a 

transmission line, or (2) magnetically linked metallic structures, such as fences near 

transmission lines. A person who contacts such an object could receive a shock and 

experience a painful sensation at the point of contact. The intensity of the shock depends on 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-148 

the EMF strength, the size of the object, and how well the object and the person are insulated 

from ground. 

Design criteria that limit hazards from steady-state currents are based on the NESC, which 

requires that utility companies design transmission lines so that the short-circuit current to 

ground, produced from the largest anticipated vehicle or object, is limited to less than 

5 milliamperes (mA) (IEEE 2007). No similar code exists for the limitation of the magnetic fields 

of transmission lines; however, because of concerns about the safety of magnetic fields, several 

States have created their own regulations (NRC 1996). 

With respect to shock safety issues and license renewal, three points must be made. First, in 

the licensing process for the earlier licensed nuclear plants, the issue of electrical shock safety 

was not addressed. Second, some plants that received operating licenses with a stated 

transmission line voltage may have chosen to upgrade the line voltage for reasons of efficiency, 

possibly without reanalysis of induction effects. Third, since the initial NEPA review for those 

utilities that evaluated potential shock situations under the provision of the NESC, land use may 

have changed, resulting in the need for a reevaluation of this issue. Electrical shock potential is 

minimized for transmission lines that are operated in adherence with the NESC. 

3.10 Environmental Justice 

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, Federal 

agencies are responsible for identifying and 

addressing potential disproportionately high 

and adverse human health and environmental 

impacts on minority and low-income 

populations. In 2004, the Commission issued 

its 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 Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides the following information in Environmental 

Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997): 

• Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects. Adverse health effects 

are measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer fatalities, as well as 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations”

“Each Federal agency, whenever practicable 

and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and 

analyze information assessing and comparing 

environmental and human health risks borne 

by populations identified by race, national 

origin, or income. To the extent practical and 

appropriate, Federal agencies shall use this 

information to determine whether their 

programs, policies, and activities have 

disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority 

populations and low-income populations.” 
Affected Environment 

 3-149 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

other fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse health effects may 

include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. Disproportionately high and 

adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an 

environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is significant (as defined 

by CEQ) and appreciably exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or 

for another appropriate comparison group. 

• Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects. A disproportionately 

high environmental impact that is significant (as defined by CEQ) refers to an impact or 

risk of an impact on the natural or physical environment in a low-income or minority 

community that appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the larger community. 

Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social 

impacts. An adverse environmental impact is an impact that is determined to be both 

harmful and significant (as defined by CEQ). In assessing cultural and aesthetic 

environmental impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically dislocated or 

dispersed minority or low-income populations or American Indian tribes are considered. 

The environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 

could result from the continued operation of a nuclear power plant during the renewal term. In 

assessing the impacts, the following CEQ definitions of minority individuals and populations and 

low-income population were used: 

• Minority individuals. Individuals who identify themselves as members of the following 

population groups: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black 

or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races 

meaning individuals who identified themselves on a Census form as being a member of 

two or more races, for example, Hispanic and Asian. 

• Minority populations. Minority populations are identified when (1) the minority 

population of an affected area exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority population 

percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population 

percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

Minority populations may be communities of individuals living in close geographic 

proximity to one another, or they may be a geographically dispersed or transient set of 

individuals, such as migrant workers or American Indians, who, as a group, experience 

common conditions with regard to environmental exposure or environmental effects. 

The appropriate geographic unit of analysis may be a political jurisdiction, county, 

region, or State, or some other similar unit that is chosen so as not to artificially dilute or 

inflate the affected minority population. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-150 

• Low-income population. Low-income population is defined as individuals or families 

living below the poverty level as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current 

Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty (USCB 2007). Low-income 

populations may be communities of individuals living in close geographic proximity to 

one another, or they may be a set of individuals, such as migrant workers, who, as a 

group, experience common conditions. 

Consistent with the definition used in the impact analysis for public and occupational health and 

safety, affected populations are defined as minority and low-income populations who reside 

within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of a nuclear plant. Data on low-income and minority individuals 

are usually collected and analyzed at the census tract level or census block group level.(h)

The presence of minority and low-income individuals located within 50 mi (80 km) of each 

nuclear power plant site vary considerably depending on the proximity of larger communities to 

power plant sites, the location of Native American Tribal lands, historical population trends in the 

region around each site, and the nature of regional economic activity. Typically, plant sites in 

rural areas in the southern and southwestern United States are more likely to have larger 

minority populations. Examples are the Browns Ferry, Brunswick, Catawba, Farley, North 

Anna, Robinson, Summer, and Surry plants. Sites closer to metropolitan areas may have both 

larger minority populations and larger low-income populations. These include the Dresden, 

Ginna, Indian Point, and Pilgrim plants. 

 

Section 4-4 of Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and 

appropriate, to (a) collect and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations 

who rely principally on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence and (b) communicate the risks of 

these consumption patterns to the public. Consideration is given to whether there are any ways 

in which minority or low-income populations could be disproportionately affected by means of 

examining impacts on American Indian, Hispanic, and other traditional-lifestyle, special-pathway 

receptors. Special pathways take into account the levels of contamination in native vegetation, 

crops, soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals on or near power plant sites 

in order to assess the risk of radiological exposure through subsistence consumption of fish, 

native vegetation, surface water, sediment, and local produce; the absorption of contaminants in 

sediments through the skin; and the inhalation of airborne particulate matter. The identification 

of special-pathway receptors can be important in an environmental justice analysis because 

 

(h) A census block group is a combination of census blocks, which are statistical subdivisions of a 

census tract. A census block is the smallest geographic entity for which the U.S. Census Bureau 

(USCB) collects and tabulates decennial census information. A census tract is a small, relatively 

permanent statistical subdivision of counties delineated by local committees of census data users in 

accordance with USCB guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census 

data. Census block groups are subsets of census tracts (USCB 2005). 
Affected Environment 

 3-151 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority and low-income 

populations in the area. 

Many nuclear plants have a comprehensive radiological environmental monitoring program to 

assess the impact of site operations on the environment (see Section 3.9.1). Samples are 

collected from the aquatic and terrestrial pathways applicable to the site. Aquatic pathways 

generally include fish, surface water, and sediment, while terrestrial pathways include airborne 

particulates, radioiodine, milk, food products, crops, and direct radiation. The concentrations of 

contaminants that are found in native vegetation, crops, soils, sediment, surface water, fish, and 

game animals in areas surrounding nuclear power plants are usually quite low (at or near the 

threshold of detection) and seldom above background levels. Consequently, no 

disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts have been implicated in specialpathway receptor populations in the regions around most nuclear power plants as a result of 

subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife. 

3.11 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention 

As part of their normal operations and as a result of equipment repairs and replacements due to 

normal maintenance activities, nuclear power plants routinely generate both radioactive and 

nonradioactive wastes. Nonradioactive wastes include hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. 

There is also a class of waste, called mixed waste, that is both radioactive and hazardous. The 

systems used to manage (i.e., treat, store, and dispose of) these wastes are described in 

Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5. The basic characteristics and current disposition paths for these 

waste streams are discussed in Section 3.11.1 for radioactive waste, 3.11.2 for hazardous 

waste, 3.11.3 for mixed waste, and 3.11.4 for nonradioactive nonhazardous waste. Waste 

minimization and pollution prevention measures commonly employed at nuclear power plants 

are reviewed in Section 3.11.5. 

3.11.1 Radioactive Waste 

There are basically two types of radioactive waste generated at nuclear power plants: (1) LLW 

and (2) spent nuclear fuel. These two waste types are discussed in Sections 3.11.1.1 and 

3.11.1.2, respectively. 

3.11.1.1 Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

The NRC’s definition of LLW is included in 10 CFR 61.55. Depending on the types and 

concentrations of radionuclides in the waste, the NRC classifies LLW as belonging to Class A, 

Class B, Class C, or greater-than-Class C. Class A wastes generally contain short-lived 

radionuclides at relatively low concentrations, whereas the half-lives and concentrations of 

radionuclides in the Class B and C wastes are progressively higher. In addition, Class B wastes 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-152 

must meet more rigorous requirements with regard to their form to ensure stability after disposal 

(e.g., by adding chemical stabilizing agents such as cement to the waste or placing the waste in 

a disposal container or structure that provides stability after disposal). Class C wastes must not 

only meet the more rigorous requirements above but also require the implementation of 

additional measures at the disposal facility to protect against inadvertent intrusion (e.g., by 

increasing the thickness and hardness of the cover over the waste disposal cell). Wastes 

containing radionuclides at concentrations that 

are higher than what is allowed for Class C 

wastes are classified as greater-than-Class C. 

Disposal of greater-than-Class C waste is the 

responsibility of the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE). DOE is currently preparing an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) to 

evaluate the various alternatives for disposing 

of these wastes (DOE 2007). 

LLW generated at nuclear power plants 

generally consists of air filters, cleaning rags, 

protective tape, paper and plastic coverings, 

discarded contaminated clothing, tools, 

equipment parts, and solid laboratory wastes 

(all these are collectively known as dry active 

waste) and wet wastes that result during the 

processing and recycling of contaminated 

liquids at the plants. Wet wastes generally 

consist of evaporator bottoms, spent demineralizer or ion exchange resins, and spent filter 

material from the equipment drain, floor drain, and water cleanup systems. The wet wastes are 

generally solidified, dried, or dewatered to make them acceptable at a disposal site. Some 

plants perform these operations onsite, while others ship their waste to a third-party vendor 

offsite for processing before it is sent to a disposal facility. The transportation and disposal of 

solid radioactive wastes are performed in accordance with the applicable requirements of 

10 CFR Part 71 and 10 CFR Part 61, respectively. 

LLW shipments from nuclear power plants to disposal facilities or waste processing centers and 

from waste processing centers to disposal facilities are generally made by trucks. Wastes are 

segregated and packaged by class. For load leveling purposes, the wastes may be stored 

onsite at the plant temporarily before shipment offsite. Construction and operation of any LLW 

storage areas and any activities related to storage and processing of LLW onsite, including the 

preparation of waste for shipment and loading on vehicles before shipment, are carried out in 

accordance with the licensing requirements imposed by the NRC. All such operations are 

accounted for when the applicants prepare their annual radioactive effluent release reports to 

Radioactive Wastes Associated with 

Commercial Nuclear Power Plants 

Low-Level Waste: Radioactive material that 

(a) is not high-level radioactive waste, spent 

nuclear fuel, or by-product material (as 

defined in Section 11e(2) of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954 [42 USC 2014(e)(2)]) and 

(b) is classified by the NRC, consistent with 

existing law, as low-level radioactive waste 

(as defined in the Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Policy Act, as amended, Public 

Law 99-240). 

Spent Nuclear Fuel: Fuel that has been 

withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following 

irradiation, the constituent elements of which 

have not been separated by reprocessing (as 

included in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 

1982, as amended, Public Law 97-425). 
Affected Environment 

 3-153 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

demonstrate compliance with the applicable Federal standards and requirements. The primary 

standards applicable to all the power plants are contained in 10 CFR Part 20, 40 CFR Part 190, 

and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

There are currently three operating disposal facilities in the United States that are licensed to 

accept commercial-origin LLW. They are located in Barnwell, South Carolina; Richland, 

Washington; and Clive, Utah. The facility in Utah, operated by EnergySolutions, is licensed to 

accept only Class A LLW, whereas the other two facilities can accept Class A, B, and C wastes 

(GAO 2004). In 2001, the South Carolina legislature imposed restrictions on the Barnwell 

facility that state that after June 2008, the facility can accept waste from generators in only three 

States: South Carolina, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The Richland facility accepts LLW from 

only 11 States: Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, 

Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. It is expected to close in 2056. The EnergySolutions 

facility in Utah accepts only Class A waste, but it can come from any State. This facility 

currently does not have a projected closing date. 

The Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (Public Law 96-573) was enacted in 1980. This 

act made each State responsible for providing for the disposal of the LLW generated within the 

State, either by itself or in cooperation with other States, with the exception of waste produced 

by DOE and the nuclear propulsion component of the Department of the Navy. The aims of the 

Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act were to provide more LLW disposal capacity on a 

regional basis and to more equitably distribute responsibility for the management of LLW among 

the States. As an incentive for States to manage waste on a regional basis, Congress 

consented to the formation of interstate agreements known as compacts, and it granted 

compact member States the authority to exclude LLW from States that are members of other 

compacts or unaffiliated with a compact. 

In January 1986, Congress passed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act 

(Public Law 99-240). This act extended the original January 1, 1986, deadline for developing 

new disposal facilities by 7 years to January 1, 1993. It also made the Federal Government 

responsible for disposing of commercial-origin greater-than-Class C waste. 

As of the writing of this EIS, only one compact, consisting of the States of Texas and Vermont, 

has developed a LLW disposal facility and has received a license to construct and operate the 

facility (WCS 2009). The facility, known as the Waste Control Specialists LLC site (WCS), is 

located in Andrews County, Texas. The facility is authorized by the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to dispose of Class A, B, and C LLW in a near-surface disposal 

facility. In addition to LLW, the WCS facility is also licensed for processing, storage, and 

disposal of hazardous waste and mixed LLW. The owners of the facility are in the process of 

developing rules governing the disposal of commercial LLW and other types of waste the facility 

is authorized to receive from waste generators in States other than Texas and Vermont. The 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-154 

operation of the facility will be overseen by TCEQ and the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Compact Commission with membership from Texas and Vermont. 

Annual quantities of LLW generated at the nuclear power plants vary from year to year 

depending on the number of maintenance activities undertaken and the number of unusual 

occurrences taking place in that year. However, on average, the volume and radioactivity of 

LLW generated at a PWR are approximately 10,600 ft3

 (300 m3) and 1,000 Ci (3.7  1013 Bq) 

per year, respectively (Table 6.6 in NRC 1996). The annual volume and activity of LLW 

generated at a BWR are approximately twice the values indicated for a PWR. The total volume 

and activity of LLW generated at all the LWRs in the United States are approximately 

706,000 ft3

 (20,000 m3) and 60,000 Ci (2.2  1015 Bq), respectively (Table 6.6 in NRC 1996). 

Approximately 95 percent of this waste is Class A (NEI 2007b). Table 3.11-1 shows the volume 

and activity of LLW shipped offsite per operating reactor unit from 10 power plant sites in 2006. 

For example, there are two operating units at the Comanche Peak site, and the volume and 

activity of LLW shipped from the Comanche Peak site in 2006 were 5,720 ft3

 (162 m3) and 

178 Ci (6.59  1012 Bq) per unit, with the total volume and activity shipped from the site being 

twice these values, namely 11,400 ft3

 (324 m3) and 374 Ci (1.38  1013 Bq), respectively. The 

numbers in Table 3.11-1 were obtained from the annual radioactive effluent release reports 

issued by each plant for 2006. 

Almost all of the LLW generated at the reactor sites is shipped offsite, either directly to a 

disposal facility or to a processing center for volume reduction or another type of treatment 

before being sent to a disposal site. The number of shipments leaving each reactor site varies 

but generally ranges from a few to about 100 per year. 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart K, discusses 

the various means by which the licensees may dispose of their radioactive waste. 

3.11.1.2 Spent Nuclear Fuel 

Spent nuclear fuel is fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following irradiation, 

the constituent elements of which have not been separated. When spent fuel is removed from a 

reactor, it is stored in racks placed in a pool (called the spent fuel pool) to isolate it from the 

environment and to allow the fuel rods to cool. Licensing plans contemplate disposal of spent 

fuel in a deep geological repository. Siting and developing a permanent repository is required 

by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Delays in siting a permanent repository, coupled with 

rapidly filling spent fuel pools at some plants, have led utilities to seek means of continued 

onsite storage. These include (1) expanded pool storage, (2) aboveground dry storage, 

(3) longer fuel burnup to reduce the amount of spent fuel requiring interim storage, and 

(4) shipment of spent fuel to other plants. Any modification to the spent fuel storage 

configuration at a nuclear power plant is subject to NRC review and approval. Each review 

consists of a safety review and the preparation of an environmental review. As part of the 
Affected Environment 

 3-155 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 3.11-1. Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste Shipped Offsite 

per Reactor from 10 Power Plant Sites in 2006(a)

Plant 

Volume 

(m3) 

Activity 

(Ci) 

Number of

Shipments Number of Reactors 

PWRs

 

Comanche Peak 162 187 6.5 2 (Units 1 and 2) 

Cook 97.2 60 32 2 (Units 1 and 2) 

Indian Point 501 316 16.3 3 (Units 1, 2, and 3)(b)

Robinson 2 145 173 6 1 (Unit 2) 

San Onofre 3,210 150 116.3 3 (Units 1, 2, and 3)(b)

Surry 391 223 11 2 (Units 1 and 2) 

BWRs 

 

Hatch 148 445 55 2 (Units 1 and 2) 

Vermont Yankee 61 18,800(c)

 104 1 

Limerick 55 291 27 2 (Units 1 and 2) 

Columbia 368 1,570 28 1 

(a) The numbers in the table were obtained from each plant’s 2006 Annual Radioactive Effluent 

Release Report. 

(b) Unit 1 is shut down at both Indian Point and San Onofre. In 2006, Unit 1 at Indian Point was 

in the safe storage condition and would have generated very little LLW; however, at San 

Onofre, Unit 1 was actively being decommissioned and would have generated a considerable 

amount of LLW. 

(c) Includes shipment of irradiated components. 

environmental review for such a modification, the NRC generally prepares an environmental 

assessment (EA). 

Expanded pool storage options include (1) enlarging the capacity of spent fuel racks, (2) adding 

racks to existing pool arrays (“dense-racking”), (3) reconfiguring spent fuel with neutronabsorbing racks, and (4) employing double-tiered storage (installing a second tier of racks 

above those on the pool floor). 

Aboveground dry storage involves moving the spent fuel assemblies, which have been stored in 

the spent fuel pool for a certain period of time, to aboveground, shielded enclosures that are air 

cooled (also known as dry storage). The fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool to cool, typically for 

several years, before it may be moved to a dry cask storage facility. In the late 1970s and early 

1980s, the need for alternative storage began to grow when pools at many nuclear reactors 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-156 

began to fill up with stored spent fuel. Utilities began looking at options such as dry cask 

storage for increasing their storage capacity for spent fuel. 

Dry cask storage allows spent fuel to be surrounded by inert gas inside a container called a 

cask. The casks are typically steel cylinders that are either welded or bolted closed. The steel 

cylinder provides a leak-proof containment for the spent fuel. Each cylinder is surrounded by 

additional steel, concrete, or other material to provide radiation shielding to workers and 

members of the public. Some of the cask designs can be used for both storage and 

transportation. 

There are various dry storage cask system designs. With some designs, the steel cylinders 

containing the fuel are placed vertically in a concrete vault; other designs orient the cylinders 

horizontally. The concrete vaults provide the radiation shielding. Other cask designs orient the 

steel cylinder vertically on a concrete pad at a dry cask storage site and use both metal and 

concrete outer cylinders for radiation shielding. Figure 3.11-1 shows two of the typical dry cask 

storage designs. The location of the dry casks is in a facility known as an Independent Spent 

Fuel Storage Installation or ISFSI. This is a complex designed and constructed for the interim 

storage of spent nuclear fuel, solid reactor-related greater than class C waste, and other 

radioactive materials associated with spent nuclear fuel and reactor-related greater than class C 

waste storage. The ISFSI is generally located within the same site where the nuclear fuel is 

used. They are licensed by the NRC under either a general license or a site-specific license 

(see 10 CFR Part 72). Figure 3.11-2 shows the locations of currently licensed ISFSIs. 

Figure 3.11-1. Typical Dry Cask Storage Systems (NRC 2007h) 
Affected Environment

 3-157 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure 3.11-2. Locations of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations Licensed by the NRC (NRC 2007i) 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-158 

Longer-burnup fuel is fuel from which more energy can be obtained before it is taken out of the 

reactor and declared spent. As a result of using this fuel, less spent fuel is generated for the 

same amount of energy produced in a reactor. 

Although plants running out of storage space 

may enter into agreements with others that 

have space for sale or lease, this approach is 

widely viewed as an interim measure, practical 

only for utilities that own more than one nuclear 

plant (NRC 1996). 

 

3.11.2 Hazardous Waste 

Hazardous waste is defined by the EPA in 

40 CFR Part 261, “Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste,” as solid waste that (1) is 

listed by the EPA as being hazardous; 

(2) exhibits one of the characteristics of 

ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity; or 

(3) is not excluded by the EPA from regulation 

as being hazardous. All aspects of hazardous 

waste generation, treatment, transportation, 

and disposal are strictly regulated by the EPA 

or by the States under agreement with the EPA 

per the regulations promulgated under RCRA 

(PL 94-580). 

The types of hazardous waste that nuclear power plants typically generate include waste paints, 

lab packs, and solvents. The quantities of these wastes generated at individual plants are 

highly variable but, generally, relatively small when compared with the quantities at most other 

industrial facilities that generate hazardous waste. Most nuclear power plants accumulate their 

hazardous waste onsite as authorized under RCRA and transport it to a treatment facility where 

it undergoes treatment. The remaining residues are sent to a permanent disposal facility. 

There are quite a few RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facilities throughout the United 

States that are used by the owners of nuclear power plants. 

There is a class of hazardous waste, called universal waste, that the EPA has authorized to be 

handled differently from the other kinds of hazardous waste. The EPA’s universal waste 

regulations streamline hazardous waste management standards for Federally designated 

universal wastes, which include batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and lamps. 

Other Wastes Associated with Commercial 

Nuclear Power Plants 

Hazardous Waste: A solid waste or 

combination of solid wastes that, because of 

its quantity, concentration, or physical, 

chemical, or infectious characteristics, may 

(1) cause or significantly contribute to an 

increase in mortality or an increase in serious 

irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness 

or (2) pose a substantial present or potential 

hazard to human health or the environment 

when improperly treated, stored, transported, 

disposed of, or otherwise managed 

(as defined in the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act, as amended, Public 

Law 94-580). 

Mixed Waste: Waste that is both hazardous 

and radioactive. 

Nonradioactive Nonhazardous Waste: 

Waste that is neither radioactive nor 

hazardous. 
Affected Environment 

 3-159 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

The regulations govern the collection and management of these widely generated wastes, thus 

facilitating environmentally sound collection and proper recycling or treatment. 

The Federal universal waste regulations are set forth in 40 CFR Part 273. States can modify 

the universal waste rule and add additional universal waste(s) in individual State regulations. 

Nuclear power plants follow the regulations set forth by the EPA or by their State agencies, as 

applicable, to manage their universal waste. 

3.11.3 Mixed Waste 

Wastes that are both radioactive and hazardous are called mixed waste. They are subject to 

dual regulation: by the EPA or an authorized State for their hazardous component, and by the 

NRC or an agreement State for their radioactivity. The types of mixed wastes generated at 

nuclear power plants include organics (e.g., liquid scintillation fluids, waste oils, halogenated 

organics), metals (e.g., lead, mercury, chromium, and cadmium), solvents, paints, and cutting 

fluids. The quantity of mixed waste generated varies considerably from plant to plant 

(NRC 1996). Overall, the quantities generated during operations are generally relatively small, 

but because of the added complexity of dual regulation, it is more problematic for plant owners 

to manage and dispose of mixed wastes than the other types of wastes. Similar to hazardous 

waste, mixed waste is generally accumulated onsite in designated areas as authorized under 

RCRA, then shipped offsite for treatment as appropriate and for disposal. The only disposal 

facilities that are authorized to receive mixed LLW for disposal at present are the 

EnergySolutions and the WCS facilities discussed under Section 3.11.1.1 on LLW. 

Occupational exposures and any releases from onsite treatment of these and any other types of 

wastes are considered in evaluating compliance with the applicable Federal standards and 

regulations, for example, 10 CFR Part 20, 40 CFR Part 190, and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

3.11.4 Nonradioactive, Nonhazardous Waste 

Like any other industrial facility, nuclear power plants generate wastes that are not 

contaminated with either radionuclides or hazardous chemicals. These wastes include trash, 

paper, wood, and sewage. Solid wastes, defined as nonhazardous by 40 CFR Part 261, are 

collected and disposed of in a local landfill. Sanitary wastes defined as nonhazardous by 

40 CFR Part 261 are generally treated at an onsite sewage treatment plant, and the residues 

are sent to local landfills. Some power plants discharge directly to a municipal sewage 

treatment facility, while others collect their sanitary waste in onsite septic tanks and empty the 

tanks periodically, shipping the pumped sewage to a local sanitary waste treatment plant. The 

uncontaminated wastes and sewage are tested for radionuclides before being sent offsite to 

make sure that there is no inadvertent contamination. Any offsite releases from the onsite 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-160 

sewage treatment plants are conducted under NPDES permits. Most plants also collect and 

test the stormwater runoff from their sites before discharging it offsite. 

3.11.5 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 

Waste minimization and pollution prevention are important elements of operations at all nuclear 

power plants. The licensees are required to consider pollution prevention measures as dictated 

by the Pollution Prevention Act (Public Law 101-508) and RCRA (PL 94-580). 

In addition, licensees have waste minimization programs in place that are aimed at minimizing 

the quantities of waste sent offsite for treatment or disposal. Waste minimization techniques 

employed by the licensees may include (1) source reduction, which includes (a) changes in 

input materials (e.g., using materials that are not hazardous or are less hazardous), (b) changes 

in technology, and (c) changes in operating practices; and (2) recycling of materials either onsite 

or offsite. For example, the licensees tend to reuse lead shielding components onsite until they 

have no further use for them. The establishment of a waste minimization program is also a 

requirement for managing hazardous wastes under RCRA. 

3.12 References 

7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, “Prime and Unique 

Farmlands.” 

7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, “Farmland 

Protection Policy Act. “ 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” 

10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, “Domestic Licensing of 

Source Material.” 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, “Licensing 

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.” 
Affected Environment 

 3-161 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and 

Transportation of Radioactive Material.” 

10 CFR Part 72. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 72, “Licensing 

Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive 

Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste.” 

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site 

Criteria.” 

24 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 24, Housing and Urban Development, 

Part 51, “Environmental Criteria and Standards.” 

36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 60, “National Register of Historic Places.” 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, 

“National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.” 

40 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 61, 

“National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” 

40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 125, “Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” 

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 

40 CFR Part 192. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 192, 

“Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings.” 

40 CFR Part 261. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 261, 

“Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste.” 

40 CFR Part 273. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 273, 

“Standards for Universal Waste Management.” 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-162 

49 CFR Part 171. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 171, “General 

Information, Regulations, and Definitions.” 

49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, “Hazardous 

Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communications, Energy Response 

Information, and Training Requirements.” 

49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, “Shippers 

General Requirements for Shipments and Packagings.” 

49 CFR Part 174. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 174, “Carriage by 

Rail.” 

49 CFR Part 175. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 175, “Carriage by 

Aircraft.” 

49 CFR Part 176. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 176, “Carriage by 

Vessel.” 

49 CFR Part 177. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 177, “Carriage by 

Public Highway.” 

53 FR 47279. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Memorandum of Understanding between 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 

Worker Protection at NRC-Licensed Facilities. November 22, 1988. 

67 FR 61. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking of Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Power Plant Operations. January 2, 2002. 

 

69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions. August 24, 2004. 

74 FR 56264. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases; Final Rule. October 30, 2009. 

Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). 2006. Health Risks 

from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. BEIR-VII, National Research Council, 

National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 
Affected Environment 

 3-163 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

American Cancer Society (ACS). 2001. Cancer Facts and Figures. Available URL: 

http://www.cancer.org/statistics/cff98/enviromental.html (Accessed October 4, 2007). 

Armantrout, N.B. (compiler). 1998. Glossary of Aquatic Habitat Inventory Terminology. 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Armour, C.L. 1991. Guidance for Evaluating and Recommending Temperature Regimes to 

Protect Fish. Biological Report 90(22). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

December. 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 USC 2011 et seq. 

Batty, R.S., and J.H.S. Blaxter. 1992. “The Effect of Temperature on the Burst Swimming 

Performance of Fish Larvae.” Journal of Experimental Biology 170:187–201. 

Beeton, A.M. 2002. “Large Freshwater Lakes: Present State, Trends, and Future.” 

Environmental Conservation 29(1):21–38. 

Beitinger, T.L., W.A. Bennett, and R.W. McCauley. 2000. “Temperature Tolerances of North 

American Freshwater Fishes Exposed to Dynamic Changes in Temperature.” Environmental 

Biology of Fishes 58:237–275. 

Berk, S.G., J.H. Gunderson, A.L. Newsome, A.L. Farone, B.J. Hayes, K.S. Redding, N. Uddin, 

E.L. Williams, R.A. Johnson, M. Farsian, A. Reid, J. Skimmyhorn, and M.B. Farone. 2006. 

“Occurrence of Infected Amoebae in Cooling Towers Compared with Natural Aquatic 

Environments: Implications for Emerging Pathogens.” Environmental Science and Technology

40(23):74407444. 

Boice Jr., J.D., M.T. Mumma, W.J. Blot, and C.W. Heath Jr. 2005. “Childhood Cancer Mortality 

in Relation to St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant.” Journal of Radiological Protection 25:229240. 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 1998. Living and Working Safely Around High-Voltage 

Power Lines. DOE/BP-1821. U.S. Department of Energy. January. 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 2000. Transmission System Vegetation Management 

Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0285. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Portland, Oregon. May. 

Burrows, S., and D.A. Hagemeyer. 2006. Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial 

Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2005. NUREG-0713. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. December. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-164 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2005. Legionellosis: Legionnaires’ 

Disease (LD) and Pontiac Fever. Atlanta, Georgia. Available URL: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/ 

dbmd/diseaseinfo/legionellosis_g.htm (Accessed September 7, 2007). 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007. Salmonellosis. Atlanta, Georgia. 

Available URL: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/salmonellosis_g.htm (Accessed 

September 10, 2007). 

Christensen, S.W, J.A. Solomon, S.B. Gough, R.L. Tyndall, and C.B. Fliermans. 1983. 

Legionnaire’s Disease Bacterium in Power Plant Cooling Systems: Phase I Final Report. 

EPRI/EA-3153, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. 

Claireaux, G., C. Couturier, and A.-L. Groison. 2006. “Effect of Temperature on Maximum 

Swimming Speed and Cost of Transport in Juvenile European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus

labrax).” Journal of Experimental Biology 209:3420–3428. 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 1970. 42 USC 7401 et seq. 

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

Coastal Zone Management Act. 1972. 16 USC 1456. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilities Act (CERCLA). 

42 USC 9601 et seq. (1980). 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 

Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. 

Crooks, K.R., and M.E. Soule. 1999. “Mesopredator Release and Avifaunal Extinctions in a 

Fragmented System.” Nature 400:563–566. 

D’Amore, S.C. 1985. “Digital Analytical Method for Calculating Corona Noise on HVC Power 

Line, Carrier Communication Channels.” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems

PAS-104 (5):1018–1024. 
Affected Environment 

 3-165 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Deacon, J. 2003. The Microbial World: Thermophilic Microorganisms. The University of 

Edinburgh, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Available URL: 

http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/microbes/thermo.htm (Accessed September 7, 2007). 

Dermott, R., and D. Kerec. 1997. “Changes to the Deepwater Benthos of Eastern Lake Erie 

since the Invasion of Dreissena: 1979–1993.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 54:922–930. 

Edsall, T., and M. Charlton. 1997. Nearshore Waters of the Great Lakes. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and Environment Canada. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/solec_1996/ 

Nearshore_Waters_of_the_Great_Lakes.pdf (Accessed February 10, 2011). 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1982. Transmission Line Reference Book: 345 kV 

and Above. Second Edition. Palo Alto, California. 

Ellingson, E.F. 1979. Transformer Noise Abatement Tuned Using Tuned Sound Enclosure 

Panels. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 USC 15311544. 

Evans, D.R., and J.E. Gates. 1997. “Cowbird Selection of Breeding Areas: The Role of Habitat 

and Bird Species Abundance.” Wilson Bulletin 109:470–480. 

Executive Order 11988. 1977. Floodplain Management. 42 FR 26951. May 24. 

Executive Order 11990. 1977. Protection of Wetlands. 42 FR 26961. May 24. 

Executive Order 12898. 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations. 59 FR 7629. February 16. 

Farmland Protection Policy Act. 1981 (FPPA). 7 USC 4201 et seq. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 1996. 7 USC 135 et seq. 

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICN). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected 

Airport Noise Analysis Issues. Technical Report, Vol. 2. August. 

Florida Department of Health (FDOH). 2001. Report Concerning Cancer Rate in Southeastern 

Florida. Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology, Division of Environmental Health, Tallahassee, 

Florida. July 17. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-166 

Fremling, C., and B. Drazkowski. 2000. Ecological, Institutional, and Economic History of the 

Upper Mississippi River. Upper Mississippi Basin Stakeholders Network, Winona, Minnesota. 

Available URL: http://www.umbsn.org/news/documents/UMR_Ecological_History.htm 

(Accessed February 21, 2003). 

Giusti, E.V., and E.L. Meyer. 1977. Water Consumption by Nuclear Powerplants and Some 

Hydrological Implications. Circular 745, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Gould, J.M., E.J. Sternglass, J.D. Sherman, J. Brown, W. McDonnell, and J.J. Mangano. 2000. 

“Strontium-90 in Deciduous Teeth as a Factor in Early Childhood Cancer.” International Journal 

of Health Services 30:519539. 

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). 2005. Corbicula fluminea (Muller, 1774). 

Ocean Springs, Mississippi. Available URL: http://nis.gsmfc.org/nis_factsheet.php? 

toc_id=128 (Accessed February 5, 2008). 

Hall, C.A.S., R. Howarth, B. Moore, III, and C.J. Vörösmarty. 1978. “Environmental Impacts of 

Industrial Energy Systems in the Coastal Zone.” Annual Review of Energy 3:395–475. 

Hallenbeck, W.H., and G.R. Brenniman. 1989. “Risk of Fatal Amoebic Meningoencephalitis 

from Waterborne Naegleria fowleri.” Environmental Management 13(2):227232. 

Harrison, F.L. 1985. “Effect of Physiochemical Form on Copper Availability to Aquatic 

Organisms.” Pp. 469–484 in R.D. Cardwell et al., eds., Seventh Symposium on Aquatic 

Toxicology and Hazard Assessment. ASTM STP 854. American Society for Testing and 

Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Huntsville Times. 2007. “Hot Weather Forces Partial Shutdown of Alabama Nuclear Plant.” 

Posted by Associated Press. (August 17). Available URL: http://blog.al.com/breaking/2007/ 

08/hot_weather_forces_partial_shu.html (Accessed November 11, 2007). 

Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH). 2000. Health and Hazardous Substances Registry 

Newsletter. Division of Epidemiologic Studies, Springfield, Illinois. January. 

Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH). 2006. Pediatric Cancer Incidence and Mortality in 

the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants in Illinois. Division of Epidemiologic Studies, Springfield, 

Illinois. January. 

Indian Point Energy Center (Indian Point). 2005. Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report. 
Affected Environment 

 3-167 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). 2007. National Electrical Safety 

Code. C2-2007. New York, New York. 

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1977. Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 26. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 

U.K. 

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of 

the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Pergamon 

Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, 

M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, New York. Available URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/ 

publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_

science_basis.htm (Accessed June 19, 2011). 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Undated. Zebra Mussel Dreissena 

polymorpha. Des Moines, Iowa. Available URL: http://www.iowadnr.com/fish/news/exotics/ 

zebra.html (Accessed February 5, 2008). 

Jones, T.S., and R.I. McLean. 2005. Environmental Radionuclide Concentrations in the Vicinity 

of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant and Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station: 2002–03. 

PPRP-R-29. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Power Plant Research 

Program, Annapolis, Maryland. December. Available URL: http://esm.versar.com/PPRP/ 

bibliography/PPRP_R_29/PPRP_R_29.pdf (Accessed November 28, 2007). 

Kendall, P. 2007. Bacterial Food-Borne Illness. Fact Sheet No. 9.300. Cooperative Extension, 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available URL: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/ 

pubs/foodnut/09300.html (Accessed September 7, 2007). 

Lagler, K.F., J.E. Bardach, and R.R. Miller. 1962. Ichthyology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 

New York, New York. 

Laist, D.L., and J.E. Reynolds, III. 2005. “Influence of Power Plants and Other Warm-Water 

Refuges on Florida Manatees.” Marine Mammal Science 21(4):739764. 

Lane, J.A., C.B. Portt, and C.K. Minns. 1996. “Nursery Habitat Characteristics of Great Lake 

Fishes.” Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2338. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-168 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (LLRWPA). 1980. 42 USC 2021 et seq. 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLWPAA). 42 USC 2021b et seq. 

Magnuson, J.J., L.B. Crowder, and P.A. Medvick. 1979. “Temperature as an Ecological 

Resource.” American Zoologist 19(1):331–343. (abstract) 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). 16 USC 1801–

1884. 

Mangano, J.J., J.M Gould, E.J. Sternglass, J.D. Sherman, and W. McDonnell. 2003. “An 

Unexpected Rise in Strontium-90 in U.S. Deciduous Teeth in the 1990s.” The Science of the 

Total Environment 317(1-3):3751. December 30. 

Manville, A.M. 2005. “Bird Strikes and Electrocutions at Power Lines, Communication Towers, 

and Wind Turbines: State of the Art and State of the Science—Next Steps Toward Mitigation.” 

In Bird Conservation Implementation in the Americas: Proceedings 3rd International Partners in 

Flight Conference 2002, C.J. Ralph and T.D. Rich (eds.). USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. 

Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD). 2006. Periodic Emissions Inventory for 

PM10, 2002, Maricopa County, Arizona, Nonattainment Area. Available URL: 

http://www.maricopa.gov/aq/divisions/planning_analysis/docs/02PM-EI-revised.pdf (Accessed 

November 25, 2008). 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 1972. 16 USC 1361–1421h. 

Maruvada, S. 2000. Corona Performance of High-Voltage Transmission Lines. Research 

Studies Press Ltd., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

McLean, R., W.A. Richkus, S.P. Schreiner, and D. Fluke. 2002. Maryland Power Plant Cooling 

Water Intake Regulations and Their Application in Evaluation of Adverse Environmental Impact. 

PPRP-R-127. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Power Plant Research 

Program, Annapolis, Maryland. March. Available URL: http://esm.versar.com/PPRP/ 

316/PPRP-127.pdf (Accessed November 28, 2007). 

Metz, W. (ed.). 1983. Population and Land Use Change in the Vicinity of Operating Nuclear 

Power Station—An Anthology. Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 

Regulatory Research, Division of Health, Siting, and Waste Management, by Brookhaven 

National Laboratory, Upton, Long Island, New York. April. 
Affected Environment 

 3-169 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Morgan, D.E., M. Keser, J.T. Swenarton, and J.F. Foertch. 2003. “Population Dynamics of the 

Asiatic Clam, Corbicula fluminea (Müller) in the Lower Connecticut River: Establishing a 

Foothold in New England.” Journal of Shellfish Research 22(1):193–203. 

Morrow, J.V., and J.C. Fischenich. 2000. Habitat Requirements for Freshwater Fishes. 

EMRRP Technical Notes Collection, ERDC TN-EMRRPSR-06. U.S. Army Engineer Research 

and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. May. Available URL: 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr06.pdf (Accessed November 12, 2007). 

Murdy, E.O., R.S. Birdsong, and J.A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Cancer Institute. 1990. Cancer in Populations Living near Nuclear Facilities. 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

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

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA). 16 USC 470aa et seq. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2007. Tornado Climatology. 

Available URL: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html (Accessed 

October 3, 2007). 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 1998. “Control and Prohibition 

of Particles from Manufacturing Processes.” New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 7, 

Chapter 27, Subchapter 6. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2007. Hope Creek Air 

Operating Permit, Title V, Permit No. BOP05003, FID 65500. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2003. Economic Benefits of Millstone Power Station: An 

Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. July. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2004a. Economic Benefits of Diablo Canyon Power Plant: An 

Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute in Cooperation with Pacific Gas & 

Electric Company. February. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2004b. Economic Benefits of Indian Point Energy Center: An 

Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. April. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-170 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2004c. Economic Benefits of the Duke Power-Operated 

Nuclear Power Plants: An Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. December. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2004d. Economic Benefits of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 

Station: An Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. November. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2005a. Economic Benefits of Three Mile Island Unit 1: An 

Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. November. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2005b. Economic Benefits of Wolf Creek Generating Station: 

An Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. July. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2006a. Economic Benefits of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station: An 

Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute in Cooperation with Entergy. 

December. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2006b. Economic Benefits of the Exelon Pennsylvania Nuclear 

Fleet: An Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. August. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2006c. Economic Benefits of PPL Susquehanna Nuclear Power 

Plant: An Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute in Cooperation with PPL 

Corporation. November. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2007a. Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative—Final 

Guidance Document. NEI 07-07 [Final]. Washington, D.C. August. Available URL: 

http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/doccontent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^PBNTAD01&ID 

=072670589 (Accessed November 5, 2007). 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2007b. Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste. 

Washington, D.C. April. Available URL: http://www.nei.org/keyissues/nuclearwastedisposal/ 

lowlevelradioactivewaste/ (Accessed October 24, 2007). 

Nuclear Information and Resource Service. 2007. Rising Temperatures Undermine Nuclear 

Power’s Promise. Available URL: http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/ucsrisingtemps 

82307.pdf (Accessed November 11, 2007). 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). 1982. 42 USC 10101 et seq. 

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987. 42 USC 10261 et seq. 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. 29 USC 651 et seq. 
Affected Environment 

 3-171 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Patty, S.S., and D. Hill. 2006. Status Report on Investigations of Potential Human Health 

Effects Associated with Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF). DNR 12-

1232007-183, PPSE-T-44. Prepared for Public Service Commission of Maryland. October. 

Pennak, R.W. 1953. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States. The Ronald Press 

Company, New York, New York. 

Pollution Prevention Act. 42 USC 13101 et seq. 

Pruppacher, H.R., and J.D. Klett. 1980. Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation. D. Reidel 

Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 1976. 42 USC 6901 et seq. 

Roosenburg, W.H. 1969. “Greening and Copper Accumulation in the American Oyster, 

Crassostrea virginica, in the Vicinity of a Steam Electric Generating Station.” Chesapeake 

Science 10:41–252. 

Sackschewsky, M.R. 1997. Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for 75 Licensed 

Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

Richland, Washington. 

Sackschewsky, M.R. 2004. Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating 

Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants. PNNL-14468. Prepared by Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. Department of 

Energy. 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 42 USC 300F et seq. 

Science News. 1998. “Something’s Bugging Nuclear Fuel.” 153(21):325. May 23. 

Southern California Edison. 2007. “Power Generation—San Onofre Nuclear Generating 

Station.” Available URL: http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/ 

SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/PublicSafety.htm (Accessed November 7, 2007). 

Sprecher, S.L., and K.D. Getsinger. 2000. Zebra Mussel Chemical Control Guide. ERDC/EL 

TR-00-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. January. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-172 

System Energy Resources, Inc. 2005. Early Site Permit Application for the Grand Gulf Nuclear 

Station Site, Part 3, Environmental Report Section 2.0, Revision 2. Available URL: 

http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?AccessionNumber=ML0527

80449 (Accessed October 17, 2007). 

Texas Tech University (TTU). 2006. A Recommendation for an Enhanced Fujita Scale. 

Submitted to the National Weather Service and Other Interested Users by TTU Wind Science 

and Engineering Center, Lubbock, Texas. January 26. 

Todar, K. 2004. “Pseudomonas aeruginosa.” In Todar’s Online Textbook of Bacteriology. 

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Bacteriology, Madison, Wisconsin. Available 

URL: http://textbookofbacteriology.net/pseudomonas.html (Accessed September 7, 2007). 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 15 USC 2601 et seq. 

Tyndall, R.L. 1981. Presence of Pathogenic Micro-Organisms in Power Plant Cooling Waters, 

Report for October 1, 1979 to September 30, 1981. NUREG/CR-2980 (ORNL/TM-8523). 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

Tyndall, R.L. 1983. Presence of Pathogenic Microorganisms in Power Plant Cooling Waters: 

Final Report for October 1, 1981, to June 30, 1983. NUREG/CR-3364 (ORNL/TM-8809). 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

Tyndall, R.L., S.W. Christensen, and J.A. Solomon. 1985. Legionnaires’ Disease Bacteria in 

Power Plant Cooling Systems: Phase II Final Report. EPRI/EA-4017. Electric Power Research 

Institute, Palo Alto, California. 

Tyndall, R.L., K.S. Ironside, P.L. Metler, E.L. Tan, T.C. Hazen, and C.B. Fliermans. 1989. 

“Effect of Thermal Additions on the Density and Distribution of Thermophilic Amoebae and 

Pathogenic Naegleria fowleri in a Newly Created Cooling Lake.” Applied and Environmental 

Microbiology 55(3):722–732. 

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 2000. 

Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, 

with Scientific Annexes. Vol. I: Sources. New York, New York. Available URL: 

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html (Accessed October 4, 2007). 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

Nuclear Generating Station Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2. May. 
Affected Environment 

 3-173 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

Operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Jersey Central Power and Light 

Company. December. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2005a. Fatal Occupational Injuries by Event or 

Exposure, All United States. 2005. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. Available 

URL: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0005.pdf (Accessed October 14, 2007). 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2005b. 2005 News Release, National Census of Fatal 

Occupational Injuries in 2005. USDL-06-1364. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 

Available URL: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfnr0012.pdf (Accessed October 14, 2007). 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2005c. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal Occupational 

Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2005. U.S. Department of Labor, 

Washington, D.C. Available URL: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1619.pdf (Accessed 

October 14, 2007). 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2005. Glossary, Definitions and Explanations of Terms, 

Decennial Census Terms. Available URL: http://www.census.gov/main/www/glossary.html 

(Accessed September 15, 2007). 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007. Current Population Reports. Series P60, Washington, 

D.C. Available URL: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cprs.html (Accessed September 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2001. Acres of Prime Farmland, 1997: National 

Resources Conservation Service Map m4983. Available URL: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

technical/land/meta/m4983.html (Accessed October 8, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002. A Graded Approach to Evaluating Radiation Doses 

to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota. DOE-STD-1153-2002, Washington, D.C. July. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2007. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste. Office of 

Environmental Management, Washington, D.C. (see 72 FR 40135). Available URL: 

http://www.gtcceis.anl.gov/ (Accessed October 19, 2007). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 

EPA-550/9-74-004, Washington, D.C. Available URL: http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/ 

levels74.htm (Accessed November 17, 2008). 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-174 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands, A Guide to 

Stormwater Best Management Practices. EPA-843-B-96-001. Office of Water. October. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Case Study Analysis for the Proposed 

Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. EPA-821-R-02-002. Office of Science and 

Technology, Washington, D.C. February. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011a. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990—2009. EPA 430-R-11-005. April 15, 2011. Available URL: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html / (Accessed 

June 18, 2011). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011b. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas 

for Criteria Pollutants. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/, last updated 

August 30, 2011 (Accessed January 30, 2012). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011c. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html, last updated November 8, 2011 

(Accessed February 3, 2012). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Watershed Assessment, Tracking, & 

Environmental Results, National Summary of State Information. Available URL: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control/ (Accessed January 31, 2012).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007a. National Wetlands Inventory. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Available URL: http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/index.html 

(Accessed November 7, 2007). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007b. USFWS Threatened and Endangered 

Species System (TESS). Available URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/ (Accessed 

November 20, 2007). 

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in 

the United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). Cambridge University 

Press. June. Available URL: http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climateimpacts-report.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2011). 

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2004. Low-Level Radioactive Waste—Disposal 

Availability Adequate in Short Term, but Oversight Needed to Identify Any Future Shortfalls. 

GAO-04-604. Washington, D.C. June. Available URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ 

d04604.pdf (Accessed October 24, 2007). 
Affected Environment 

 3-175 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1999. Ecological Status and trends of the Upper Mississippi 

River System 1998: A Report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. 

TRMP 99-T001. Upper Midwest Environmental Science center, La Crosse, Wisconsin. 

Available URL: http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/reports_publications/status_and_trends.html 

(Accessed November 28, 2007). 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD 2001). 

Available URL: http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd.php (Accessed September 5, 2007). 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011a. “Geologic Hazards Team Interactive Map Server, 

National Seismic Hazard Maps—2008.” Available URL: http://gldims.cr.usgs.gov/ (Accessed 

January 31, 2011). 

 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011b. “2008 United Stated National Seismic Hazard Maps.” 

Available URL: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2008 (Accessed 

January 31, 2011). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from 

Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix 1. Regulatory Guide 1.109, Office of Standards Development. October. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1993. Vol. 14 in Radioactive Materials Released 

from Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG/CR-2907. 

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 

Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 1: Regarding the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear 

Power Plant. NUREG-1437. Supplement 1, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, 

D.C. October. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1: Regarding the Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 5: Regarding Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4. 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 5. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

January. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-176 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 11: Regarding the St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 11. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. May. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 13: Regarding H.B. Robinson Steam 

Electric Plant, Unit No. 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 13. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. December. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 12: Regarding the Fort Calhoun Station, 

Unit 1. NUREG-1437, Supplement 12. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

August. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 10: Regarding Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station, Units 2 and 3. NUREG-1437, Supplement 10. Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, Washington, D.C. January. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 17: Regarding Dresden Nuclear Power 

Station, Units 2 and 3. NUREG-1437, Supplement 17. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. June. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 15: Regarding Virgil C. 

Summer Station. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. February. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 16: Regarding the Quad Cities Nuclear 

Power Station, Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 16. Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, Washington, D.C. June. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 21: Regarding Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, 

Units 1, 2, and 3. NUREG-1437, Supplement 21. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. June. 
Affected Environment 

 3-177 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. Staff Review of the National Academies 

Study of the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII). 

Commission paper SECY-05-0202. ADAMS Accession No. ML052640532. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Tornado Climatology of the Contiguous 

United States. NUREG/CR-4461, Rev. 2. Division of Risk Assessment and Special Projects, 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 27: Regarding Palisades Nuclear Plant. 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 27. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

October. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006c. Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons 

Learned Task Force Final Report. September. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 24: Regarding Nine Mile Point Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 24. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. May. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006e. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 25: Regarding Brunswick Steam Electric 

Plant, Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 25. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. April. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006f. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 26: Regarding Monticello Nuclear 

Generating Plant. NUREG-1437, Supplement 26. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. September. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007a. 2007–2008 Information Digest. NUREG1350, Vol. 19. Washington, D.C. August. Available URL: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollection/nuregs/staff/sr1350/v19/sr1350v19.pdf (Accessed November 8, 2007). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007b. Meteorological Monitoring Programs for 

Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.23, Rev. 1. March. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 3-178 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 28: Regarding Oyster Creek Nuclear 

Generating Station. NUREG-1437, Supplement 28. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. January. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007d. Plant Sites with Groundwater 

Contamination. Available URL: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/opsexperience/tritium/sites-grndwtr-contam.html (Accessed October 17, 2007). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007e. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 29: Regarding Pilgrim Nuclear Power 

Station. NUREG-1437, Supplement 29. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, 

D.C. July. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007f. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 30: Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear 

Power Station. NUREG-1437, Supplement 30. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. August. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007g. Radiation Protection and the “Tooth 

Fairy” Issue. Available URL: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/toothfairy.html (Accessed October 4, 2007). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007h. Typical Dry Cask Storage System. 

Available URL: http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/diagram-typical-dry-casksystem.html (Accessed October 18, 2007). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007i. Locations of Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Installations. Available URL: http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/ 

locations.html (Accessed October 25, 2007). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 32: Regarding Wolf Creek Generating 

Station. NUREG-1437, Supplement 32, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, 

D.C. May. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Preliminary Deterministic Analysis of 

Seismic Hazard at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant from Newly Identified ‘Shoreline Fault. 

Research Information Letter RIL 09-001. Available URL: http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/ 

idmws/doccontent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^PBNTAD01&ID=090990164 (Accessed 

September 1, 2000). ADAMS Accession No. ML090330523. 
Affected Environment 

 3-179 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2012. SECY-12-0136 – Next Steps for the 

Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities Study. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML12249A121. Washington, D.C. 

Veil, J.A., J.K. Rice, and M.E.S. Raivel. 1997. Biocide Usage in Cooling Towers in the Electric 

Power and Petroleum Refining Industries. Prepared by Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

Illinois, for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Washington, D.C. 

September. Available URL: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/ANL-Biocide_Usage.pdf 

(Accessed November 1, 2007). 

Vér, I.L., and L.L. Beranek. 2006. Noise and Vibration Control Engineering: Principles and 

Applications. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, N.J. 

Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS). 2009. WCS, Andrew County to Provide Texas Solution 

for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste. Press release. Dallas, Texas. Available URL: 

http://www.wcstexas.com/news_press_releases.html (Accessed July 6, 2010). 

Wertheimer, N., and E. Leeper. 1979. “Electrical Wiring Configurations and Childhood Cancer.” 

American Journal of Epidemiology 109:273–284. 

Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993. “Conservation 

Status of Freshwater Mussels of the United States and Canada.” Fisheries 18:6–22. 

Wright, T., J. Tomlinson, T. Schueler, K. Cappiella, A. Kitchell, and D. Hirschman. 2006. Direct 

and Indirect Impacts of Urbanization on Wetland Quality: Wetlands and Watersheds Article # 1. 

Prepared by Center for Watershed Protection for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington, D.C. December. 

 

 4-1 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Contents of Chapter 4 

• Introduction (Section 4.1) 

• Land Use and Visual Resources 

(Section 4.2) 

• Air Quality and Noise (Section 4.3) 

• Geologic Environment (Section 4.4) 

• Water Resources (Section 4.5) 

• Ecological Resources (Section 4.6) 

• Historic and Cultural Resources 

(Section 4.7) 

• Socioeconomics (Section 4.8) 

• Human Health (Section 4.9) 

• Environmental Justice (Section 4.10) 

• Waste Management and Pollution 

Prevention (Section 4.11) 

• Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 4.12) 

• Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed 

Action (Section 4.13) 

• Resource Commitments (Section 4.14) 

4 Environmental Consequences 

and Mitigating Actions 

4.1 Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) evaluated the environmental consequences of 

the proposed action (i.e., license renewal) including the (1) impacts associated with continued 

operations and refurbishment activities similar to 

those that have occurred during the current 

license term; (2) impacts of various alternatives 

to the proposed action; (3) impacts from the 

termination of nuclear power plant operations 

and decommissioning after the license renewal 

term (with emphasis on the incremental effect 

caused by an additional 20 years of operation); 

(4) impacts associated with the uranium fuel 

cycle; (5) impacts of postulated accidents 

(design-basis accidents and severe accidents); 

(6) cumulative impacts of the proposed action; 

and (7) resource commitments associated with 

the proposed action, including unavoidable 

adverse impacts, the relationship between shortterm use and long-term productivity, and 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources. 

In evaluating impacts for this revision of the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NRC 1996, 

referred to in this document as the “1996 

GEIS”), the NRC used a standard of significance 

based on the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) terminology for “significantly” (see Title 40, 

Section 1508.27 in the Code of Federal Regulations [40 CFR 1508.27]), which considers both 

“context” and “intensity.” The NRC established three significance levels—SMALL, MODERATE, 

and LARGE—and has used these levels and associated definitions as standard practice in 

preparing its supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs) to the GEIS. As indicated 

in Section 1.5, the definitions of the three significance levels are as follows: 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-2 

• SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

• MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

• LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

important attributes of the resource. 

These levels are used for describing the impacts of most aspects of the proposed action as well 

as the impacts of alternatives to the proposed action. Resource-specific definitions are provided 

where applicable. 

4.1.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action 

As described in Section 2.1, a number of activities associated with the proposed action could 

have environmental consequences. The proposed action includes the activities associated with 

normal operations during the license renewal term, including (1) plant operation, (2) activities 

needed to support operations and meet infrastructure requirements (e.g., road improvements, 

new parking lots, waste storage facilities, and new ancillary buildings), and (3) refurbishment 

actions needed to replace and/or repair critical portions of reactor systems. 

The assessment includes a determination of the magnitude of the impact (SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE, as defined above) and whether or not the analysis of the 

environmental issue could be applied to all or a category of plants. Issues are assigned a 

Category 1 or a Category 2 designation as follows: 

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

• The environmental impacts associated with the issue were determined to apply either to 

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

specified plant or site characteristics. 

• A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) was assigned to the 

impacts (except for offsite radiological impacts—collective impacts from other than the 

disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste). 

• The mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue was considered in the 

analysis, and it was determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not 

likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-3 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

In most cases, the impacts of continued 

operations and refurbishment activities 

during the license renewal term are similar 

to the impacts that have resulted from the 

operation of licensed nuclear power plants 

during the current license term. 

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

required in future supplemental EISs (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 for 

which, therefore, an additional plant-specific review is required. 

A total of 78 impact issues that are related to the proposed action were identified (summarized 

in Table 2.1-1). For each potential environmental impact issue identified, the GEIS revision 

(1) describes the nuclear power plant activity that could affect the resource, (2) identifies the 

resource that is affected, (3) evaluates past license renewal reviews and other available 

information, (4) assesses the nature and magnitude of the environmental impact on the affected 

resource, (5) characterizes the significance of the effect, (6) determines whether the results of 

the analysis apply to all nuclear power plants (i.e., whether the impact issue is Category 1 or 

Category 2), and (7) considers additional mitigation measures for adverse impacts. In cases for 

which the issue differs from that presented in the 1996 GEIS, the rationale for the new treatment 

is presented. 

4.1.2 Environmental Consequences of Continued Operations and Refurbishment 

Activities during the License Renewal Term 

The activities that would occur during normal 

operations of the license renewal term and that are 

thus the subject of this evaluation are discussed in 

Section 2.1. It is important to note that the impacts 

of the original construction of the nuclear power 

plants and past operational impacts are not the 

focus of this evaluation of environmental 

consequences. Both the impacts of original 

construction and the impacts of past operations have affected and, in many cases, established 

the current conditions at each plant and vicinity. These conditions serve as the baseline for the 

impact analyses presented in this section. Past impacts are presented in the description of the 

affected environment in Chapter 3. In these cases, the impacts of continued operations and 

refurbishment activities during the license renewal term are similar to the impacts that have 

resulted from the operation of licensed nuclear power plants during the current license term. In 

most cases, impacts of the proposed action would not represent a change from current 

conditions and are considered SMALL. In other cases, the proposed action could result in a 

change from current conditions, and the impacts could be considered MODERATE or LARGE. 

A total of 78 impact issues (including 5 issues related to waste management at both nuclear 

power plants and other nuclear fuel cycle facilities) that are related to continued operations and 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-4 

refurbishment activities during the license renewal term were identified and evaluated; they are 

summarized in Table 2.1-1. This revised GEIS provides the technical basis for the issues 

presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B, Subpart A, of 10 CFR Part 51. The identified impact 

issues are discussed by resource topic in the remainder of this section. The assessment 

approaches specific to each resource area are described in Appendix D. 

4.1.3 Environmental Consequences of the No-Action Alternative 

The no-action alternative represents a decision by the NRC not to issue a renewed operating 

license. If a license is not renewed, the licensee would have to shut the plant down. At some 

point in time, all plants eventually would be required to shut down and undergo 

decommissioning. Under the no-action alternative, these eventualities would occur sooner than 

if the NRC issued a renewed license. 

Denying license renewal and ceasing operation under the no-action alternative may lead to a 

variety of potential outcomes, but these are essentially the same as the ones that would 

eventually occur once plant operations ceased after license renewal (see Section 4.12.2 for a 

discussion of these effects). Reactor shutdown would result in a net reduction in power 

production capacity. The power not generated by the nuclear plant during a license renewal 

term would likely be replaced by (1) generating alternatives other than the nuclear power plant, 

(2) demand-side management, (3) power purchased from other electricity providers, or (4) some 

combination of these options. Note that NRC’s consideration of 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, Federal (non-NRC), and utility officials. 

4.1.4 Environmental Consequences of Replacement Power Alternatives 

Replacement power alternatives consider the potential environmental impacts from the 

construction and operation of alternative power generating technologies (including a new 

nuclear reactor) that could replace the power from an existing nuclear power plant. Each 

resource area in this chapter assesses the environmental effects of constructing and operating 

various replacement power alternatives. Alternatives were selected on the basis of reviews of 

energy technologies that are either currently commercially viable on a utility scale and 

operational prior to the expiration of a reactor’s operating license or can be expected to become 

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

operating license. Other energy technologies that hold promise for becoming part of a bulk 

electricity portfolio sometime in the future are identified but not evaluated in detail. Should the 

need arise to replace the electrical power generating capacity of a reactor, either because its 

operating license will not be renewed or because of changes in strategies to meet changing 

regional or local demand, the necessary replacement power is likely to be provided by a suite or 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-5 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

portfolio of electrical energy producing technologies, including, perhaps, expansions of the 

capacities of one or more existing power-generating facilities within the region. The number of 

possible combinations of energy producing technologies to replace lost electrical power 

generating capacity is quite large. An evaluation of even a small fraction of these combinations 

would not significantly advance the knowledge base supporting the license renewal decision. 

Consequently, individual technologies rather than combinations are evaluated as replacement 

power alternatives in this GEIS. Data on commercial products or services are included for 

information purposes only. No endorsement is implied. The NRC does not engage in energyplanning decisions and makes no judgment as to which of the replacement power alternatives 

would be chosen in any given case. 

In addition to the installation of electrical energy producing technologies, replacement power 

could also be provided by importing power over the bulk electricity grid. Power replaced 

through energy purchases would likely have similar characteristics to some of the replacement 

power alternatives being considered, and would be dependent on available energy sources at 

the time of the purchase. At the time of publication, coal, natural gas, and nuclear-fueled power 

plants are the most-prevalent sources of purchased replacement power, though an increasing 

number of renewable power sources are emerging. As such, the effects of purchased power 

are likely to be similar to the effects of operating a combination of electrical energy producing 

technologies or similar to the fossil or nuclear-fueled alternatives. Impacts overall are likely to 

be lower for purchased power (if existing power generation and transmission capacity is also 

available) since no construction is necessary. On the other hand, since existing plants are likely 

to have less-stringent emissions controls, operational impacts to air quality and human health 

may be slightly greater for purchased power than for new construction. 

4.1.5 Environmental Consequences of Terminating Nuclear Power Plant 

Operations and Decommissioning 

All operating nuclear power plants will terminate operations and be decommissioned at some 

point after the end of their operating licenses or after a decision is made to cease operations. 

License renewal could potentially delay this eventuality for an additional 20 years beyond the 

current license period. The impacts of decommissioning nuclear plants were evaluated in the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities: 

Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, NUREG-0586 

(NRC 2002a). The effects of license renewal on the impacts of terminating nuclear power plant 

operations and decommissioning are considered a single environmental issue. Because the 

impacts are expected to be SMALL at all plants and for all environmental resources, it is 

considered a Category 1 issue. The impacts of terminating nuclear power plant operations and 

decommissioning for each resource area are discussed in Section 4.12.2. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-6 

4.2 Land Use and Visual Resources 

4.2.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action—Continued 

Operations and Refurbishment Activities 

Since September 11, 2001, changes in onsite land use have occurred at nuclear power plants 

across the nation, with increased restrictions on site access and changes in barricades and 

landscaping to enhance security. Generally, land use conditions are expected to continue 

unchanged until plant decommissioning. Similarly, the use of transmission line ROWs is 

projected to continue with few, if any, changes in restrictions and easements. 

In addition, the presence and visual profiles of operating nuclear power plants and transmission 

lines have been well established during the current licensing term. These conditions would 

remain unchanged during the 20-year license renewal term. 

4.2.1.1 Land Use 

In the 1996 GEIS, the impacts of nuclear power plant operations on onsite land use, power line 

right of way, and offsite land use (license renewal term and refurbishment) were evaluated 

separately. While it was concluded that impacts to onsite land use and power line right of ways 

would be small at all plants, anticipated changes in population and tax revenues attributed to 

license renewal and power plant refurbishment were predicted to have SMALL to MODERATE 

impacts on offsite land use. Subsequent license renewal reviews have shown, however, that 

license renewal and power plant refurbishment have had little or no effect on offsite land use. 

Land use impact issues evaluated for this GEIS revision include the impacts of continued plant 

operations and refurbishment activities on (1) onsite land use (evaluated in the 1996 GEIS); 

(2) offsite land use (consolidation and reclassification of two 1996 GEIS issues: (1) offsite land 

use (refurbishment) and (2) offsite land use (license renewal term)); and (3) offsite land use in 

transmission line ROWs (issue was renamed from the 1996 GEIS issue, “Power line right-ofways”). 

Onsite Land Use 

Operational activities at a nuclear power plant during the license renewal term would be similar 

to those occurring during the current license term. Generally, onsite land use conditions would 

remain unchanged. However, additional spent nuclear fuel and low-level radioactive waste 

generated during the license renewal term could require the construction of new or expansion of 

existing onsite storage facilities. Should additional storage facilities be required, this action 

would be addressed in separate license reviews conducted by the NRC. The NRC has not 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-7 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

identified any information or situations during previous license renewal reviews that would alter 

the conclusion that impacts from continued plant operations and refurbishment would be SMALL 

for all commercial nuclear power plants. Refurbishment activities, such as steam generator and 

vessel head replacement, have not permanently changed onsite land use conditions. 

On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of continued plant 

operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment on onsite land use would be 

SMALL for all nuclear plants and remains a Category 1 issue. 

Offsite Land Use 

The impacts of continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment on 

offsite land use were evaluated separately in the 1996 GEIS. It was predicted that impacts 

associated with refurbishment and changes in population and tax revenue on offsite land use 

could range from SMALL to MODERATE. Subsequent license renewal reviews, however, have 

shown no power plant-related population changes or significant tax revenue changes due to 

license renewal. Non-outage employment levels at nuclear power plants have remained 

relatively unchanged or have decreased. With no increase in the number of workers, there has 

been no increase in housing, infrastructure, or demand for services beyond what has already 

occurred. Operational activities during the license renewal term would be similar to those 

occurring during the current license term and would not affect offsite land use beyond what has 

already been affected. The NRC has not identified any information or situations, including low 

population areas or population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal that 

would alter the conclusion that impacts on offsite land use would be SMALL for all nuclear 

power plants. 

For plants that have the potential to impact a coastal zone or coastal watershed, as defined by 

each State participating in the National Coastal Zone Management Program, applicants for 

license renewal must submit to the affected State a certification that the proposed license 

renewal is consistent with the State Coastal Zone Management Program. Applicants must 

coordinate with the State agency that manages the State Coastal Zone Management Program 

to obtain a determination that the proposed nuclear plant license renewal would be consistent 

with the State program. Consistency with State Coastal Zone Management Programs assures 

that impacts in State coastal zones will be SMALL. 

On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of continued plant 

operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment on offsite land use would be 

SMALL at all plants and is considered a Category 1 issue. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-8 

Offsite Land Use in Transmission Line ROWs 

As previously discussed in Section 3.1.6.5, in most cases, transmission lines originating at 

power plant substations are no longer owned or managed by nuclear power plant licensees. 

Accordingly, only those transmission lines that connect the plant to the switchyard where 

electricity is fed into the regional power distribution system (encompassing those lines that 

connect the plant to the first substation of the regional electric power grid) and power lines that 

feed the plant from the grid during outages are considered within the scope of license renewal 

environmental reviews. Operational activities in offsite transmission line ROWs, within this 

scope of review, during the license renewal term, would be similar to those occurring during the 

current license term and would not affect offsite land use in transmission line ROWs beyond 

what has already been affected. 

Certain land use activity in the ROW is usually restricted. Land cover is generally managed 

through a variety of maintenance procedures so that vegetation growth and building 

construction do not interfere with power line operation and access. Land use within ROWs are 

limited to activities that do not endanger power line operation; these include recreation, off-road 

vehicle use, grazing, agricultural cultivation, irrigation, roads, environmental conservation, and 

wildlife areas. 

Impacts on crop production that may have been caused by transmission line interference with 

aerial spraying have been reported by one field study of cotton, rice, and soybean fields crossed 

by a 500-kV line in eastern Arkansas (Parsch and Norman 1986). This study hypothesized that 

crop yields could be reduced either by electromagnetic fields (EMFs) or by inadequate aerial 

spraying directly under the power lines. Only cotton yields were found to be reduced; 

15 percent less lint was produced under the lines than 150 ft (46 m) from the lines. The 

resulting loss of income from cotton was estimated as $85.25 per year for an 1,100-ft (335-m) 

span of the lines, based on a 15 percent yield reduction and an average lint yield of 480 lb/acre 

(538 kg/hectare). The field sampling and statistical analyses were extensive; the observed yield 

reduction appeared to be real rather than a sampling error. However, the study could not 

determine whether the EMF or line interference with aerial spraying caused the yield reduction. 

Transmission lines do not preclude the use of the land for farming or environmental and 

recreational use. Transmission lines connecting nuclear power plants to the electrical grid are 

no different from transmission lines connecting any other power plant. 

The impact of transmission lines on offsite land use during the license renewal term was 

considered to be SMALL for all plants and was designated as a Category 1 issue in the 

1996 GEIS. No new information that would alter that conclusion has been identified in 

subsequent license renewal reviews. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-9 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of transmission line 

ROWs on offsite land use during the license renewal term would be SMALL for all plants and 

remains a Category 1 issue. 

4.2.1.2 Visual Resources 

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC considered the visual resource impacts of continued plant 

operations, refurbishment, and transmission lines separately as follows: (1) aesthetic impacts 

(refurbishment); (2) aesthetic impacts (license renewal term); and (3) aesthetic impacts of 

transmission lines (license renewal term). Subsequent license renewal environmental reviews 

conducted by the NRC have shown that nuclear power plants and transmission lines have not 

changed in appearance significantly over time, so aesthetic impacts are not anticipated. The 

three issues identified in the 1996 GEIS were combined and are evaluated as a single issue. 

Aesthetic Impacts

As previously discussed, the NRC considered the impacts of continued plant operations during 

the license renewal term and refurbishment on visual resources separately in the 1996 GEIS. 

The NRC concluded that for both issues the impacts on visual resources would be SMALL for 

all plants and both were determined to be Category 1 issues, because the existing visual 

profiles of nuclear power plants were not expected to change during the license renewal term. 

A case study performed for the 1996 GEIS found a limited number of situations where nuclear 

power plants had a negative effect on visual resources. Negative perceptions were based on 

aesthetic considerations (for instance, the plant is out of character or scale with the community 

or the viewshed), physical environmental concerns, safety and perceived risk issues, an antiplant attitude, or an anti-nuclear orientation. It is believed that these negative perceptions would 

persist regardless of mitigation measures. Subsequent license renewal reviews have not 

revealed any new information that would change this perception. 

In addition, the visual appearance of transmission lines is not expected to change during the 

license renewal term. After the containment building and cooling towers, transmission line 

towers are probably the most frequently observed structure associated with nuclear power 

plants. Transmission lines from nuclear power plants are generally indistinguishable from those 

from other power plants. Since electrical transmission lines are common throughout the 

United States, they are generally perceived with less prejudice than the nuclear power plant 

itself. Also, the visual impact of transmission lines tends to wear off when viewed repeatedly. 

Replacing or moving towers or burying cables to reduce the visual impact would be impractical 

from both an efficiency and cost-benefit perspective. The impact of transmission lines during 

the license renewal term on visual resources was considered to be SMALL for all plants and 

designated as a Category 1 issue in the 1996 GEIS. No new information that would alter that 

conclusion has been identified in subsequent license renewal environmental reviews. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-10 

On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the aesthetic impacts of 

continued plant operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and transmission 

lines, within this scope of review, on visual resources would be SMALL for all plants and 

remains a Category 1 issue. 

4.2.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

Construction—Construction of a new power plant would involve the permanent commitment of 

land for the power plant, plant intake and discharge structures, water treatment facilities, and 

cooling towers. Other construction-related land use impacts would include land clearing, 

excavations, drilling of monitoring wells, and the installation of temporary support facilities. 

Material laydown areas and onsite concrete batch plants would also represent additional 

temporary land use and visual impacts. These would be removed after the power plant is 

completed. Depending on location, construction of electrical substation, switchyards, 

transmission lines, railroad spurs, access roads may also be required. Some of these facilities 

could affect offsite land use. 

Construction at an existing nuclear power plant site or brownfield site would have less of an 

impact on land use and visual resources than a greenfield site. Construction at an existing 

nuclear power plant site would have the least impact on land use, because the plant could make 

use of existing intake and discharge structures, substations, transmission lines, office buildings, 

parking lots, and access roads. Constructing a power plant at a greenfield site would remove 

land from other productive uses such as agriculture. It could convert potential prime farmland to 

industrial use. In addition, construction at a greenfield site would have a more dramatic impact 

on visual resources, since the industrial power plant would likely be significantly different from 

the surrounding landscape. Constructing at a brownfield site would have less of an impact on 

the land use than a greenfield site. 

The increase in traffic to and from the construction site could require changes to existing 

transportation infrastructure and traffic patterns resulting in offsite land use impacts and visual 

impacts. These impacts would cease at the end of construction. 

Operations—Land would be in use throughout the period of power plant operation. Visual 

resources would also be affected. Visual impacts would be similar to other industrial activities at 

an existing nuclear power plant site or brownfield site. However, the height of new buildings 

structures as well as transmission line, meteorological, and cooling towers could add to the 

visual impact. Condensate plumes during plant operations may be visible for some distance 

during certain weather conditions. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-11 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

4.2.2.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives 

Construction and Operations—Impacts on land use from constructing coal- or natural gas-fired 

power plants would be similar. However, a coal-fired power plant would need more land than a 

natural gas-fired plant due to the need for coal fuel delivery and waste storage facilities. As a 

result, the coal-fired power plant would also have a higher visual impact. 

4.2.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives 

Construction and Operations—Land would be required for the construction of spent nuclear fuel 

and low-level radioactive waste storage facilities. The appearance of the reactor containment 

and turbine buildings would add to the visual impact. 

4.2.2.3 Renewable Alternatives 

Construction—Land requirements for renewable energy facilities vary greatly. Biomass fueled 

energy facilities with utility-scale capacities could require at least 300 ac (122 ha). Flat plate 

solar photovoltaic systems would require approximately 6.2 ac (2.5 ha)/MW; however, 

improvements in photovoltaic cell efficiency could reduce the amount of land required to 0.68 ac 

(0.28 ha)/MW by 2030. Solar thermal facilities with concentrators would require substantial land 

area. Projected land requirements for advanced power tower facilities generating 200 MWe in 

the year 2030 would be 612 ac (247 ha). Given the expected capacity factor of advanced 

power tower facilities, the land requirements equate to 1.1  10-3 ha/MWh/yr (EERE 1997). 

Land area required for an advanced solar power trough facility operating in 2030 with a rated 

capacity of 320 MW would be 792 ac (320 ha) (EERE 1997). 

Wind energy facilities would require approximately 0.3 ac (0.12 ha)/MW. Utility-scale wind 

farms would require relatively large areas. However, unlike solar technologies, once 

construction is completed, land areas between the turbines can be put to other beneficial 

(nonintrusive) use. Substantially lesser amounts of land area would be required for geothermal 

facilities (estimated at 173 ac [70 ha] for a 49 MW facility) (BLM 1999), and very small amounts 

of land (for cable landings and substations, estimated at 100 ac [40.4 ha] for utility-scale 

offshore energy facilities) would be required for offshore wind and current facilities. 

For renewable energy technologies that utilize combustion and/or steam cycles, the appearance 

of buildings, height and prominence of smokestacks, and condensate plumes, would have a 

visual impact. 

Operations—The operational impacts of alternative energy technologies on land use and visual 

resources are presented in the following subsections. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-12 

Hydroelectric Energy Sources

Hydroelectric dams and reservoirs capable of generating utility-scale power would be 

substantial in scale and prominence and have a visual impact. Large dams that also serve as 

flood control could significantly affect land use patterns upstream and downstream beyond the 

decommissioning of the facility. 

Geothermal 

Geothermal facilities would be less prominent, typically located in remote areas and may 

generate a steam plume that is visible from long distances. Visual resources would be affected 

by wellheads, exposed transfer piping, and power plant structures, and could have a dramatic 

impact on a remote area. The intermittent creation of steam condensate plumes would be 

visible from great distances. 

Wind 

A relatively large area of land would be required for wind energy; however, only about 5 to 

10 percent of the land area would be utilized by turbines, power collection and conditioning 

systems, and other support facilities. Land affected by the installation of buried power and 

communication cables interconnecting each turbine with a power substation would be minimally 

intrusive. Wind farms, although less complex than combustion-based facilities in their visual 

appearance, would have a visual impact due to the height of the turbines. Offshore wind farms 

could be sufficiently distant from the shore to attenuate most, if not all, of the visual impacts on 

onshore observers. 

Biomass 

The physical appearance of a biomass fuel-fired energy facility would be similar to that of a 

fossil fuel fired facility. The industrial footprint would be less. Additional land would be required, 

however, for growing biomass crops. 

Municipal Solid Waste, Refuse-Derived Fuel, and Landfill Gas 

The physical appearance of a municipal solid waste, refuse-derived and landfill gas-fired energy 

facility would be similar to that of a fossil fuel fired facility, but the amount of land needed for the 

energy production facilities would be less. Some additional land would be required, however, 

for fuel handling facilities (e.g., storage piles, hammermills, grinders, bucket conveyors, blowers, 

and pneumatic conveyance systems). Buildings, smokestacks, cooling towers, and condensate 

plumes would have a visual impact, but would be comparable to a fossil fuel-fired facility. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-13 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Solar Thermal 

Land would be required for the powerblock (steam cycle, turbine/generator building, substation, 

cooling towers, condensate plume, and support equipment). Visual impacts would occur if a 

power tower technology is employed as well as the array of solar collectors. 

Solar Photovoltaic 

Utility-scale facility would require a very large area of land. Visual resources would be affected 

by the size of the facility. 

Ocean Wave and Current 

Land use would be only slightly affected by land-based support systems (cable landing, 

substation, and warehouse and repair facility); existing piers and docks are expected to be 

sufficient to support the offshore facility during operation. Above-water components are 

expected to be relatively inconspicuous, even when equipped with marker lights; their relatively 

small height above the water, their distance from shore, and the curvature of the earth may 

serve to partially or completely conceal them from onshore observers. 

4.3 Air Quality and Noise 

4.3.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action—Continued 

Operations and Refurbishment Activities 

Ambient air quality and noise conditions at all nuclear power plants and associated transmission 

lines have been well established during the current licensing term. Notwithstanding significant 

changes to the nature and type of industrial activities in the area, these conditions are expected 

to remain unchanged during the 20-year license renewal term. 

The focus of this section is the impacts of continued operations and refurbishment activities 

during the license renewal term on air quality and noise. Refurbishment and associated 

construction activities can affect air quality (e.g., fugitive dust, vehicle and equipment exhaust 

emissions, and automobile exhaust from commuter traffic). Baseline meteorological, 

climatological, and ambient air quality and noise conditions at operating plants are discussed in 

Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, respectively. License renewal is expected to result in a continuation of 

similar conditions for an extended period commensurate with the license renewal term, typically 

20 years. As a result, the criteria air pollutants emitted and the noise generated during normal 

continued plant operations over the license renewal term are not expected to change 

substantially and thus should remain SMALL. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-14 

4.3.1.1 Air Quality 

Two issues related to impacts on air quality during the license renewal term are considered in 

this section: 

• Air quality impacts (all plants); issue encompasses impacts of continued operations (not 

considered in the 1996 GEIS) and refurbishment activities on air quality, including 

nonattainment or maintenance area conformity (issue was modified, reclassified, and 

renamed from the 1996 GEIS); and 

• Air quality effects of transmission lines. This issue was evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. 

Air Quality Impacts (All Plants) 

Continued Operations—The impact of continued plant operations during the license renewal 

term on air quality was not identified as an issue in the 1996 GEIS. It is evaluated here because 

of the potential for air quality to be affected by the operations of fossil-fuel-fired equipment 

needed for normal operations and by the operations of cooling towers in plants that use a 

closed-cycle cooling system. These potential impacts are discussed below. 

Impacts on air quality during normal plant operations can result from operations of fossil-fuelfired equipment needed for various plant functions (see Section 3.3.2). Each licensed plant 

typically employs emergency diesel generators for use as a backup power source. Emergency 

diesel generators and fire pumps typically require State or local operating permits. These 

generators provide a standby source of electric power for essential equipment required during 

plant upset or an emergency event. They also provide for safe reactor shutdown and for the 

maintenance of safe conditions at the power station during such an event. These diesel 

generators are typically tested once a month with several test burns of various durations 

(e.g., 1 to several hours). In addition to these maintenance tests, longer-running endurance 

tests are also typically conducted at each plant. Each generator is typically tested for 24 hours 

on a staggered test schedule (e.g., once every refueling outage). Plants with nonelectric fire 

pumps, typically also diesel-fired, usually employ test protocols identical or similar to those used 

for emergency generators. Maintenance procedures during these tests would include, for 

example, checks for leaks of lubricating oil or fuel from equipment, and pumps would be 

replaced as required. Most State air pollution regulations provide exemptions for air pollution 

sources that are not routinely operated, which can be defined as sources with insignificant 

activity meeting specified operating criteria (e.g., so many hours of continuous operation over 

specified periods or so many hours of operation per year). 

In addition to the emergency diesel generators, fossil fuel (i.e., diesel-, oil-, or natural-gas-fired) 

boilers are used primarily for evaporator heating, plant space heating, and/or feed water 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-15 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

purification. These units typically operate at a variable load on a continuous basis throughout 

the year unless end use is restricted to one application, such as space heating. Air emissions 

include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), particulate matter (PM), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for diesel-, 

natural-gas-, and oil-fired units. Natural-gas-fired units emit only trace amounts of VOCs and 

PM that has an aerodynamic diameter of 10 m or less (PM10). The utility boilers at commercial 

plants are relatively small when compared with most industrial boilers and are typically 

regulated through State-level operating permits. 

The potential impact from emergency generators and boilers on air quality would be expected to 

be SMALL for all plants, and, given the infrequency and short duration of maintenance testing, it 

would not be an air quality concern even at those plants located in or adjacent to nonattainment 

areas. The locations of the currently designated nonattainment areas near nuclear plants are 

shown in Section 3.3.2. 

As discussed in Section 3.3, cooling tower drift can increase downwind PM concentrations, 

impair visibility, ice roadways, cause drift deposition, and damage vegetation and painted 

surfaces. There are currently 24 licensed nuclear power plants that use wet cooling towers in 

closed-cycle cooling systems. Most of the plants use two or more towers for reactor heat 

removal. Of the 47 operating towers, 24 are natural draft cooling towers and 23 are mechanical 

draft cooling towers. There are currently no dry or hybrid (combinations incorporating elements 

of both dry and wet design) systems being used at operating nuclear plants. Only 1 of the 

47 towers (a natural draft cooling tower at the Hope Creek plant in New Jersey) is operating at a 

plant that uses high-salinity water for cooling system makeup. An air quality impact analysis 

performed in support of an extended power uprate request for Hope Creek assessed emissions 

related to cooling tower drift droplets and PM for this worst-case situation and found that the 

impacts of cooling tower operations on air quality were small, as summarized in Section 3.3.2. 

Thus, although there is the potential for some air quality impacts to occur as a result of 

equipment and cooling tower operations, even in the worst-case situation (Hope Creek), the 

impacts have been small, and licensees would be required to operate within State permit 

requirements. 

Refurbishment Activities—Potential sources of impacts on air quality during refurbishment 

activities associated with continued operations during the license renewal term include 

(1) fugitive dust from site excavation and grading and (2) emissions from motorized equipment, 

construction vehicles, and workers’ vehicles. Some refurbishment activities would be performed 

on equipment inside existing buildings and would not generate air emissions. 

With application of adequate controls or mitigation measures and best practices, the air quality 

impacts from these air pollution sources would be small and of relatively short duration. The 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-16 

disturbed area for refurbishment actions, if required, is expected to be 10 ac (4 ha) or less, 

based on assumptions from the 1996 GEIS. During site excavation and grading, some PM in 

the form of fugitive dust would be released into the atmosphere. Because of the (1) small size 

of the disturbed area, (2) relatively short construction period, (3) availability of paved roadways 

at existing facilities, and (4) use of best management practices (BMPs) (such as watering, 

chemical stabilization, and seeding), fugitive dust resulting from these construction activities 

would likely be minimal. 

Construction vehicles and other motorized equipment would generate exhaust emissions that 

include small amounts of CO, NOx, VOCs, and PM. These emissions would be temporary 

(restricted to the construction period) and localized (occurring only in the immediate vicinity of 

construction areas). Emissions impacts from construction equipment and vehicles (e.g., CO, 

hydrocarbons, and PM from use of diesel fuels) and from fugitive dust emissions from groundclearing and grading activities could be SMALL or MODERATE. For refurbishment occurring in 

geographical areas with poor or marginal air quality, the emissions generated from these 

activities could be cause for concern in a few cases (e.g., building demolition, debris removal, 

and new construction). However, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments include a provision that 

no Federal agency shall support any activity that does not conform to a State Implementation 

Plan designed to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria 

pollutants (sulfur dioxide [SO2], nitrogen dioxide [NO2], CO, ozone [O3,], lead [Pb], PM10, and 

PM with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 m or less [PM2.5]). 

On April 5, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its 40 CFR Part 51 

and 93 revisions to the General Conformity Regulations in the Federal Register (75 FR 17254) 

These regulations revised and updated the general conformity regulations published on 

November 30, 1993, in 58 FR 63214. General conformity requires Federal agencies to ensure 

that a proposed Federal action in air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas conforms to 

the applicable State Implementation Plan. A conformity analysis must be completed before the 

action is taken. A conformity analysis begins with an applicability analysis to determine whether 

the action is exempt or has total net direct and indirect emissions below the de minimis levels. 

The de minimis emission levels (40 CFR 93.153(b)) serve as screening values to determine 

whether a conformity determination must be undertaken for a proposed Federal action. The 

applicability analysis must be documented. If conformity applies, the agency must prepare a 

written conformity analysis and determination for each pollutant for which the emissions caused 

by a proposed Federal action would exceed the de minimis levels. An area is designated as 

nonattainment for a criteria pollutant if it does not meet NAAQS for the pollutant. A 

maintenance area is one that a State has redesignated from nonattainment to attainment. The 

current nationwide designations of nonattainment and maintenance areas are identified in 

Section 3.3.2. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-17 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

The de minimis levels for air emissions vary depending on air quality conditions in the area 

where the plant is located. In most cases, the de minimis levels are established at 100 tons per 

year. Exceptions include: 

 

• NOx or VOC emissions of 10, 25, and 50 tons per year in extreme, severe, and serious 

ozone nonattainment areas, respectively; 

 

• VOC emissions of 50 tons per year in ozone nonattainment areas inside an ozone 

transport region stretching from Virginia to Maine; 

 

• PM10 emissions of 70 tons per year in serious PM10 nonattainment areas; and 

 

• Lead emissions of 25 tons per year in lead nonattainment areas. 

 

None of the operating nuclear plants are located in extreme, severe, or serious ozone 

nonattainment areas; in serious PM10 nonattainment areas; or in lead nonattainment areas. 

Therefore, the de minimis levels applied to plants in the nonattainment areas are 100 tons per 

year for all criteria pollutants except VOC emissions of 50 tons per year for plants within the 

ozone transport region. 

 

In maintenance areas, the de minimis levels are 100 tons per year for all pollutants, except for 

50 tons per year for VOCs inside the ozone transport region. The de minimis levels of 25 tons 

per year apply in maintenance areas, but no plants are located in these areas. 

 

In addition to the above, de minimis levels of 100 tons per year applies to SO2 and NOx 

emissions in PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas unless NOx is determined not to be a 

significant PM2.5 precursor. Levels of 100 tons per year may apply to emissions of VOCs and 

ammonia if either is determined to be a significant precursor. The regulations require that direct 

construction emissions including construction vehicle and equipment exhaust and fugitive dust 

and indirect emissions such as those from worker and delivery vehicles be included in the 

conformity analysis. 

 

Emissions from construction equipment and vehicles are expected to be small for anticipated 

refurbishment projects on the basis of activities that have occurred to date; however, larger 

projects may require a sizeable workforce that could contribute vehicle exhaust emissions that 

could exceed the de minimis thresholds for CO, NOx, and VOCs (the latter two contribute to the 

formation of O3) in nonattainment and maintenance areas. In addition, the amount of fugitive 

dust generated by dust resuspension from larger projects involving construction vehicle use 

onsite or vehicle use in the vicinity of construction activities may approach or exceed the 

threshold for PM10 and PM2.5 in nonattainment and maintenance areas. Dust suppression 

measures could be implemented in areas of concern. In summary, emissions from equipment 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-18 

and vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust could result in impacts, but could be mitigated through 

appropriate fugitive dust control measures. 

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC concluded that the impacts from plant refurbishment associated with 

license renewal on air quality could range from SMALL to LARGE, although these impacts were 

expected to be SMALL for most plants. However, findings from license renewal SEISs 

published since the 1996 GEIS have shown that refurbishment activities, such as steam 

generator and vessel head replacement, have not required the large numbers of workers and 

months of time, as well as the degree of land disturbance, that was conservatively estimated in 

the 1996 GEIS. Presumed air pollutant emissions, including levels of fugitive dust, have 

therefore not been realized. The NRC concludes that the impact of refurbishment activities on 

air quality during the license renewal term would be SMALL for most plants, but could be cause 

for concern at plants located in or near air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas, 

depending on the nature of the planned activity. Still, the impacts would be temporary and 

cease once projects were completed and implementation of BMPs including fugitive dust 

controls and the imposition of new and/or revised conditions in State and local air emissions 

permits would ensure conformance with applicable State or Tribal Implementation Plans. 

On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the air quality impact of continued 

nuclear plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment would be SMALL for 

all plants, and that the impacts of license renewal on air quality should be considered a 

Category 1 issue. 

 

Air Quality Effects of Transmission Lines 

Small amounts of ozone and substantially smaller amounts of oxides of nitrogen are produced 

by transmission lines during corona, a phenomenon that occurs when air ionizes near isolated 

irregularities on the conductor surface such as abrasions, dust particles, raindrops, and insects. 

Several studies have quantified the amount of ozone generated and concluded that the amount 

produced by even the largest lines in operation (765 kilovolt [kV]) is insignificant (SNYPSC 

1978; Scott-Walton et al. 1979; Janes 1980; Varfalvy et al. 1985). Monitoring of ozone levels for 

two years near a Bonneville Power Administration 1,200-kV prototype line revealed no increase 

in ambient ozone levels caused by the line (Bracken and Gabriel 1981; Lee et al. 1989). Ozone 

concentrations generated by transmission lines are therefore too low to cause any significant 

effects. The minute amounts of oxides of nitrogen produced are similarly insignificant. A finding 

of SMALL significance for transmission lines, within this scope of review (see Sections 3.1.1 and 

3.1.6.5 in this GEIS), is supported by the evidence that production of ozone and oxides of 

nitrogen are insignificant and does not measurably contribute to ambient levels of those gases. 

Potential mitigation measures (e.g., burying transmission lines) would be very costly and would 

not be warranted. This is a Category 1 issue. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-19 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

4.3.1.2 Noise 

One issue related to noise impacts during the license renewal term and refurbishment is 

considered in this section: 

• Noise impacts of continued operations and refurbishment activities. This issue was 

evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. 

Noise Impacts 

Noise from nuclear plant operations can often be detected offsite relatively close to the plant site 

boundary. Sources of noise and the relative magnitude of impacts during normal nuclear power 

plant operations are discussed in Section 3.3.3. Major sources of noise at operating nuclear 

power plants are cooling towers, turbines, transformers, large pumps, and cooling water system 

motors. Nuclear plant operations have not changed appreciably with time, and no change in 

noise levels or noise-related impacts are expected during the license renewal term. Since no 

change is expected in the amount of noise generated during the license renewal term, the only 

issue of concern is the number of people now living close to the nuclear power plant who are 

exposed to operational noise. 

Given the industrial nature of the power plant and the number of years of plant operation, noise 

from a nuclear plant is generally nothing more than a continuous minor nuisance. However, 

noise levels may sometimes exceed the 55 dBA level that the EPA uses as a threshold level to 

protect against excess noise during outdoor activities (EPA 1974). However, according to the 

EPA this threshold does “not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation,” but was 

intended to provide a basis for State and local governments establishing noise standards. 

Nevertheless, noise levels at the site boundary are expected to remain well below regulatory 

standards for offsite residents. 

Noise would also be generated by construction-related activities and equipment used during 

refurbishment. However this noise would occur for relatively short periods of time (several 

weeks) and is not expected to be distinguishable from other operational noises at the site 

boundary nor create an adverse impact on nearby residents. 

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC concluded that noise was not a problem at operating plants and was 

not expected to be a problem at any nuclear plant during the license renewal term. The 

magnitude of noise impacts was therefore determined to be SMALL for all plants, and the issue 

was designated as Category 1. No new information altering this conclusion has been identified 

in subsequent license renewal reviews. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-20 

On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the noise impact of continued 

nuclear plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment would be SMALL for 

all plants, and remains a Category 1 issue. 

4.3.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

Construction—Air quality impacts would include criteria pollutants from construction vehicles 

and equipment and dust from land clearing and grading. VOCs could be released from organic 

solvents used in cleaning, during the application of protective coatings, and the onsite storage 

and use of petroleum-based fuels. Construction vehicles and equipment would also generate 

noise. Impacts, however, would be temporary, and both air quality and noise impacts would 

return to pre-construction levels after construction was completed. 

Air quality and noise impacts from construction activities would be similar whether occurring at a 

greenfield site, brownfield site, or at an existing nuclear power plant. The impacts would be 

greatest, however, at a greenfield site because of cleaner ambient air quality and noise 

conditions, even though greenfield sites may also be found in NAAQS nonattainment areas. 

Onsite concrete batch plants, if required, would also contribute to construction-related dust and 

noise. 

Operations—Air quality would be affected during operations by cooling tower drift; auxiliary 

power equipment, building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; and 

vehicle emissions. Auxiliary power equipment could include standby diesel generators and 

power systems for emergency power and auxiliary steam. 

Ambient noise levels would be affected by cooling towers (water pumps, cascading water, or 

fans), transformers, turbines, pumps, compressors, loudspeakers, other auxiliary equipment 

such as standby generators, and vehicles. Air quality and noise impacts would be the greatest 

at greenfield sites. 

4.3.2.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives 

Construction—Air quality and noise impacts would be the same as described in Section 4.3.2. 

The impact analysis for fossil energy alternatives is based on projected impacts of facilities 

studied by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Energy Technology Laboratory 

(NETL). Baseline performance and cost data for 12 technologies are presented in a report 

issued by NETL (NETL 2007). 

An independent study conducted by the EPA on some of the technologies in the NETL report 

provides additional environmental impact data (EPA 2006). However, due to different power 

plant designs and fuel used in the NETL and EPA studies the data are not directly comparable. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-21 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nevertheless, data from both studies are presented to provide a range of environmental 

impacts. Most of the data presented in the following sections are extracted from those two 

reports. 

Operations—Fossil fuel power plants can have a significant impact on air quality. The burning 

of fossil fuels is a major source of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, as 

well as other hazardous air pollutants. The exact nature of these pollutants depends on the 

chemical constituency of the fuel, combustion technology, air pollution control devices, and 

onsite management of fuel (e.g., coal) and waste material. Sources of noise include coal 

delivery, coal crushing, and fuel and waste handling activities. 

The EPA has identified 13 trace elements likely to be emitted from an integrated gasification 

combined cycle (IGCC) facility, including arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and selenium. The 

average concentrations of trace elements emitted in pounds emitted per million Btu input 

(lb/106

 Btu) are as follows: antimony (4), arsenic (2.1), beryllium (0.09), cadmium (2.9), chloride 

(740), chromium (2.7), cobalt (0.57), fluoride (38), lead (2.9), manganese (3.1), mercury (1.7), 

nickel (3.9), and selenium (2.9) (EPA 2006). 

Table 4.3-1 displays some of the anticipated air quality impacts of coal-burning technologies 

(EPA 2006). Table 4.3-2 shows projected emissions of criteria and hazardous air pollutants 

from fossil fuel plants (NETL 2007). The values presented in the two tables represent the 

possible range of operational emissions that could result from fossil-fuel-fired power plants. 

Fossil fueled power plants not equipped with carbon capture and storage devices will emit large 

amounts of CO2 and lesser amounts of other greenhouse gases. EPA projections of CO2

emissions from a 500-MW integrated gasification combined cycle facility burning bituminous, 

sub-bituminous, and lignite coals are 1,441 lb/MWh (or 199 lb/MBtu), 1,541 lb/MWh 

(208 lb/MBtu), and 1,584 lb/MWh (211 lb/MBtu), respectively (EPA 2006). However, as can be 

seen from the data presented in Table 4.3-2, CO2 emissions can be reduced by as much as 

90 percent with the installation of carbon capture and storage devices. 

4.3.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives 

Construction—Air quality and noise impacts for the construction of a new nuclear power plant 

would be the same as described in Section 4.3.2. 

Operations—An operating nuclear plant would have minor air emissions associated with diesel 

generators and other small-scale intermittent sources. Air quality and noise impacts would be 

the same as described in Section 4.3.2. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-22 Table 4.3-1. Projected Air Quality Impacts for Selected Power Production Technologies Burning Various Ranks of Coal(a) Projected Air Quality Impacts (lb/MWh) SO2 Removal Percent NOx Removal Basis(f) Fuel Technology(b) NOx (NO2) SO2 CO Particulate(c) VOCs Lead(d) Mercury(e) Bituminous coal IGCC 0.355 0.311 0.217 0.051 – 1.0  10-6 to 2.4  10-6 5.50  10-6 99 15 ppmvd @ 15 percent O2 Subcritical PC 0.528 0.757 0.880 0.106 0.021 3.40  10-5 to 18  10-5 6.69  10-6 98 0.06 lb/MBtu Supercritical PC 0.494 0.709 0.824 0.099 0.020 3.18  10-5 to 17  10-5 6.26  10-6 98 0.06 lb/MBtu Ultra- Supercritical PC 0.442 0.634 0.737 0.088 0.018 2.84  10-5 to 15  10-5 5.6  10-6 98 0.06 lb/MBtu Sub- bituminous coal IGCC 0.326 0.089 0.222 0.052 – 1.0  10-6 to 2.4  10-6 3.11  10-6 97.5 15 ppmvd @ 15 percent O2 Subcritical PC 0.543 0.589 0.906 0.109 0.025 18  10-5 to 23  10-5 3.80  10-6 87(g) 0.06 lb/MBtu 

Supercritical PC 0.500 0.541 0.832 0.100 0.023 16.6  10-5 to 

21  10-5

3.49  10-6 87(g) 0.06 lb/MBtu 

Ultrasupercritical PC 0.450 0.488 0.750 0.090 0.020 15  10-5 to 19  10-5 3.15  10-6 87(g) 0.06 lb/MBtu 

Lignite coal IGCC 0.375 0.150 0.225 0.053 – 1.0  10-6 to 

2.4  10-6

5.48  10-6 99 15 ppmvd @ 

15 percent O2

Subcritical PC 0.568 0.814 0.947 0.114 0.026 18.9  10-5 to 

24  10-5

6.9  10-6 95.8 0.06 lb/MBtu 

Supercritical PC 0.524 0.751 0.873 0.105 0.024 17.5  10-5 to 

22  10-5

6.37  10-6 95.8 0.06 lb/MBtu 

Ultrasupercritical PC 0.498 0.714 0.830 0.100 0.022 16.6  10-5 to 21  10-5 6.06  10-6 95.8 0.06 lb/MBtu 

Footnotes on next page.
 4-23 NUREG-1437, Revision 1

Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions

Table 4.3–1. (cont.) 

(a) Proximate analyses values (weight percent) for bituminous/sub-bituminous/lignite study coals include: weight percent ash: 9.70/4.50/17.92; moisture: 11.12/27.40/31.24; fixed 

carbon: 44.19/36.70/22.96; volatiles: 34.99/31.40/28.08. Higher heating values (Btu/lb) for study coals are: 11,667/8,800/6,312. 

(b) None of the technologies represented in this table is equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) capability. The EPA study (EPA 2006) on which data in this table are based 

included only coal combustion technologies. IGCC = integrated gasification combined cycle. PC = pulverized coal. 

(c) Particulate removal is 99.9 percent or greater for IGCC cases and 99.8 percent for bituminous coal, 99.7 percent for sub-bituminous coal, and 99.9 percent for lignite coal in the PC 

cases. Particulate matter emission rates shown include the overall filterable particulate matter only. 

(d) Little empirical evidence exists on the behavior of lead in IGCC facilities. The EPA anticipates that approximately 5 percent of the lead in the input coal will be emitted to the air, 

while the remaining lead will remain with gasifier slag and other solid wastes generated in other gas cleaning units. 

(e) As with lead, the behavior of mercury in IGCC systems is not well understood. It is anticipated that as much as 60 percent of coal-derived mercury will be potentially emitted to the 

atmosphere; however, fabric filters and scrubbers installed for particulate and SO2 controls may effectively capture as much as 98 percent of the mercury present in exhaust gases. 

With the advent of mercury emission regulations and the installation of other devices specifically designed to capture mercury, the EPA expects that a larger fraction of mercury contained in the coal will ultimately be found in solid wastes generated in those mercury capture devices. 

(f) A percent removal for NOx cannot be calculated with a basis (i.e., an uncontrolled unit), for comparison. Also, the PC and IGCC technologies use multiple technologies 

(e.g., combustion controls, selective catalytic reduction [SCR]) to control NOx. NOx emission comparisons are based on emission levels expressed in parts per million volume (dry 

basis) (ppmvd) at 15 percent oxygen for IGCC and lb/MBtu for PC cases. 

(g) A relatively low SO2 removal efficiency of 87 percent results from a relatively low sulfur content in sub-bituminous coal of only 0.22 percent. Higher removal efficiencies occur with 

higher sulfur-content coals. 

Source: EPA 2006
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-24 

Table 4.3-2. Performance and Cost Data for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Power Plants 

That Are Likely Alternatives to Retired Nuclear Reactors 

Parameter 

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 

General Electric Energy ConocoPhillips Shell 

CO2 capture No Yes No Yes No Yes 

Gross power output (kWe) 770,350 744,960 742,510 693,840 748,020 693,555 

Auxiliary power requirement (kWe) 130,100 189,285 119,140 175,600 112,170 176,420 

Net power output (kWe) 640,250 555,675 623,370 518,240 635,850 517,135 

Coal flow rate (lb/hr) 489,634 500,379 463,889 477,855 452,620 473,176 

Natural gas flow rate (lb/hr) NA(a) NA NA NA NA NA 

Higher heating value (HHV) thermal 

 input (kWe) 

1,674,044 1,710,780 1,685,023 1,633,771 1,547,493 1,617,772 

Net plant HHV efficiency (percent) 38.2 32.5 39.3 31.7 41.1 32.0 

Net plant HHV heat rate (Btu/kWh) 8,922 10,505 8,681 10,757 8,304 10,674 

CO2 emissions (lb/hr) 1,123,781 114,476 1,078,144 131,328 1,054,221 103,041 

CO2 emissions (tons/yr) @ CF(b) 3,937,728 401,124 3,777,815 460,175 3,693,990 361,056 

CO2 emissions (lb/MBtu) 197 19.6 199 23.6 200 18.7 

CO2 emissions (kg/MWh)(b) 662 69.7 659 85.9 639 67.4 

CO2 emissions (lb/MWh)(b) 1,469 154 1,452 189 1,409 149 

CO2 emissions (lb/MWh)(c) 1,755 206 1,730 253 1,658 199 

SO2 emissions (lb/hr) 73 56 68 48 66 58 

SO2 emissions (tons/yr) @ CF(b) 254 196 237 167 230 204 

SO2 emissions (lb/MBtu) 0.012 0.0096 0.0125 0.0085 0.0124 0.0105 

SO2 emissions (kg/MWh)(c) 0.0427 0.0341 0.0413 0.0311 0.0398 0.0380 

SO2 emissions (lb/MWh)(c) 0.0942 0.0751 0.0909 0.0686 0.0878 0.0837 

NOx emissions (lb/hr) 313 273 321 277 309 269 

NOx emissions (tons/yr) @ CF(b) 1,096 955 1,126 972 1,082 944 

NOx emissions (lb/MBtu) 0.055 0.047 0.059 0.050 0.058 0.049 

NOx emissions (kg/MWh)(c) 0.184 0.166 0.196 0.181 0.187 0.176 

NOx emissions (lb/MWh)(c) 0.406 0.366 0.433 0.400 0.413 0.388 

PM emissions (lb/hr) 41 41 38 40 37 39 

PM emissions (tons/yr) @ CF(b) 142 145 135 139 131 137 

PM emissions (lb/MBtu) 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 

PM emissions (kg/MWh)(c) 0.024 0.025 0.023 0.026 0.023 0.026 

PM emissions (lb/MWh)(c) 0.053 0.056 0.052 0.057 0.050 0.057 

Hg emissions (lb/hr) 0.0033 0.0033 0.0031 0.0032 0.0030 0.0032 

Hg emissions (tons/yr) @ CF(b) 0.011 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 

Hg emissions (lb/MBtu) 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 

Hg emissions (kg/MWh)(b) 1.92  10-6 2.03  10-6 1.89  10-6 2.08  10-6 1.83  10-6 2.08  10-6

Hg emissions (lb/MWh)(b) 4.24  10-6 4.48  10-6 4.16  10-6 4.59  10-6 4.03  10-6 4.55  10-6
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-25 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 4.3-2. (cont.) 

Parameter 

Pulverized Coal Boiler NGCC 

PC Subcritical PC Supercritical Advanced F Class 

CO2 capture No Yes No Yes No Yes 

Gross power output (kWe) 583,315 679,923 580,260 663,445 570,200 520,090 

Auxiliary power requirement (kWe) 32,870 130,310 30,110 117,450 9,840 38,200 

Net power output (kWe) 550,445 549,613 550,150 545,995 560,360 481,890 

Coal flow rate (lb/hr) 437,699 646,589 411,282 586,627 NA NA 

Natural gas flow rate (lb/hr) NA NA NA NA 165,182 165,182 

HHV thermal input (kWe) 1,496,479 2,210,668 1,406,161 2,005,660 1,103,363 1,103,363 

Net plant HHV efficiency (%) 36.8 24.9 39.1 27.2 50.8 43.7 

Net plant HHV heat rate (Btu/kWh) 9,276 13,724 8,721 12,534 6,719 7,813 

CO2 emissions (lb/hr) 1,038,110 152,975 975,370 138,681 446,339 44,634 

CO2 emissions (tons/yr) @ CF(b) 3,864,884 569,524 3,631,301 516,310 1,661,720 166,172 

CO2 emissions (lb/MBtu) 203 20.3 203 20.3 119 11.9 

CO2 emissions (kg/MWh)(c) 807 102 762 94.8 355 38.9 

CO2 emissions (lb/MWh)(c) 1,780 225 1,681 209 783 85.8 

CO2 emissions (lb/MWh)(d) 1,886 278 1,773 254 797 93 

SO2 emissions (lb/hr) 433 Negligible 407 Negligible Negligible Negligible 

SO2 emissions (tons/yr) @ CF(b) 1,613 Negligible 1,514 Negligible Negligible Negligible 

SO2 emissions (lb/MBtu) 0.0848 Negligible 0.0847 Negligible Negligible Negligible 

SO2 emissions (kg/MWh)(c) 0.3369 Negligible 0.3179 Negligible Negligible Negligible 

SO2 emissions (lb/MWh)(c) 0.7426 Negligible 0.7007 Negligible Negligible Negligible 

NOx emissions (lb/hr) 357 528 336 479 34 34 

NOx emissions (tons/yr) @ CF(b) 1,331 1,966 1,250 1,784 127 127 

NOx emissions (lb/MBtu) 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.009 0.009 

NOx emissions (kg/MWh)(c) 0.278 0.352 0.263 0.328 0.027 0.030 

NOx emissions (lb/MWh)(c) 0.613 0.777 0.579 0.722 0.060 0.066 

PM emissions (lb/hr) 66 98 62 89 Negligible Negligible 

PM emissions (tons/yr) @ CF(b) 247 365 232 331 Negligible Negligible 

PM emissions (lb/MBtu) 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 Negligible Negligible 

PM emissions (kg/MWh)(c) 0.052 0.065 0.049 0.061 Negligible Negligible 

PM emissions (lb/MWh)(c) 0.114 0.144 0.107 0.134 Negligible Negligible 

Hg emissions (lb/hr) 0.0058 0.0086 0.0055 0.0078 Negligible Negligible 

Hg emissions (tons/yr) @ CF(b) 0.022 0.032 0.020 0.029 Negligible Negligible 

Hg emissions (lb/MBtu) 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 Negligible Negligible 

Hg emissions (kg/MWh)(c) 4.54  10-6 5.75  10-6 4.29  10-6 5.35  10-6 Negligible Negligible 

Hg emissions (lb/MWh)(c) 1.00  10-5 1.27  10-5 9.45  10-6 1.18  10-5 Negligible Negligible 

(a) NA = not applicable. 

(b) Capacity factor (CF) is 80 percent for IGCC cases and 85 percent PC and NGCC cases. 

(c) Value is based on gross output. 

(d) Value is based on net output. 

Source: NETL 2007 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-26 

4.3.2.3 Renewable Alternatives 

Construction—Air quality and noise impacts for the construction of land-based alternative 

energy technologies would be the same as described in Section 4.3.2. Air quality impacts 

associated with the construction of offshore power generating facilities and support structures 

include the emission of criteria pollutants from construction barges and equipment (e.g., cranes, 

compressors) and vehicles delivering materials and crews to embarkation locations on the 

shore, and dust from the construction of onshore facilities (e.g., cable landings, substations). 

Construction-related noise impacts would be substantially different offshore than those 

associated with onshore construction since these activities would be distant from most human 

receptors and because noise propagates much greater distances in water. Marine animals that 

use noise for navigation (e.g., echolocation) would be affected by construction-related noise. 

Sources of noise would include crew vessels and construction and equipment barges; seismic 

technologies used to characterize the site; explosives or pile driving to construct foundations for 

offshore wind turbines or anchoring devices for wave, tidal, and current energy capturing 

equipment; and excavation of sea bottoms for installation of buried power and communication 

cables. Construction-related impacts on air quality and noise would generally be temporary. 

Operations—The operational impacts of alternative energy technologies on air quality and noise 

are presented in the following subsections. 

Hydroelectric Energy Sources

Air quality would be affected by minor emissions of criteria pollutants during plant operations, 

primarily from workforce vehicles and internal combustion engines on pumps, air compressors, 

emergency power generators, and other support equipment. 

Geothermal

Air quality would be affected by the release of criteria pollutants from vehicles and equipment 

utilizing internal combustion engines. Air quality would be affected by the release of dissolved 

hydrogen sulfide from geothermal fluids during well operation; installation of hydrogen sulfide 

control/capture devices on wellheads would be required to regulate release to acceptable levels. 

Air quality would be affected by the release of greenhouse gases, estimated to be 1,570 lb/hr of 

greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide 92.3 percent, methane 0.1 percent) during operation. 

Greenhouse gas emission rate is approximately 26 times less than the rate of release from a 

fossil fuel-fired power plant. Air quality could also be affected by the release of small amounts 

of acid rain precursors (NOx, SO2). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-27 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

During winter months, air quality and visibility would be affected by ground-level fogging/icing 

that could occur from cooling towers. Ambient noise levels would be affected by cooling towers, 

compressors, and internal combustion engines and manipulation of fluids under high pressure. 

Noise could be as much as 45 dB above background at offsite locations. 

Wind

Wind farms would have no discernible impacts on air quality. Noise impacts would include 

aerodynamic noise from the turbine rotor and mechanical noise from turbine drivetrain 

components. 

Noise from offshore wind farms consisting of aerodynamic and mechanical noise from the wind 

turbine transmitted underwater via the tower could affect marine species, especially those that 

use echolocation to navigate. Onshore components of offshore wind facilities would affect land 

animals when located at or near important habitats. Because of water density, noise travels 

proportionally greater distances under water; thus, the area over which noise impacts may occur 

would be much greater for offshore wind farms. 

Biomass

Air impacts would result from feedstock handling activities (storage, crushing/grinding, loading 

conveyors, etc.) and combustion. Combustion of biomass generally results in smaller amounts 

of greenhouse gas (primarily CO2) than combustion of fossil fuel. For some biomass sources 

such as energy crops, the amount of CO2 released during their combustion is roughly equivalent 

to the amount absorbed by the plants during their growing cycle. Except for greenhouse gas 

emissions of vehicles and equipment used to plant, cultivate, and harvest, energy crops are 

considered to be greenhouse gas-neutral with respect to their application in electrical energy 

production. Conversion to energy of biomass that would otherwise be managed as a solid 

waste represents a net greenhouse gas “sink” since combustion for energy production avoids 

the greenhouse gas emissions (primarily methane) that would have resulted from the landfilling 

and decomposition of such materials. Example criteria pollutant impacts (in lb/MWh; 

NREL 2003) include: 

SOx Wood waste burned in stoker boiler 0.08 

 Fluidized bed combustion 0.08 

 Energy crops combusted in IGCC system 0.05 

NOx Wood waste burned in stoker boiler 2.1 

 Fluidized bed combustion 0.9 

 Energy crops combusted in IGCC system 2.2 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-28 

CO Wood waste burned in stoker boiler 12.2 

 Fluidized bed combustion 0.17 

 Energy crops combusted in IGCC system 0.23 

PM10 Wood waste burned in stoker boiler 0.50 

 Fluidized bed combustion 0.3 

 Energy crops combusted in IGCC system 0.01 

A 200-MW co-firing wood biomass coal facility (where biomass is 15 percent of the total heat 

input) operating in 2030 with an 80 percent capacity factor providing 771 GWh/yr electricity 

would have the following air emissions (EERE 1997): 

SO2 40,544 T/yr (36,200 MT/yr) 

CO2 3,248,224 T/yr (2,900,200 MT/yr) 

Noise impacts from biomass combustion facilities would be similar in nature and magnitude to 

coal-fired plants of equivalent size and capacity. 

Municipal Solid Waste, Refuse-Derived Fuel, and Landfill Gas

Air impacts from combustion of refuse-derived fuel would depend on the quality of the fuel. 

Criteria and hazardous air pollutants could be released if not removed during refuse-derived fuel 

production. Air pollutants of concern include hydrochloric acid, nitric oxide (NO), sulfuric acid, 

arsenic, cadmium, chromium (VI), dioxins/furans, various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs), chlorinated benzenes, dienes, phenols, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Air 

quality could be affected by the release of dioxins and other PAHs from the incomplete 

combustion of fuel. Noise impacts from municipal solid waste, refuse-derived fuel, and landfill 

gas combustion facilities would be similar in nature and intensity to coal-fired and natural gasfired power plants. Noise sources would include municipal solid waste feedstock preparation 

activities (cutting grinding, etc., to produce a feedstock of uniform size) and pump and 

compressor noise from the collection and transfer of landfill gas. 

Solar Thermal

Dust could be released due to the removal of vegetation. Noise during operations would include 

mechanical noise from operation of powerblock components (steam cycle and cooling system 

pumps, turbines, and generators), and pump noise from circulation of heat transfer fluids, 

cooling tower noise (fans, cascading water). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-29 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Solar Photovoltaic

Dust could be released from the plant site due to the removal of vegetation. Individual 

photovoltaic cells could release toxic heavy metals to the atmosphere (primarily cadmium, 

selenium, and arsenic) in the event of fire. Virtually no discernible noise or air quality impacts 

would result from the routine operation of the facility. 

Ocean Wave and Current

Air quality would be only minimally affected by facility operation; air quality would be affected by 

the release of criteria pollutants during periodic inspection, maintenance, and repair; vessels are 

expected to burn low-sulfur diesel fuel. Onshore air quality would be affected by the release of 

criteria pollutants from workforce vehicles and the possible release of fugitive dust from onshore 

support facilities. Mechanical noise from moving parts and hydrodynamic noise from the 

interaction of turbine blades with water would minimally affect the ambient above-water noise 

environment; underwater noise sources (primarily turbine blades, mechanical noise from other 

moving parts, and vessel propellers) could travel great distances and could affect marine 

organisms, especially those utilizing echolocation. 

4.4 Geologic Environment 

4.4.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action—Continued 

Operations and Refurbishment Activities 

Geology and Soils

The impacts on geology and soils during the license renewal term were not considered in the 

1996 GEIS. Geologic and soils conditions at all nuclear power plants and associated 

transmission lines have been well established during the current licensing term. These 

conditions are expected to remain unchanged during the 20-year license renewal term. 

The impact of continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal on 

geologic and soil resources would consist of soil disturbance, including sediment and/or any 

associated bedrock, for projects, such as replacing or adding buildings, roads, parking lots, and 

belowground and aboveground utility structures. Implementing BMPs would reduce soil erosion 

and subsequent impacts on surface water quality. These practices include, but are not limited 

to, minimizing the amount of disturbed land, stockpiling topsoil before ground disturbance, 

mulching and seeding in disturbed areas, covering loose materials with geotextiles, using silt 

fences to reduce sediment loading to surface water, using check dams to minimize the erosive 

power of drainages, and installing proper culvert outlets to direct flows in streams or drainages. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-30 

Detailed geotechnical analyses would be required to address the stability of excavations, 

foundation footings, and slope cuts for building construction, road creation, or other 

refurbishment-related construction projects. Depending on the plant location and design, 

riverbank or coastline protection might need to be upgraded, especially at water intake or 

discharge structures, if natural flows, such as storm surges, cause an increase in erosion. In 

addition, the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 USC 4201 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to 

take into account agency actions affecting the preservation of farmland including prime and 

other important farmland soils, as described in Section 3.4. While the Farmland Protection 

Policy Act could apply in some circumstances at nuclear power plant sites (e.g., development of 

renewable energy resources as an alternative to license renewal, other projects completed with 

Federal assistance including funding), it does not apply to Federal permitting or licensing 

actions for activities on private or non-Federal lands (7 CFR 658.2). 

Plant-specific environmental reviews conducted by the NRC to date have not identified any 

significant impact issues related to geology and soils. 

As discussed in Section 3.4, nuclear power plants were originally sited, designed, and licensed 

in consideration of the geologic and seismic criteria set forth in 10 CFR 100.10(c)(1) and 

10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, and constructed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix A. In its license renewal environmental reviews, the NRC considers the risk to 

reactors from seismicity in the evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives. Where 

appropriate, seismic issues are also assessed in the site-specific safety review that is performed 

for license renewals. 

Further, the NRC requires all licensees to take seismic activity into account in order to maintain 

safe operating conditions at all nuclear power plants. When new seismic hazard information 

becomes available, the NRC evaluates the new information to determine if any changes are 

needed at existing plants. This reactor oversight process, which includes seismic safety, is 

separate and distinct from license renewal. 

Consequently, the impact of continued operations during the license renewal term and 

refurbishment activities relative to the geologic environment would be SMALL for all nuclear 

plants and a Category 1 issue. 

4.4.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

Construction—For all alternatives (including fossil energy, new nuclear, and renewable 

alternatives) discussed in this section, the impacts of construction on geology and soils would 

be similar. Land would be cleared of vegetation during construction. Soils would be stored 

onsite for redistribution at the end of construction. Land clearing during construction and the 

installation of power plant structures and impervious pavements would alter surface drainage. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-31 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Natural drainage patterns at brownfield sites have been previously altered. Sources of 

aggregate such as crushed stone and sand and gravel would be required for construction of 

buildings, foundations, roads, and parking lots. 

4.4.2.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives 

 

Operations—Impacts on soil and geologic resources during power plant operations would be 

limited to the extraction of fossil fuel, typically at existing mining and drilling locations far from 

the power plant. Surface mining or underground mining for coal would result in various degrees 

of overburden clearing, soil stockpiling, waste rock disposal, re-routing of drainages, and 

management of any co-located geologic resources. Eventual mine closure would require proper 

restoration efforts to reduce the impact of erosion of replaced topsoil. Drilling for petroleum 

resources would involve clearing and grading for drill pads and construction of underground 

pipelines with associated soil disturbance. Proper design of surface water crossings would be 

needed to manage the potential for erosion at these locations. 

 

4.4.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives 

 

Operations—Impacts on soil and geologic resources during operation would be limited to the 

extraction of ore material used to make nuclear fuel, typically at existing mining locations far 

from the power plant. The extraction could involve mining techniques similar to those used for 

fossil fuels, along with management of ore tailings. An alternative method is solution mining, 

which would involve the construction of drilling pads, similar to those used for the extraction of 

petroleum. 

4.4.2.3 Renewable Alternatives 

Operations—The operational impacts of alternative energy technologies on geology and soils 

are presented in the following subsections. 

Hydroelectric Energy Sources 

Geology and soils in the immediate area of a dam and reservoir would be affected by 

sedimentation in the reservoir basin and changes in upstream and downstream erosion 

patterns. Dams would induce downstream impacts such as low and high flow conditions, 

changes in sediment transport and deposition patterns, and channel erosion or scouring. 

Geothermal 

The injection of cooled geothermal fluids might induce microseismic activity. The removal of 

large quantities of groundwater could result in land subsidence. The alternative of engineered 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-32 

geothermal systems applied to hot, dry rock resources would avoid the possibility of 

subsidence. 

Biomass 

Soils would be affected by contaminants potentially present in runoff from unprotected piles of 

feedstock materials, fly ash and bottom ash, and scrubber sludge. Farming could result in soil 

erosion and the release of pesticides and fertilizers to nearby water bodies or to shallow 

groundwater aquifers. 

Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic 

This alternative requires a large amount of land. To avoid a fire hazard, solar collection devices 

would need to be kept free of vegetation. This practice could result in soil erosion in cleared 

areas by wind and precipitation runoff. 

4.5 Water Resources 

Hydrologic and water quality conditions at all nuclear power plants and associated transmission 

lines have been well established during the current licensing term. However, continued 

operations and refurbishment activities could have an impact on water resources during the 

license renewal term. This section describes the potential impact of these proposed activities 

and alternatives to these proposed activities on surface water and groundwater resources. 

4.5.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action—Continued 

Operations and Refurbishment Activities 

Continued operations and refurbishment activities during the license renewal term could affect 

surface water and groundwater resources in a manner similar to what has occurred during the 

current license term (see Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2, respectively). 

4.5.1.1 Surface Water Resources 

For the most part, no significant surface water impacts are anticipated during the license 

renewal term that would be different from those occurring during the current license term. 

Certain operational changes (such as a power uprate) affecting surface water would be 

evaluated by the NRC in a separate environmental assessment. For potential impacts to water 

resources, the use of surface water is of greatest concern because of the high volumetric flow 

rates required for condenser cooling at power plants. Withdrawals from surface water bodies 

are high for both once-through and closed-cycle cooling systems. Consumptive water use 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-33 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

occurs through evaporation and drift, especially from cooling towers, and may affect water 

availability downstream from plants along rivers. Associated impacts on surface water quality 

may result from the discharge of thermal effluent containing chemical additives. Other potential 

impacts on surface water are the result of normal industrial plant activities during the license 

renewal term. 

The following issues concern impacts on surface water that may occur during the license 

renewal term: 

• Surface water use and quality (non-cooling system impacts) (consolidation and 

expansion of two issues evaluated in the 1996 GEIS: (1) impacts of refurbishment on 

surface water quality and (2) impacts of refurbishment on surface water use); 

• Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures (evaluated in the 1996 GEIS); 

• Altered salinity gradients (evaluated in the 1996 GEIS); 

• Altered thermal stratification of lakes (evaluated in the 1996 GEIS); 

• Scouring caused by discharged cooling water (evaluated in the 1996 GEIS); 

• Discharge of metals in cooling system effluent (evaluated in the 1996 GEIS); 

• Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor chemical spills (consolidation of two 

issues evaluated in the 1996 GEIS: (1) discharge of chlorine or other biocides and 

(2) discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills); 

• Surface water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) (evaluated in 

the 1996 GEIS); 

 

• Surface water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup 

water from a river) (issue was modified from the 1996 GEIS to include all rivers); 

• Effects of dredging on surface water quality (new issue not considered in the 

1996 GEIS); and 

• Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity (evaluated in the 1996 GEIS). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-34 

Surface Water Use and Quality (Non-Cooling System Impacts) 

This issue is a consolidation and expansion of two 1996 GEIS issues (impacts of refurbishment 

on surface water quality and impacts of refurbishment on surface water use). Continued 

operations and refurbishment activities could result in the degradation of water quality within the 

receiving watershed. Power plant sites and land-disturbing activities can increase the variety 

and quantity of pollutants entering receiving water bodies such as streams, rivers, and lakes. 

Pollutants within stormwater runoff from plant sites can include suspended sediment; pesticides 

and nutrients from landscaped areas; oil, grease, and toxic chemicals from motor vehicles; spills 

of hydrocarbon fuels; paints; road salts; heavy metals from roof shingles and motor vehicles; 

and thermal pollution from impervious surfaces. These pollutants could potentially harm aquatic 

and terrestrial species, contaminate recreational areas, and degrade drinking water supplies. 

In an effort to minimize or eliminate impacts to the water quality of receiving water bodies, BMPs 

are typically included as conditions within NPDES permits. BMPs are measures used to control 

the adverse stormwater-related effects of land disturbance and development. They include 

structural devices designed to remove pollutants, reduce runoff rates and volumes, and protect 

aquatic habitats. BMPs also include nonstructural or administrative approaches, such as 

training to educate staff on the proper handling and disposal of potential pollutants. 

Permanent BMPs are designed to control pollutants to the maximum extent practicable during 

continued operations of the power plant. Extended detention and infiltration basins are 

examples of pollutant removal features designed to remove pollutants based on volume. 

Hydrodynamic separator systems (hydrodynamic devices, baffle boxes, swirl concentrators, or 

cyclone separators) and other devices are examples of pollutant removal devices that are 

typically designed based on flow rate. 

Refurbishment activities involving construction-related land disturbance are expected to be 

managed by an approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would 

indicate the structural and non-structural BMPs that must be implemented for the duration of the 

refurbishment activity. Examples of construction BMPs include use of sediment (silt) fences, 

check dams, staked hay bales, sediment ponds, and mulching and geotextile matting of 

disturbed areas. 

BMPs and conformance to plant site NPDES permits, encompassing those covering stormwater 

discharges associated with construction and industrial activity, are expected to be followed 

during continued operations and refurbishment activities. Implementation of spill prevention and 

control plans would further reduce the likelihood of any liquid chemical spills. 

Continued operations and refurbishment activities will require water for non-cooling-related 

purposes, including some consumptive use (i.e., water that is used but not returned to the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-35 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

source and effectively lost). The water source is dependent on the nuclear power plant site, 

water availability, and the nature of any refurbishment activities. Typical water sources at 

nuclear plants are surface water, groundwater, and public domestic (potable) water. 

Water may be used during refurbishment activities for concrete production, dust control, 

washing stations, facility and equipment cleaning, and soil compaction and excavation 

backfilling. However, the impacts due to the volume of water consumed from a surface water 

source would be insignificant when compared with that used and consumed by a plant’s cooling 

system. 

The use of groundwater for non-cooling system uses would have a similar, minimal impact on 

the surface water source as a direct surface water withdrawal, assuming an interconnection 

between the groundwater source and surface water body. Groundwater withdrawal near a 

water body with a disconnected groundwater table would have no effect on the surface water 

resource. 

The use of public domestic water would reduce the direct consumptive use impacts on surface 

water resources. Still, domestic water runoff and water main breaks have the potential to 

introduce an additional pollutant (residual chlorine), which could impact water quality. It is 

expected that such occurrences would be rare and would be identified and corrected as piped 

domestic water is metered at the point of interconnection with a plant’s water distribution 

system. Any such occurrences are not expected to present a significant water quality concern 

over the license renewal term. 

Surface water consumption for non-cooling water-related operational activities is anticipated to 

be negligible and limited to such uses as facility and equipment cleaning. As a result, no 

surface use conflicts would be expected. 

The impacts of refurbishment on surface water use and quality during the license renewal term 

were considered to be SMALL for all plants and were designated as Category 1 issues in the 

1996 GEIS, and non-cooling system operational impacts on water use and quality are expected 

to be SMALL, as described above. In addition, if refurbishment took place during a reactor 

shutdown, the overall water use by the facility would be greatly reduced. No new information in 

plant-specific SEISs or associated literature has been identified that would change this 

conclusion. On the basis of these considerations, the non-cooling system impacts of continued 

operations and refurbishment activities on surface water resources would be SMALL for all 

nuclear plants. This is a Category 1 issue. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-36 

Altered Current Patterns at Intake and Discharge Structures 

The large flow rates associated with cooling system water use have the potential to alter current 

patterns. The degree of influence depends on the design and location of the intake and 

discharge structures and the characteristics of the surface water body. The effect on currents 

near the intake and discharge locations is expected to be localized, and any problems would 

have been mitigated during the early operational period of a plant (NRC 1996). Most nuclear 

power plants are sited on large bodies of water to make use of the water for cooling purposes. 

The size of large rivers, lakes, or reservoirs precludes significant current alterations except in 

the vicinity of the structures. For ocean shore or bay settings, the effect is further reduced when 

compared with the strong natural water movement patterns. For example, current patterns have 

been modified at the Oyster Creek plant, which is located inland from Barnegat Bay in New 

Jersey. The once-through cooling system for this plant was created by modifying two small 

rivers originally flowing parallel into the bay. On the north side of the plant, the South Branch of 

the Forked River was enlarged between the plant and the bay to serve as an intake canal. On 

the south side of the plant, Oyster Creek was enlarged between the plant and the bay for use as 

a discharge canal. Near the plant, the two waterways were joined. Bay water is pulled from the 

bay through the intake canal to the plant, against the original flow direction of the lowest reach 

of the South Branch of the Forked River. Flow at the mouth of this river is therefore both 

reversed and significantly increased, while flow at the mouth of the Oyster Creek discharge 

canal is significantly increased. While current patterns in Barnegat Bay in the immediate vicinity 

of the intake and discharge canals are affected by operations, the effect is minor on the overall 

Barnegat Bay system (NRC 1996, 2007b). 

This issue has no relevance to plants relying on cooling ponds because they are man-made 

features without natural currents. 

Impacts from altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures during the license 

renewal term were considered to be SMALL for all plants and were designated as a Category 1 

issue in the 1996 GEIS. No new information has been identified in plant-specific SEISs or 

associated literature that would change this conclusion. On the basis of these considerations, 

the impact of altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures would be SMALL for all 

nuclear plants and remains a Category 1 issue. 

Altered Salinity Gradients 

This issue relates to plants located on estuaries and addresses changes in salinity caused by 

cooling system water withdrawals and discharges. Using the same example site as for the 

current patterns issue, the Oyster Creek plant’s construction included modification of the lower 

reaches of two creeks. These portions of the creeks were originally brackish, with a mix of 

freshwater from their upper reaches and tidally influenced bay water. Because of the cooling 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-37 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

system operations, the water quality of these lower reaches now essentially matches that of 

Barnegat Bay, with contributions of freshwater from their upper reaches being relatively minor. 

These lower reaches are also affected by occasional dredging activities, and the discharge 

canal receives water to which heat and chemicals have been added. The salinity changes do 

not affect the upper portions of these streams. In the 1996 GEIS, only minor effects had been 

noted in Barnegat Bay. 

As documented in the 1996 GEIS and Calvert Cliffs SEIS (NRC 1999b), the NRC found that the 

Calvert Cliffs plant on the Chesapeake Bay has not had significant effects on bay salinity. 

Altered salinity gradients are expected to be noticeable only in the immediate vicinity of intake 

and discharge structures. 

Impacts from altered salinity gradients at intake and discharge structures during the license 

renewal term were considered to be SMALL for all plants and were designated as Category 1 

issues in the 1996 GEIS. No new information has been identified in plant-specific SEISs or 

associated literature that would alter this conclusion. On the basis of these considerations, the 

impact of altered salinity gradients would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and remains a 

Category 1 issue. 

Altered Thermal Stratification of Lakes 

Because cooling systems typically withdraw from the deeper, cooler portion of the water column 

of lakes or reservoirs and discharge to the surface, they have the ability to alter the thermal 

stratification of the surface water. This is not considered an issue for rivers or oceans because 

of mixing caused by natural turbulence. 

A thermal plume of discharge water loses heat to the atmosphere and to the receiving surface 

water body. It also undergoes mixing with the surface water. In the 1996 GEIS, examples 

included the Oconee plant in South Carolina, where the withdrawal of cool, deep water for 

cooling purposes favors warmwater fish species at the expense of coolwater fish. Mitigation of 

this effect is possible by modifying the allowable discharge water temperature. In an example 

from the McGuire power plant in North Carolina, a modeling study indicated that increasing the 

permitted discharge temperature would reduce the withdrawal of cool, deep water and conserve 

coolwater species habitat. 

Thermal plumes may be studied through field measurements and modeling studies. For plants 

on lakes or reservoirs, the thermal effect on stratification is examined periodically through the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal process. Problems 

with thermal stratification due to nuclear power plant operations have not been encountered. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-38 

Impacts from altered thermal stratification of lakes and reservoirs during the license renewal 

term were considered to be SMALL for all plants and were designated as Category 1 issues in 

the 1996 GEIS. No new information has been identified in plant-specific SEISs or associated 

literature that would alter this conclusion. On the basis of these considerations, the impact of 

altered thermal stratification of lakes would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and remains a 

Category 1 issue. 

Scouring Caused by Discharged Cooling Water 

The high flow rate of water from a cooling system discharge structure has the potential to scour 

sediments and redeposit them elsewhere. The scouring will remove fine-grained sediments, 

resulting in turbidity, and leave behind coarse-grained sediments. 

The degree of scouring depends on the design of the discharge structure and the character of 

the sediments. Scouring is expected to occur only in the vicinity of the discharge structure 

where flow rates are high. While scouring is possible during reactor startup, operational periods 

would typically have negligible scouring. Natural sediment transport processes could bring 

fresh sediment into the discharge flow area. These processes include transport due to ocean 

currents, tides, river meandering, and storm events. 

In the 1996 GEIS, scouring had not been noted as a problem at most plants and had been 

observed at only three nuclear power plants (Calvert Cliffs, Connecticut Yankee [no longer 

operating], and San Onofre). The effects at these plants were localized and minor. 

Impacts from scouring caused by discharged cooling water during the license renewal term 

were considered to be SMALL for all plants and were designated as a Category 1 issue in the 

1996 GEIS. No new information has been identified in plant-specific SEISs or associated 

literature that would alter this conclusion. On the basis of these considerations, the impact of 

scouring caused by discharged cooling water is SMALL for all nuclear plants and remains a 

Category 1 issue. 

Discharge of Metals in Cooling System Effluent 

Heavy metals such as copper, zinc, and chromium can be leached from condenser tubing and 

other components of the heat exchange system by circulating cooling water. These metals are 

normally addressed in NPDES permits because high concentrations of them can be toxic to 

aquatic organisms. During normal operations, concentrations are normally below laboratory 

detection levels. However, plants occasionally undergo planned outages for refueling, with 

stagnant water remaining in the heat exchange system. During an outage at the Diablo Canyon 

plant in California, the longer residence time of water in the cooling system resulted in elevated 

copper levels in the discharge when operations resumed; abalone (Haliotis spp.) deaths were 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-39 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

attributed to the increased copper (NRC 1996). At the Robinson plant in South Carolina, the 

gradual accumulation of copper in its reservoir resulted in impacts on the bluegill (Lepomis 

macrochirus) population. In both cases, copper condenser tubes were replaced with titanium 

ones, and the problem was eliminated (NRC 1996). Impacts from the discharge of metals in 

cooling system effluent during the license renewal term were considered to be SMALL for all 

plants and were designated as a Category 1 issue in the 1996 GEIS. No new information has 

been identified in plant-specific SEISs or associated literature that would alter this conclusion. 

On the basis of these considerations, the impact of the discharge of metals in cooling system 

effluent would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and remains a Category 1 issue. 

Discharge of Biocides, Sanitary Wastes, and Minor Chemical Spills 

The use of biocides is common and is required to control biofouling and nuisance organisms in 

plant cooling systems. However, the types of chemicals, their amounts or concentrations, and 

the frequency of their use may vary. The use of biocides at nuclear power plants was discussed 

generally in Section 3.5.1. Ultimately, any biocides used in the cooling system are discharged 

to surface water bodies. The discharge of treated sanitary waste also occurs at plants. 

Discharge may occur via onsite wastewater treatment facilities, via an onsite septic field, or 

through a connection to a municipal sewage system. Minor chemical spills collected in floor 

drains are associated with industry in general and are a possibility at all plants. Each of these 

factors represents a potential impact on surface water quality. In the 1996 GEIS, the impacts of 

these releases were evaluated as two issues: (1) discharge of chlorine or other biocides and 

(2) discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills. Here they are treated as a single 

issue. 

Discharges of cooling water and other plant wastewaters are monitored through the NPDES 

program administered by the EPA, or, where delegated, individual States. The NPDES permit 

contains requirements that limit the flow rates and pollutant concentrations that may be 

discharged at permitted outfalls. The permit may also include biological monitoring parameters 

that are primarily associated with the discharge of cooling water. Wastewater discharge is also 

covered through NPDES permitting, and it includes biochemical monitoring parameters. 

Discharge from building drains is also addressed in the NPDES permit. Because of Federal or 

State regulatory involvement, and because regulatory and resource agencies have not found 

significant problems with outfall monitoring, the impacts from the discharge of chlorine and other 

biocides and minor spills of sanitary wastes and chemicals during license renewal and 

refurbishment were considered to be SMALL for all plants and designated as Category 1 issues 

in the 1996 GEIS. No new information has been identified in plant-specific SEISs or associated 

literature that would alter this conclusion. On the basis of these considerations, the discharge of 

biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor chemical spills would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and 

remains a Category 1 issue. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-40 

Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems) 

Nuclear power plant cooling systems may compete with other users relying on surface water 

resources, including downstream municipal, agricultural, or industrial users. Once-through and 

closed-cycle cooling systems have different water consumption rates. Once-through cooling 

systems return most of their withdrawn water to the same surface water body, with evaporative 

losses of less than 3 percent (Solley et al. 1998). Consumptive use by plants with once-through 

cooling systems during the license renewal term is not expected to change unless power 

uprates, with associated increases in water use, are proposed. Such uprates would require an 

environmental assessment by the NRC. 

Future scenarios for water availability focus on climate change and associated changes in 

precipitation and temperature patterns. Increased temperatures and/or decreased rainfall would 

result in lower river flows, increased cooling pond evaporation, and lowered water levels in the 

Great Lakes or reservoirs. While weather will vary from year to year, the results of climate 

change models and the projected changes to surface water runoff in the 21st century 

(NETL 2006) predicted increases in runoff in the eastern United States and decreases in runoff 

in the western United States, where water is currently less available. Regardless of overall 

climate change, droughts could result in problems with water supplies and allocations. Because 

future agricultural, municipal, and industrial users would continue to share their demands for 

surface water with power plants, conflicts might arise if the availability of this resource 

decreased. This situation would then necessitate decisions by local, State, and regional water 

planning officials. 

Population growth around nuclear power plants has caused increased demand on municipal 

water systems, including systems that rely on surface water. Municipal intakes located 

downstream of a nuclear power plant could experience water shortages, especially in times of 

drought. Water demands upstream of a plant could impact the water availability at the plant’s 

intake. 

In the 1996 GEIS, impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on water use conflicts 

associated with once-through cooling systems were considered to be SMALL and were 

designated as a Category 1 issue. No new information has been identified in plant-specific 

SEISs or associated literature that would alter this conclusion. On the basis of these 

considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact on water use conflicts from the continued 

operation and refurbishment activities would be SMALL for plants that utilize once-through 

cooling and remains a Category 1 issue. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-41 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using 

Makeup Water from a River) 

Nuclear power plant cooling systems may compete with other users relying on surface water 

resources, including downstream municipal, agricultural, or industrial users. Closed-cycle 

cooling is not completely closed, because the system discharges blowdown water to a surface 

water body and withdraws water for makeup of both the consumptive water loss due to 

evaporation and drift (for cooling towers) and blowdown discharge. For plants using cooling 

towers, the makeup water needed to replenish the consumptive loss of water to evaporation can 

be significant and is reported at 60 percent or more of the condenser flow rate by Solley et al. 

(1998). Cooling ponds will also require makeup water as a result of naturally occurring 

evaporation, evaporation of the warm effluent, and possible seepage to groundwater. 

Consumptive use by plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a 

river during the license renewal term is not expected to change unless power uprates, with 

associated increases in water use, are proposed. Such uprates would require an environmental 

assessment by the NRC. In the 1996 GEIS, application of this issue applied only to rivers with 

low flow(a)

 so as to define the difference between plants located on “small” versus “large” 

rivers. However, any river, regardless of size, can experience low flow conditions of varying 

severity during periods of drought and changing conditions in the affected watershed such as 

upstream diversions and use of river water. NRC has subsequently determined that use of the 

term “low flow” in categorizing river flow is of little value considering that all rivers can 

experience low flow conditions. 

Further and as stated earlier, increased temperatures and/or decreased rainfall would result in 

lower river flows, increased cooling pond evaporation, and lowered water levels in the Great 

Lakes or reservoirs. Regardless of overall climate change, droughts could result in problems 

with water supplies and allocations. Conflicts might arise due to competing agricultural, 

municipal, and industrial user demands for surface water with power plants. Closed cooling 

systems are more susceptible to these issues than once-through cooling systems because they 

consume more water. For this reason, climate change is more of a potential concern for water 

use conflicts among closed systems. 

Population growth around nuclear power plants has caused increased demand on municipal 

water systems, including systems that rely on surface water. Municipal intakes located 

downstream from a nuclear power plant could experience water shortages, especially in times 

of drought. Similarly, water demands upstream from a plant could impact the water availability 

at the plant’s intake. 

 

(a) A river with low flow was previously defined in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) and in the 1996 GEIS as one 

with an annual flow rate that is less than 3.15  1012 ft3

/yr (9  1010 m3/yr). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-42 

As discussed in the 1996 GEIS, water use conflicts have also been observed for plants with 

closed-cycle cooling systems. The Limerick plant on the Schuylkill River in Pennsylvania is 

cited as an example of a plant on which limits were imposed on the rate of withdrawal from a 

river for the purpose of avoiding water use conflicts, including downstream water availability and 

water quality. Availability problems for downstream habitat and users may be anticipated at 

other plants. 

Water use conflicts associated with plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup 

water from a river with low flow were considered to vary among sites because of differing sitespecific factors, such as makeup water requirements, water availability (especially in terms of 

varying river flow rates), changing or anticipated changes in population distributions, or changes 

in agricultural or industrial demands. No new information has been identified in plant-specific 

SEISs or associated literature has been identified that would alter this conclusion. 

On the basis of these considerations, the impact of water use conflicts from the continued 

operation of nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water 

from a river could be SMALL or MODERATE, depending on factors such as plant-specific 

design characteristics affecting consumptive water use, the characteristics of the water body 

serving as the source for makeup water, and the amount of competing use for that water. 

Because the impact could vary among nuclear plants, the issue continues to be Category 2. 

Effects of Dredging on Surface Water Quality 

Dredging in the vicinity of surface water intakes, canals, and discharge structures takes place in 

order to remove deposited sediment and maintain the function of plant cooling systems. 

Dredging may also be needed to maintain barge shipping lanes. Whether accomplished by 

mechanical, suction, or other methods, dredging disturbs sediments in the surface water body 

and affects surface water quality by temporarily increasing the turbidity of the water column. In 

areas affected by industries, dredging can also mobilize heavy metals, PCBs, or other 

contaminants in the sediments. 

The frequency of dredging depends on the rate of sedimentation. At the Oyster Creek plant in 

New Jersey, dredging took place during site construction to create canals for the once-through 

cooling system (NRC 2007b). Depth measurements are performed there every two years, and 

dredging has taken place on portions of the canal system since construction. At the 

Susquehanna plant in Pennsylvania, the plant’s river intake and diffuser pipe are dredged 

annually (NRC 2008b). 

 

In general, maintenance dredging affects localized areas for a brief period of time. Dredging 

operations are performed under permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

and possibly from State or local agencies. The physical alteration of water bodies is regulated 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-43 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

by Federal and State statutes under Section 401 (Certification) and Section 404 (Permits) of the 

Clean Water Act. The USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material under 

Section 404, while Section 401 requires the applicant for a Section 404 permit to also obtain a 

Water Quality Certification from the State in order to confirm that the discharge of fill materials 

will be in compliance with applicable State water quality standards. If dredging could affect 

threatened or endangered species or critical habitat, as established under the Endangered 

Species Act, the USACE must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) before it makes a permit decision. In issuing a Section 404 

permit, the USACE also considers other potential impacts on aquatic resources, archaeological 

resources, Tribal concerns, and the permitting requirements of State and local agencies. The 

permitting process may include planning for the sampling and disposal of the dredged 

sediments. 

The impact of dredging has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants. 

Dredging has localized effects on water quality that tend to be short-lived. The impact of 

dredging on water quality would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and is considered a Category 1 

issue. 

Temperature Effects on Sediment Transport Capacity 

Increased temperature and the resulting decreased viscosity have been hypothesized to change 

the sediment transport capacity of water, leading to potential sedimentation problems, altered 

turbidity of rivers, and changes in riverbed configuration. Coutant (1981) discussed the 

theoretical basis for such possible changes, as well as relevant field investigations, and 

concluded that there is no indication that this is a significant problem at operating power 

stations. Examples of altered sediment characteristics are more likely the result of power plant 

structures (e.g., jetties or canals) or current patterns near intakes and discharges; such 

alterations are readily mitigated. 

Based on review of literature and operational monitoring reports, consultations with utilities and 

regulatory agencies, and public comments on previous license renewal reviews, there is no 

evidence that temperature effects on sediment transport capacity have caused adverse 

environmental effects at any existing nuclear power plant. Regulatory agencies have expressed 

no concerns regarding the impacts of temperature on sediment transport capacity. 

Furthermore, because of the small area near a nuclear power plant affected by increased water 

temperature, it is not expected that plant operations would have a significant impact. Effects are 

considered to be of SMALL significance for all plants. No change in the operation of the cooling 

system is expected during the license renewal term so no change in effects on sediment 

transport capacity is anticipated. This issue remains Category 1. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-44 

4.5.1.2 Groundwater Resources 

Operational activities during the license renewal term would be similar to those occurring during 

the current license term. The impact issues of concern are availability of groundwater and the 

effect of nuclear plant operations on groundwater quality. 

The following eight issues concern impacts on groundwater that may occur during the license 

renewal term: 

• Groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling system impacts) (issue was modified 

and expanded from the 1996 GEIS issue, “Impacts of refurbishment on groundwater use 

and quality,” to include the impacts of continued operations including potential 

groundwater contamination); 

• Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw less than 100 gallons per 

minute [gpm]) (evaluated in the 1996 GEIS); 

• Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per 

minute [gpm]) (consolidation of two issues from the 1996 GEIS: (1) groundwater use 

conflicts (potable and service water and dewatering; plants that use >100 gpm) and 

(2) groundwater use conflicts (Ranney wells)); 

• Groundwater use conflicts (plants with closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw 

makeup water from a river) (issue was modified from the 1996 GEIS to include all 

rivers); 

• Groundwater quality degradation resulting from water withdrawals (consolidation of two 

issues from the 1996 GEIS: (1) groundwater quality degradation (Ranney wells) and 

(2) groundwater quality degradation (saltwater intrusion)); 

• Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds in salt marshes) (evaluated 

in the 1996 GEIS); 

• Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds at inland sites) (evaluated in 

the 1996 GEIS); and 

• Radionuclides released to groundwater (new issue not considered in the 1996 GEIS). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-45 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Groundwater Contamination and Use (Non-Cooling System Impacts) 

This renamed issue is an expansion of the issue “Impacts of refurbishment on groundwater use 

and quality” from the 1996 GEIS with the addition of the impacts of industrial activities 

associated with continued operations on groundwater use and quality. 

As mentioned in Section 3.5.2, the original construction of some plants required dewatering of a 

shallow aquifer, and operational dewatering takes place at some plants including for 

groundwater contaminant plume control. This is accomplished by systems of pumping wells or 

drain tiles. Continued operations and refurbishment activities during the license renewal term 

are not expected to require any significant dewatering that would have an incremental effect on 

groundwater availability over that which has already taken place. Such dewatering impacts are 

expected to remain SMALL and confined to the boundaries of operating plants. 

In the 1996 GEIS, the groundwater impacts associated with refurbishment activities were 

considered to be SMALL for all nuclear plants. No new information has been identified in plantspecific SEISs or associated literature that would alter this conclusion. 

 

The contamination of groundwater and soil can result from general industrial practices at any 

site and is not limited to those occurring at nuclear power plants. Such industrial practices can 

be evaluated generically, as they are common to industrial facilities and nuclear power plants. 

Activities that result in contamination may include the use of solvents, hydrocarbon fuels (diesel 

and gasoline), heavy metals, or other chemicals. These materials all have the potential to affect 

groundwater and soil if released. Furthermore, contaminants present in the soil can act as longterm sources of contamination to underlying groundwater depending on the severity of the spill. 

 

Based on previous plant-specific reviews, these types of groundwater and soil contamination 

problems have occurred at some operating plants. Release of contaminants into groundwater 

and soil degrades the quality of these resources, even if applicable groundwater quality 

standards are not exceeded. This includes de minimis quantities of contaminants that do not 

typically require reporting to regulatory agencies because they are below applicable threshold 

quantities and/or have been promptly remediated and would not otherwise pose a long-term 

threat to human health and the environment. 

 

Examples of the types of contamination that may be present at a plant include hydrocarbon 

leaks or spills at a storage tank, leaked or spilled solvents from barrels, and a hydraulic oil line 

break (NRC 2006d), thallium in soil at a seepage pit, heavy metals in soil at a sand blasting site, 

a diesel fuel line leak, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from spills of a gasoline storage tank, 

PCBs in soil as a result of former dielectric fluid use (NRC 2007b), and hydrocarbon spills and 

sulphuric acid leaks (NRC 2008b). These situations have required regulatory involvement by 

State agencies during both monitoring and remediation phases. Remediation has taken place 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-46 

in the form of excavation and recovery wells. In these instances, all contamination was either 

remediated with no further action required by regulatory agencies or has been confined to the 

plant site with remediation continuing, as with the ongoing recovery of diesel fuel at the Oyster 

Creek plant. Nevertheless, the number of occurrences of such problems can be minimized by 

means of proper chemical storage, secondary containment, and leak detection equipment. In 

addition, nuclear plants have their own programs for handling chemicals, waste, and other 

hazardous and toxic materials in accordance with Federal and State regulations and permits 

generally require the use of BMPs to prevent releases to the environment. Continued 

implementation of such programs and procedures such as pollution and spill prevention and 

control plans including BMPs (e.g., good housekeeping of the plant site, preventive 

maintenance, routine inspections, etc.) would reduce the likelihood of any inadvertent releases 

to soils and/or groundwater. 

An additional source of groundwater contamination can be the use of wastewater ponds or 

lagoons. At the Cook plant in Michigan, permitted wastewater ponds are used for receiving 

treated sanitary wastewater and for process wastes from the turbine room sump. Groundwater 

monitoring has shown that concentrations of water quality parameters have increased to levels 

above background but below drinking water standards (NRC 2005a). As a result, in an 

arrangement with the county, the use of groundwater by other users in a designated area has 

been restricted with the affected groundwater limited to the southwestern portion of the plant 

property. 

 

Contaminants in wastewater disposal ponds and lagoons, whether lined or unlined, at a plant 

have the potential to enter groundwater and soils. However, the use of wastewater disposal 

ponds and lagoons is subject to discharge authorizations under National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) and State wastewater discharge permit programs and monitoring. 

 

Remediation of groundwater contamination can involve long-duration cleanup processes that 

depend on the types, properties, and concentrations of the contaminants; aquifer properties; 

groundwater flow field characteristics; and remedial objectives. Contaminants may be able to 

migrate to onsite potable wells or to the wells of offsite groundwater users. Groundwater 

monitoring programs, including monitoring of onsite drinking water quality in accordance with 

safe drinking water regulations, would be expected to identify problems before contaminated 

groundwater reached receptors; however, monitoring wells need to be present and in proper 

locations in order to detect contaminants. 

 

On the basis of these considerations, the impact of continued operations during the renewal 

period and refurbishment activities on groundwater use would be SMALL for all nuclear plants. 

Further, the impact of plant industrial practices and their impact on groundwater quality 

associated with continued operations and refurbishment activities would continue to be SMALL. 

This issue is considered Category 1. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-47 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants That Withdraw Less Than 100 Gallons 

per Minute [gpm]) 

Water wells are commonly used at sites to provide water for the potable water system, although 

municipal water is available at some nuclear plants. Groundwater may also be used for 

landscaping (see Section 3.5.2). At some sites, groundwater is the source for the makeup and 

service water systems. In this case, the water undergoes treatment to prepare it for the 

intended use. 

The pumping of groundwater creates a cone of depression in the potentiometric surface around 

the pumping well. The amount the water table or potentiometric surface declines and the 

overall extent of the cone depend on the pumping rate, characteristics of the aquifer (e.g., its 

permeability), whether the aquifer is confined or unconfined, and certain boundary conditions 

(including the nearby presence of a hydrologically connected surface water body). Generally, 

plants with a peak withdrawal rate of less than 100 gpm (378 L/min) do not have a significant 

cone of depression. Their potential for causing conflict with other groundwater users would 

depend largely on the proximity of the other wells. As stated in the 1996 GEIS, cones of 

depression usually do not extend past the property boundary, reducing the possibility of a 

groundwater use conflict. 

In the 1996 GEIS, the groundwater impacts associated with continued operations during the 

license renewal term were considered to be SMALL for all nuclear plants and designated as 

Category 1. No new information has been identified in plant-specific SEISs or associated 

literature that would alter this conclusion. On the basis of these considerations, the impact on 

groundwater use conflicts from continued operations during the license renewal term for all 

nuclear plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm (378 L/min) would be SMALL and remains a 

Category 1 issue. 

Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants That Withdraw More Than 100 Gallons 

per Minute [gpm]) 

This issue is a consolidation of two issues in the 1996 GEIS: (1) groundwater use conflicts 

(potable and service water and dewatering; plants that use >100 gpm) and (2) groundwater use 

conflicts (Ranney wells). 

Nuclear power plants withdraw groundwater for various purposes. Most plants use groundwater 

to supply their potable water and service water needs. In some cases, groundwater is pumped 

to intentionally lower high water tables. At the Grand Gulf plant in Mississippi, Ranney wells in 

the Mississippi River alluvium are used to provide cooling system makeup water (see 

Section 3.5.2). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-48 

As described in the section above, the pumping of groundwater is expected to create a cone of 

depression around the well, with the degree of aquifer dewatering dependent on various factors. 

A nuclear plant may have several wells, with combined pumping in excess of 100 gpm 

(378 L/min). Overall site pumping rates of this magnitude have the potential to create conflicts 

with other local groundwater users if the cone of depression extends to the offsite well(s). Large 

offsite pumping rates for municipal, industrial, or agricultural purposes may, in turn, lower the 

water level at power plant wells. For any user, allocation is normally determined though a Stateissued permit. 

Groundwater use conflicts have not been observed at any nuclear power plants, and no 

significant change in water well systems is expected over the license renewal term. If a conflict 

did occur, it might be possible to resolve it if the power plant relocated its well or wellfield to a 

different part of the property. The siting of new wells would be determined through a 

hydrogeologic assessment. 

In the 1996 GEIS, groundwater use conflicts were considered for plants that withdraw more than 

100 gpm (378 L/min) or plants that use Ranney wells. The NRC concluded that the impacts of 

continued operations and refurbishment would not necessarily be the same at all nuclear plant 

sites (i.e., a Category 2 issue) because of site-specific factors (e.g., well pump rates, well 

locations, and hydrogeologic factors) and that the impacts could be SMALL, MODERATE, or 

LARGE. No new information has been identified in plant-specific SEISs or associated literature 

that would alter this conclusion. On the basis of these considerations, groundwater use conflicts 

for plants that withdraw more than 100 gpm (378 L/min) could be SMALL, MODERATE, or 

LARGE, depending on the plant-specific characteristics described above and remains a 

Category 2 issue. 

Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants with Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems 

That Withdraw Makeup Water from a River) 

In the case of plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds that rely on a river for makeup of 

consumed (evaporated) cooling water, it is possible water withdrawals from the river could lead 

to groundwater use conflicts with other users. This situation could occur because of the 

interaction between groundwater and surface water, especially in the setting of an alluvial 

aquifer in a river valley. Consumptive use of the river water, if significant enough to lower the 

river’s water level, would also influence water levels in the alluvial aquifer. Shallow wells of 

nearby groundwater users could therefore have reduced water availability or go dry. During 

times of drought, the effect would be occurring naturally, although withdrawals for makeup water 

would increase the effect. In the 1996 GEIS, a situation at the Duane Arnold plant in Iowa was 

described in which a reservoir on a small tributary is used as a secondary supply of makeup 

water for the plant’s cooling towers. During low-flow conditions in the plant’s usual source of 

water, the Cedar River, the plant is not allowed to withdraw river water. Instead, it uses the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-49 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

reservoir temporarily. Because the high rate of water usage can lower the water level in the 

reservoir significantly, local users of shallow groundwater may be affected. As described for 

other issues above, this situation is highly dependent on the area’s hydrogeologic framework 

and the locations, depths, and pump rates of wells, in addition to the amount that the surface 

water level declines. 

In the 1996 GEIS, groundwater use conflicts were evaluated for plants that use cooling towers 

withdrawing makeup water from a river during continued operations and refurbishment. NRC 

found that conflicts would not necessarily be the same at all nuclear plant sites because of sitespecific factors (e.g., the amount of surface water decline, well pump rates, well locations, and 

hydrogeologic factors). The resulting impact could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. 

Therefore, this issue was considered Category 2. No new information has been identified in 

plant-specific SEISs or associated literature that would alter this conclusion. On the basis of 

these considerations, groundwater use conflicts for nuclear plants that use closed-cycle cooling 

systems that withdraw makeup water from a river could have SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE 

impacts depending on the plant-specific characteristics of surrounding areas described above 

and remains a Category 2 issue. 

Groundwater Quality Degradation Resulting from Water Withdrawals 

This issue is a consolidation of two related issues in the 1996 GEIS: (1) groundwater quality 

degradation (Ranney wells) and (2) groundwater quality degradation (saltwater intrusion). 

These two issues both consider the possibility of groundwater quality becoming degraded as a 

result of drawing water of potentially lower quality into an aquifer. For this reason, they are 

discussed here as a single issue. 

A well near a river may draw lower-quality river water into the aquifer as a function of the 

interaction between groundwater and surface water. An example of Ranney wells 

(see Section 3.5.2) at the Grand Gulf plant in Mississippi causing induced infiltration of 

Mississippi River water into the alluvial aquifer was discussed in the 1996 GEIS. While sitespecific hydrogeologic factors and well design may provide some control on the flow of surface 

water to the well, the bulk of the groundwater pumped by a well in an alluvial aquifer near a river 

is expected to be induced surface water, with a smaller component of groundwater from the 

direction opposite the river. If well pumping is continuous, the only portion of the shallow aquifer 

significantly affected by induced infiltration remains in the capture zone of the well(s). 

Therefore, the portion of the aquifer with water quality parameters approaching those of the river 

water would usually be located on the power plant’s property. 

Wells in a coastal setting (e.g., ocean shore or estuary) have the potential to cause saltwater 

intrusion into the aquifer. This water quality problem is a common concern for large pumping 

centers associated with municipal or industrial users. The degree of saltwater intrusion 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-50 

depends on the cumulative pumping rates of wells, their screen depths, and hydrogeologic 

conditions. Deep, confined aquifers, for example, may be separated from saline aquifers closer 

to the surface. However, as evaluated in the 1996 GEIS, the potential for inducing saltwater 

intrusion was considered to be of SMALL significance at all sites because groundwater 

consumption from confined aquifers for potable and service water uses by nuclear power plants 

is a small fraction of groundwater use in all cases. Where saltwater intrusion has been a 

problem, the large users have been for agricultural (irrigation) and municipal water supply uses. 

Impacts related to groundwater quality degradation for nuclear plants that use Ranney wells and 

groundwater quality degradation (saltwater intrusion) were designated as Category 1 issues in 

the 1996 GEIS. No new information has been identified in plant-specific SEISs or associated 

literature that would alter this conclusion. On the basis of these considerations, groundwater 

quality degradation resulting from water withdrawals would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and 

remains a Category 1 issue. 

Groundwater Quality Degradation (Plants with Cooling Ponds in Salt Marshes) 

Nuclear plants that use cooling ponds as part of their cooling water system discharge effluent to 

the pond. The effluent’s concentration of contaminants and other solids increases relative to 

that of the makeup water as it passes through the cooling system. These changes include 

increased total dissolved solids (or TDS), since they concentrate as a result of evaporation, 

increased heavy metals (because cooling water contacts the cooling system components), and 

increased chemical additives to prevent biofouling. Because all the ponds are unlined (NRC 

1996), the water discharged to them can interact with the shallow groundwater system and may 

create a groundwater mound. In this case, groundwater below the pond can flow radially 

outward, and this groundwater would have some of the characteristics of the cooling system 

effluent. 

In salt marsh locations, the groundwater is naturally brackish (i.e., with a TDS concentration of 

about 1,000 to more than 10,000 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) and, thus, is already limited in its 

uses. As such, this issue concerns only the potential for changing the groundwater use 

category of the underlying shallow and brackish groundwater due to the introduction of cooling 

water contaminants. Two nuclear plants, South Texas in Texas and Turkey Point in Florida, 

have cooling systems (man-made cooling pond and cooling canal system, respectively) located 

relatively near or constructed in salt marshes. Plants relying on brackish water cooling systems 

would not further degrade the quality of the shallow aquifer relative to its use classification. This 

is because groundwater quality beneath salt marshes is already too poor for human use (i.e., it 

is non-potable water) and is only suitable for industrial use. Plants relying on cooling ponds in 

salt marsh settings are expected to have a SMALL impact on groundwater quality. This is the 

same conclusion reached in the 1996 GEIS. No new information has been identified in plantspecific SEISs or associated literature that would alter this conclusion. On the basis of these 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-51 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

considerations, the impact of groundwater quality degradation for nuclear plants using cooling 

ponds in salt marshes would be SMALL and it remains a Category 1 issue. 

Groundwater Quality Degradation (Plants with Cooling Ponds at Inland Sites) 

The above discussion on cooling ponds relates to this issue. Some nuclear power plants that 

rely on unlined cooling ponds are located at inland sites surrounded by farmland or forest or 

undeveloped open land. Degraded groundwater has the potential to flow radially from the 

ponds and reach offsite groundwater wells. The degree to which this occurs depends on the 

water quality of the cooling pond; site hydrogeologic conditions (including the interaction of 

surface water and groundwater); and the location, depth, and pump rate of water wells. 

Mitigation of significant problems stemming from this issue could include lining existing ponds, 

constructing new lined ponds, or installing subsurface flow barrier walls. Groundwater 

monitoring networks would be necessary to detect and evaluate groundwater quality 

degradation. The degradation of groundwater quality associated with cooling ponds has not 

been reported for any inland nuclear plant sites. 

The 1996 GEIS considered the impacts of this issue during continued operations and concluded 

that the impact would not necessarily be the same at all sites (i.e., a Category 2 issue) and 

could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. No new information has been identified in plantspecific SEISs or associated literature that would alter this conclusion. 

On the basis of these considerations, the impacts of groundwater quality degradation for plants 

using cooling ponds at inland sites could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, depending on 

site-specific differences in the cooling pond’s water quality; site hydrogeologic conditions 

(including the interaction of surface water and groundwater); and the location, depth, and pump 

rate of water wells. This issue remains Category 2. 

Radionuclides Released to Groundwater 

This is a new Category 2 issue. It has been added to the GEIS in order to evaluate the potential 

contamination of groundwater from the release of radioactive liquids from plant systems into the 

environment. 

 

This issue was added because there were numerous instances of inadvertent releases of liquids 

containing radioactive material into the groundwater at nuclear power plants. The issue is 

relevant to license renewal because all commercial nuclear power plants routinely release 

radioactive gaseous and liquid materials into the environment. These radioactive releases are 

designed to be planned, monitored, documented, and released into the environment at 

designated discharge points. However, within the past several years, there have been 

numerous events at power reactor sites which involved unknown, uncontrolled, and 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-52 

unmonitored release of liquids containing radioactive material into the groundwater. NRC 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 and in 10 CFR Part 50 limit the amount of radioactive material, 

from all sources at a nuclear power plant, released into the environment to levels that are as low 

as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). The regulations are designed to protect the public and 

the environment. 

 

The majority of the inadvertent liquid release events involved tritium, which is a radioactive 

isotope of hydrogen. However, other radioactive isotopes, such as cesium and strontium, have 

also been inadvertently released into the groundwater. The types of events include leakage 

from spent fuel pools, buried piping, and failed pressure relief valves on an effluent discharge 

line. 

 

In 2006, the NRC’s Executive Director for Operations chartered a task force to conduct a 

lessons-learned review of these incidents. On September 1, 2006, the task force issued its 

report: Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task Force Report (NRC 2006a). 

 

The most significant conclusion dealt with the potential health impacts on the public from the 

inadvertent releases. Although there were numerous events where radioactive liquid was 

released to the groundwater in an unplanned, uncontrolled, and unmonitored fashion, based on 

the data available, the task force did not identify any instances where public health and safety 

was adversely impacted. 

 

Specific examples from NRC (2006a) focus on tritium releases at 15 plants. Concentrations of 

tritium in sampled onsite groundwater at many of these plants ranged well above the EPA 

drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L. Examples include onsite monitoring well samples of up 

to 250,000 pCi/L at the Braidwood plant in Illinois, up to 211,000 pCi/L at the Indian Point plant 

in New York (NRC 2008c), up to 486,000 pCi/L at the Dresden plant in Illinois, more than 

30,000 pCi/L at the Watts Bar plant in Tennessee, and 71,400 pCi/L at the Palo Verde plant in 

Arizona. Examples of samples taken either directly from the source of the leak or from nearby 

onsite monitoring wells include samples with up to 200,000 pCi/L of tritium at the Callaway plant 

in Missouri, up to 15,000,000 pCi/L at the Salem plant in New Jersey, and up to 750,000 pCi/L 

at the Seabrook plant in New Hampshire. At the Byron plant in Illinois, tritium in monitoring 

wells was above the background level but below drinking water standards (up to 3,800 pCi/L). 

The location and construction of the monitoring wells relative to potential leak locations have not 

been evaluated. For each example, it is possible that a different well placement could detect 

higher or lower activity concentrations. 

 

Other reported instances (NRC 2006a) of tritium above background levels have been a result of 

operator error, licensed discharge, or leaks or discharges to drain systems. At the Oyster Creek 

plant in New Jersey, a mistake involving a valve allowed tritium-contaminated water to flow to 

the discharge canal. Sampling of this water showed levels of 16,000 pCi/L. At the Wolf Creek 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-53 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

plant in Kansas, an onsite lake receiving liquid effluent was found to have a tritium activity 

concentration of 13,000 pCi/L (NRC 2008a). The Perry plant in Ohio had water samples in its 

drainage system with an activity concentration of 60,000 pCi/L. In each of these cases, the 

tritium present at the surface could infiltrate or seep into the groundwater system. 

 

The NRC does not consider the referenced tritium releases to be a health risk to the public or 

onsite workers (NRC 2006a) because the tritiated groundwater is expected to remain onsite. 

However, an exception is the event at Braidwood, which resulted in detectable concentrations of 

tritium at an offsite location. Sampling of an offsite residential well at Braidwood showed 

1,600 pCi/L of tritium which is above the background level but well below EPA’s drinking water 

standard. There would be no potential for risk to workers unless onsite wells were used for the 

potable water system and if the leak was in the capture zone of the well. However, the NRC 

requires that the onsite potable well water be monitored for radioactivity to protect plant workers. 

 

The task force identified that under current NRC regulations the potential exists for unplanned, 

uncontrolled, and unmonitored releases of radioactive liquids to migrate offsite into the public 

domain. The following elements collectively contribute to this conclusion: 

 

• Some of the power plant components that contain radioactive fluids that have leaked 

were constructed to commercial standards, in contrast to plant safety systems that are 

typically fabricated to more stringent requirements. The result is a lower level of 

assurance that these types of components will be leak proof over the life of the plant. 

• Some of the components that have leaked were not required by NRC requirements to be 

subject to surveillance, maintenance, or inspection activities by the licensee. This 

increases the likelihood that leakage in such components can go undetected. 

Additionally, relatively low leakage rates may not be detected by plant operators, even 

over an extended period of time. 

 

• Portions of some components or structures are physically not visible to operators, 

thereby reducing the likelihood that leakage will be identified. Examples of such 

components include buried pipes and spent fuel pools. 

 

• Leakage that enters the ground below the plant may be undetected because there are 

generally no NRC requirements to monitor the groundwater onsite for radioactive 

contamination unless an onsite well is used for drinking water or irrigation. 

 

• Contamination in groundwater onsite may migrate offsite undetected. Although the 

power plant operator is required by NRC regulations to perform offsite environmental 

monitoring, the sampling locations are typically in the vicinity of the routine effluent 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-54 

discharge point into the environment, not around plant systems, piping, and tanks 

containing radioactive liquids. 

 

Another aspect encountered by the NRC due to the inadvertent releases was the high level of 

concern from the public, even at the very low radiation levels caused by the events. There has 

also been significant media coverage and demands by State and local government officials and 

members of Congress for the NRC to take action to stop these events. 

 

On the basis of the information and experience with these leaks, the NRC concludes that the 

impact to groundwater quality from the release of radionuclides could be SMALL or 

MODERATE, depending on the magnitude of the leak, radionuclides involved, hydrogeologic 

factors, the distance to receptors, and the response time of plant personnel to identify and stop 

the leak in a timely fashion. Since the leaks are not planned and there are currently no NRC 

regulations that would require the timely identification and termination of a leak, there is no 

information available to make a generic assessment. Therefore, a site-specific evaluation in the 

Environmental Report is needed for each application for license renewal, and this issue is 

considered Category 2. 

4.5.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

 

Construction—For all alternatives discussed in this section, the impacts of construction on water 

resources would be similar. Construction-related impacts on hydrology (land clearing and 

impervious pavements) would alter surface drainage patterns and groundwater recharge zones. 

Surface water runoff over disturbed ground and material stockpiles could increase levels of 

dissolved and suspended solids and other contaminants. Groundwater withdrawn from onsite 

wells and dewatering systems could depress the water table and possibly change the direction 

of groundwater flow near the plant. Concrete production and wetting of ground surfaces and 

unpaved roadways for fugitive dust control could require substantial amounts of water. 

Appropriate permits, including a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, Section 401 certification, 

and Section 402(p) NPDES general stormwater permit, would be required prior to construction. 

These impacts would apply generally to the construction phase of each of the alternatives 

discussed below. Differences among alternatives would depend not only on the selected 

technology but also on site-specific factors, which cannot be evaluated here. Discussion of 

such differences is outside the scope of this GEIS. 

 

Operation—Most electrical power plants require water for cooling. As a result, fossil-fueled and 

nuclear power plants are generally located near large surface water bodies, including lakes, 

rivers, or oceans. Water cooling systems at power plants use either once-through or closedcycle systems. Potable water can be purchased from municipalities or commercial water 

providers or obtained from onsite wells or a combination of the above. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-55 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Potential operational impacts to surface waters could occur from blowdown and evaporative 

losses in the steam cycle and cooling system and from drift of chemically treated cooling water 

from the cooling tower. Releases of industrial wastewaters would be controlled by an NPDES 

permit. The operational impacts of alternative energy technologies on land use and visual 

resources are presented in the following subsections. 

4.5.2.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives 

 

Operation—Fossil fuel power plants require a continuous supply of water to operate. Water 

demands vary greatly among technologies, ranging from a low of 3,760 gpm (14,222 L/min) for 

an IGCC technology without carbon capture and storage to more than 14,000 gpm 

(53,000 L/min) for a subcritical pulverized coal unit with carbon capture and storage. EPA 

estimates of raw water usage for various coal-burning technologies, normalized to a nominal 

generating capacity of 500 MWe, appear in Table 4.5-1. Water resources would be affected not 

only by water withdrawals but by reintroduction of water from steam cycle, cooling tower, and 

gasifier blowdown water. Hydrology would also be affected by wastewater generated by coal 

and exhaust-gas cleaning devices that may be operating and by other ancillary industrial 

activities. 

Water usage is a function of the coal combustion technology, heating value of the coal being 

consumed, the design of the primary cooling systems (e.g., once-through versus closed-cycle, 

mechanical versus natural draft, dry cooling, and wet/dry hybrid cooling), and the operation of 

various other devices, such as gasifiers and gas-cleaning units (including flue gas 

desulfurization), all of which require water. 

Table 4.5-1. Raw Water Usage Estimates for Fossil Fuel Electric Power 

Technologies 

Technology(a)

Coal Rank(b)

Bituminous Sub-bituminous Lignite 

IGCC 4,960 (685) [4,950](c) 5,010 (676) [5,000](c) 5,270 (700) [5,259](d)

Subcritical PC(e) 9,260 (1,050) [9,241] 9,520 (1,050) [9,501] 9,960 (1,050) [9,940] 

Supercritical PC(e)

 8,460 (1,050) [8,443] 8,830 (1,060) [8,812] 9,200 (1,055) [9,182] 

Ultra-supercritical PC(e)

 7,730 (1,050) [7,717] 7,870 (1,050) [7,857] 8,710 (1,050) [8,695] 

(a) IGCC = integrated gasification combined cycle; PC = pulverized coal. 

(b) Water usage expressed as lb/MWh (lb/MBtu input) [gal/min]. 

(c) 500-MWe (net) unit equipped with a slurry-feed gasifier. 

(d) 500-MWe (net) unit equipped with a solid-feed gasifier. 

(e) 500-MWe (net) unit. 

Source: EPA 2006 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-56 

4.5.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives 

Water resources would be affected by operation of the cooling system and by discharges of 

blowdown water from the cooling system and steam cycle, both of which can introduce chemical 

contaminants and heat to the receiving surface water body. Operation of these systems could 

also affect hydrology by reducing available surface water volume, altering current patterns at 

intake and discharge structures, altering salinity gradients, scouring and increases in sediment 

caused by discharges of treated cooling water, and increasing water temperature. Hydrologic 

impacts would vary, depending on the surface water source used for cooling as well as the 

cooling water system employed. Hydrology can also be affected by the plant’s service water 

system, which provides water for turbine and reactor auxiliary equipment cooling, reactor 

shutdown cooling, and other services. Surface water and groundwater can also be affected by 

discharges authorized under permits and by accidental spills and leaks of radionuclides, 

chemicals, and fuels to the ground surface. Overall, impacts on water resources at a greenfield 

site could be significant and depend highly on local circumstances and factors such as other 

dependencies on the hydrologic resources. Hydrologic impacts at a brownfield site or an 

existing nuclear facility could also be significant, depending on whether or not the new nuclear 

plant could use the existing cooling water system. 

4.5.2.3 Renewable Alternatives 

 

The operational impacts of alternative energy technologies on water resources are presented in 

the following subsections.

Hydroelectric Energy Sources

Reservoirs could be affected by changes in water temperature and amounts of dissolved 

oxygen. Surface water temperatures in the reservoir could be affected when water flow is 

reduced. Warm water released from the top of the dam and cooler water released from the 

lower portions of the dam could affect river water temperatures downstream. Additionally, both 

low- and high-flow conditions would alter sediment transport and deposition patterns. 

Geothermal

Hydrology would be affected by water consumed by the facility; the project could consume up to 

6.8 ac-ft/yr (i.e., about 2.2 million gal [8,390 m3

]) of water during operation. Degradation and 

loss of integrity of geothermal wells could affect shallow groundwater quality through the release 

of contaminants. Liners installed on any surface impoundments should be sufficient to protect 

surface water resources from contamination by industrial fluids (including geothermal fluids) 

during routine operation. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-57 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Wind

No impacts on water resources are expected to result from routine operation of either onshore 

or offshore wind farms. 

Biomass

Water demands for cooling and steam would be similar to those of fossil fuel-fired power plants. 

Water demand could equal evaporative water loss from cooling tower and flue gas scrubbers, 

and blowdown waters discharged from steam cycle and cooling water systems. Water demand 

could range from 3,000 to 5,000 gpm (11,400 to 18,900 L/min). Water quality would be affected 

by contaminants released in runoff from piles of feedstock materials, fly and bottom ash, and 

scrubber sludge. 

Solar Thermal

There is a potential for contamination from accidental release of working fluids (heat transfer 

fluids) or thermal storage media (molten salts) contained in binary systems. For an advanced 

power tower facility operating in 2030 and using a wet mechanical cooling tower, projected 

water demands (i.e., consumptive use as a result of water lost to evaporation) would be about 

630 gal (2.4 m3

)/MWh (EERE 1997). 

4.6 Ecological Resources 

4.6.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action—Continued 

Operations and Refurbishment 

Environmental conditions at all nuclear power plants and associated transmission lines have 

been well established during the current licensing term. These conditions are expected to 

remain unchanged during the 20-year license renewal term. The following section describes the 

effects of continued operations and refurbishment activities on terrestrial and aquatic resources 

over the license renewal term. 

Continued operations and refurbishment are not expected to change substantially over the 

license renewal term. Therefore, license renewal generally represents a continuation of current 

environmental stresses that have existed over many years of operation. However, due to the 

ever-changing nature of biological communities, the impacts of continued operation may 

change. These conditions are described in Sections 3.6.1 (Terrestrial Resources), 3.6.2 

(Aquatic Resources), and 3.6.3 (Special Status Species and Habitats). The factors associated 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-58 

with continued operations and refurbishment activities that could affect these resources over the 

20-year license renewal term are presented in the following sections. 

4.6.1.1 Terrestrial Resources 

Continued operations of the nuclear power plants during the 20-year license renewal term are 

expected to include operation of cooling towers, operation of once-through cooling systems and 

cooling ponds, management of transmission line ROWs, maintenance of site facilities, releases 

of gaseous and liquid effluents, and potentially, and refurbishment-related construction 

activities. Terrestrial habitats and wildlife would continue to be exposed to cooling tower drift; 

maintenance activities associated with ROWs, cooling systems, and site facilities; and chemical 

and radiological releases. Cooling towers and transmission lines would continue to be potential 

collision hazards for birds, wildlife near the site would be exposed to elevated noise levels, and 

refurbishment-related construction activities could result in habitat loss and disturbance of 

wildlife. Details regarding these impacting factors are presented in Section 3.6.1. 

This section considers the following issues related to terrestrial resources: 

• Effects on terrestrial resources (non-cooling system impacts) (issue was modified from 

the 1996 GEIS to encompass the impacts of continued operations and refurbishment); 

• Exposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides (new issue not considered in the 

1996 GEIS); 

• Cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources (plants with once-through cooling 

systems or cooling ponds) (issue was modified and renamed from the 1996 GEIS issue, 

“Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial resources”); 

• Cooling tower impacts on vegetation (plants with cooling towers) (consolidation of two 

issues from the 1996 GEIS: (1) cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental 

vegetation, and (2) cooling tower impacts on native plants); 

• Bird collisions with plant structures and transmission lines (consolidation of two issues in 

the 1996 GEIS: (1) bird collisions with cooling towers and (2) bird collision with 

transmission lines); 

• Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers 

using makeup water from a river) (new issue not specifically considered in the 

1996 GEIS); 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-59 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

• Transmission line ROW management impacts on terrestrial resources (consolidation of 

two issues from the 1996 GEIS: (1) power line ROW management (cutting and 

herbicide application) and (2) floodplains and wetland on power line ROW)). This issue 

includes impacts on upland plant communities; and 

• Electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, 

livestock) (issue from the 1996 GEIS). 

Effects on Terrestrial Resources (Non-Cooling System Impacts) 

Continued operations and refurbishment activities could continue to affect onsite terrestrial 

resources during the license renewal term at all operating nuclear power plants. Factors that 

could potentially result in impacts include landscape maintenance activities, stormwater 

management, and elevated noise levels. These impacts would, for the most part, be similar to 

past and ongoing impacts. The 1996 GEIS did not evaluate the impact of continued operations 

and maintenance on onsite biota, but this issue has been identified by the NRC for 

consideration in this GEIS revision on the basis of environmental reviews performed for plantspecific SEISs. 

Nuclear power plant sites are typically maintained as modified habitats with lawns and other 

landscaped areas; however, they may also include disturbed early successional habitats or 

even small areas of relatively undisturbed habitat. Onsite developed areas are generally 

maintained by mowing and the application of herbicides or pesticides. The diversity of plant 

species in these areas is generally kept at a reduced level. Plant species often consist of 

cultivated varieties or weedy species tolerant of disturbance. Areas of the nuclear plant site 

outside the security fence may include natural areas, such as forests or shrublands, in various 

degrees of disturbance. Onsite wetlands may be affected by stormwater management. Effects 

may include changes in plant community characteristics, altered hydrology, decreased water 

quality, and sedimentation (EPA 1993, 1996; Wright et al. 2006). Impervious surfaces within the 

watershed generally result in increased runoff and reduced infiltration, causing changes in the 

frequency or duration of inundation or soil saturation and greater fluctuations in wetland water 

levels. Runoff may contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces, or 

herbicides. Erosion of wetland substrates and plants can result from increased flow velocities 

from impervious surfaces. Onsite wildlife near transformers or cooling towers are exposed to 

elevated noise levels that could disrupt behavioral patterns. Maintenance of landscaped areas 

generally keeps wildlife diversity lower than in surrounding habitats. Wildlife species occurring 

on sites within the security areas are typically limited by low habitat quality and generally include 

common species adapted to industrial sites. 

The characteristics of terrestrial habitats and wildlife communities currently on nuclear power 

plant sites have generally developed in response to many years of typical operations and 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-60 

maintenance programs. While some may have reached a relatively stable condition, some 

habitats and populations of some species may have continued to change gradually over time. 

Operations and maintenance activities during the license renewal term are expected to be 

similar to current activities (see Section 2.1). Because the species and habitats present on the 

sites (i.e., weedy species and habitats they make up) are generally tolerant of disturbance, it is 

expected that continued operations during the license renewal term would maintain these 

habitats and wildlife communities in their current State, or maintain current trends of change. 

Terrestrial habitats and wildlife could be affected by ground disturbance from refurbishmentrelated construction activities. Land disturbed during the construction of new independent spent 

fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) would range from about 2.5 to 10 ac (1 to 4 ha). Other 

activities may include new parking areas for plant employees, access roads, buildings, and 

facilities. Temporary project support areas for equipment storage, worker parking, and material 

laydown areas could also result in the disturbance of habitat and wildlife. In the 1996 GEIS, the 

NRC considered only the impacts of refurbishment on terrestrial habitats and concluded that the 

impacts would not necessarily be the same at all sites (i.e., a Category 2 issue) and could range 

from SMALL to LARGE. 

Operational activities occurring in undeveloped portions of the site would affect terrestrial 

habitats and wildlife. Some wildlife would be displaced to nearby available habitats. However, 

competition would increase for many species, reducing the likelihood of survival of displaced 

individuals. Indirect effects could include fugitive dust, alteration of hydrology from changes in 

surface water flow patterns and infiltration to shallow groundwater, water quality degradation, or 

establishment of invasive species. Species that are more sensitive to disturbance may be 

displaced by more tolerant species. Affected habitats may include uplands or wetlands on or 

near the activity as well as wetlands within the watershed. Alterations in vegetative cover, the 

compaction of upland soils, or the development of impervious surfaces within the watershed 

generally result in more runoff and less infiltration to shallow groundwater, causing an increase 

or decrease in the hydrologic input to nearby wetlands (EPA 1993, 1996; Wright et al. 2006). 

Effects include changes in the frequency or duration of inundation or soil saturation and greater 

fluctuations in wetland water levels. Runoff often contains sediments, contaminants from road 

and parking surfaces, or herbicides used in managing ROW or site vegetation (EPA 1993, 1996; 

Wright et al. 2006). The erosion of wetland substrates and plants can result from increased flow 

velocities. Actions that result in the discharge of dredge or fill material into wetlands that are 

under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA) require a Section 404 permit from the 

USACE. Actions that could potentially affect threatened or endangered species would require 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), or with State resource agencies. Rare or unique plant 

communities, sensitive habitats such as wetlands or rookeries, or high-quality undisturbed 

habitats may occur in or near potentially affected areas. Impacts on such habitats could be 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-61 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

considered LARGE if they caused the destabilization of a resource. Impacts would be 

considered SMALL if only previously disturbed or other lower-quality habitats were affected. 

Successful application of environmental review procedures, employed by the licensees at many 

of the operating nuclear plant sites, would result in the identification and avoidance of important 

terrestrial habitats. In addition, the application of BMPs to minimize the area affected; to control 

fugitive dust, runoff, and erosion from project sites; to reduce the spread of invasive nonnative 

plant species; and to reduce disturbance of wildlife in adjacent habitats could greatly reduce the 

impacts of continued operations and refurbishment activities. 

Site-specific factors related to refurbishment activities may vary considerably among nuclear 

power plant sites. The habitats present on or in the vicinity of nuclear power plants also vary 

greatly. Therefore, a generic determination of potential impacts on terrestrial resources from 

refurbishment or other activities is not possible. Impacts on terrestrial habitats and wildlife 

would depend on site-specific factors, and impact assessments would need to be conducted on 

a site-specific basis prior to license renewal. Consistent with this finding, the NRC concluded in 

the 1996 GEIS that the impacts of refurbishment actions could be significant if important 

resources are affected, depending on site-specific conditions. 

On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of continued 

operations and refurbishment activities similar to those occurring during the current license term 

on terrestrial resources could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, depending on site-specific 

differences in the terrestrial resources present, project-specific activities, and the effectiveness 

of mitigation measures. The issue is therefore considered Category 2. 

Exposure of Terrestrial Organisms to Radionuclides 

This section addresses the issue of potential impacts of radionuclides on terrestrial organisms 

resulting from normal operations of a nuclear power plant during the license renewal term. This 

issue was not evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. However, public concerns about the impacts of 

radionuclides on terrestrial organisms at some nuclear power plants have led to an evaluation of 

the issue in this GEIS revision. 

Radionuclides may be released from nuclear power plants into the environment via a number of 

pathways. Releases into terrestrial environments often result from deposition of small amounts 

of radioactive particulates released from power plant vents during normal operations. typically 

include krypton, xenon, and argon (which do not contain radioactive particles), tritium, isotopes 

of iodine, and cesium, and they may also include strontium, cobalt, and chromium. 

Radionuclides may also be released into the aquatic environment from the liquid effluent 

discharge line. Radionuclides that enter shallow groundwater from cooling ponds can be taken 

up by terrestrial plant species, including both upland species and wetland species, where 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-62 

wetlands receive groundwater discharge. Terrestrial biota may be exposed to ionizing radiation 

from radionuclides through direct contact with water or other media, inhalation, or ingestion of 

food, water, or soil. 

The uptake of radionuclides from soil and water by many plant species and their incorporation 

into plant tissues have been well demonstrated (Bell et al. 1988; Hinton et al. 1996; 

Hinton et al. 1999; Hitchcock et al. 2005; Kaplan et al. 2005; Sahr et al. 2005; NCRP 2006; 

Pinder et al. 2006). The degree of uptake varies according to the degree to which the 

radionuclide binds to the sediment particles (the partition coefficient [Kd] of the nuclide and 

sediment constituents, such as clay particles) as well as other environmental factors, such as 

pH or the concentrations of other elements such as potassium (NCRP 2006). The effects on 

plants of chronic exposure to radionuclides range from reduced trunk growth, canopy cover, 

stem growth, photosynthetic capacity, seed production and germination in trees, and reduced 

reproductive potential in herbaceous plants, to chromosome damage as well as mortality in both 

groups (IAEA 1992; Real et al. 2004; Sahr et al. 2005). Growth effects have been observed at 

dose rates above 0.01 rad/hr (100 Gy/hr), while chromosome effects have occurred at 

2.0  10-6 rad/hr (0.02 Gy/hr) (Real et al. 2004). Radionuclides are transferred to herbivores 

and subsequently to higher trophic levels, such as predators (Meyers-Schone and Walton 1990; 

Kelsey-Wall et al. 2005; Beresford et al. 2005; NCRP 2006). 

The DOE guideline for radiation dose rates from environmental media recommends limiting the 

radiation dose to riparian and terrestrial mammals to less than 0.1 rad/d (0.001 Gy/d) and 

limiting the dose to terrestrial plants to less than 1.0 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d) (DOE 2002). These 

guidelines were developed on the basis of experimental evidence that negative effects would 

not occur at these doses. The effects of ionizing radiation on populations of terrestrial 

organisms have been given considerable attention in the literature. A report by the International 

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992) described invertebrate organisms as being less sensitive to 

ionizing radiation than are vertebrates. There is additional evidence indicating that some 

terrestrial wildlife species may be more resistant to ionizing radiation than are humans. For 

instance, Ulsh et al. (2000) examined the effects of cesium-137 radiation on cellular processes 

of wild turtles and humans. They discovered that human fibroblasts were 1.7 times more 

sensitive to ionizing radiation than the fibroblasts of wild turtles. 

Eisler (1994) summarized studies examining the effects of ionizing radiation on aquatic and 

terrestrial organisms and reported that chronic doses at the minimum treatment dose of 90 rad/d 

(0.9 Gy/d) reduced the growth of some bird species. Few studies examine the effects of 

ionizing radiation on birds at doses lower than 90 rad/d (0.9 Gy/d), and none of them observed 

any adverse effects. For example, Zach et al. (1993) found no negative effects on the breeding 

performance of adults or the growth of nestling tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) at doses as 

low as 0.014 rad/d (1.4  10-4 Gy/d). Eisler (1994) also reported that an acute exposure of 

1.1 rad (0.011 Gy) was demonstrably harmful to small mammals. In a summary by Real et al. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-63 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

(2004), radiological dose rates as low as 1 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d) could be potentially harmful to 

some terrestrial plant species, although most effects were observed at doses greater than 

100 rad/d (1 Gy/d). Furthermore, IAEA (1992) concluded that irradiation at chronic dose rates 

of 1 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d) or less are not likely to negatively affect plant populations. 

Genetic effects of ionizing radiation on terrestrial biota have not been demonstrated at doses 

below the DOE guidelines. Turner et al. (1971) found that doses as low as 4 rad/d (0.04 Gy/d) 

adversely affect the reproductive capabilities of the leopard lizard (Crotaphytus wislizenii), and 

Nagasawa et al. (1990) observed chromosomal aberrations in the cells of hamsters at acute 

radiation doses as low as 2 rad (0.02 Gy). The European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) 

reviewed studies concerning the effects of low-level radiation exposures on a variety of animal 

species. Although study details were not provided, the ECRR noted that a wide range of animal 

studies show juvenile mortality effects from internal irradiation, which have not been addressed 

by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) or other risk agencies 

(ECRR 2003). 

The NRC conducted a review of all operating nuclear power plants to evaluate the potential 

impacts of radionuclides on terrestrial biota from continued operations. Site-specific 

radionuclide concentrations in water, sediment, and soils were obtained from Radiological 

Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) reports for 15 nuclear plants. These 15 plants were 

selected to represent sites with a range of radionuclide concentrations in the media, including 

plants with high annual worker total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) values (Tables 3.9-5 and 

3.9-6) or public exposures (Tables 3.9-9, 3.9-10, and 3.9-11) for both boiling water reactors 

(BWRs) and pressurized water reactors (PWRs). The RESRAD-BIOTA dose evaluation model 

(DOE 2004e) was used to calculate estimated dose rates for terrestrial biota by using the media 

concentrations presented in the REMP reports (see Section D.5 in Appendix D for further details 

on the approach used). 

Results of the RESRAD-BIOTA dose modeling are presented in Table 4.6-1, showing the total 

dose estimates for three different terrestrial ecological receptors: riparian animal (an animal that 

was assumed to spend approximately 50 percent of its time in aquatic environments and 

50 percent of its time in terrestrial environments), terrestrial animal, and terrestrial plant. The 

maximum estimated dose rate calculated for any of the nuclear power plants is 0.0354 rad/d 

(3.54  10-4 Gy/d) (riparian animal at the Browns Ferry plant), which is below the guideline value 

of 0.1 rad/d (0.001 Gy/d) for a riparian animal receptor. It is unlikely that the normal operations 

of these power plants would have adverse effects on terrestrial biota resulting from radionuclide 

releases because the calculated doses are below protective guidelines and thus would not 

significantly affect populations. 

On the basis of these calculations and a review of the available literature, the NRC concludes 

that the impact of routine radionuclide releases from past and current operations and 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-64 

Table 4.6-1. Estimated Radiation Dose Rates to Terrestrial Ecological Receptors 

from Radionuclides Measured in Water, Sediment, and Soils 

at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants 

 Sum of Total Dose (rad/d) for Receptor (a) 

Power Plant Riparian Animal Terrestrial Animal Terrestrial Plant Source 

Arkansas Nuclear 4.62  10-4 3.37  10-7 1.04  10-7 Entergy 2006a 

Browns Ferry 3.54  10-2 1.10  10-2 1.03  10-2 TVA 2003 

Calvert Cliffs 2.90  10-7 2.65  10-3 2.49  10-4 CEG 2003 

Columbia 2.62  10-3 4.45  10-4 2.82  10-5 Energy Northwest 

2005 

Comanche Peak 1.50  10-2 2.89  10-6 9.37  10-7 TXU 2004 

Cook 2.48  10-3 2.22  10-3 2.44  10-4 IMP 2006 

Hatch 2.39  10-3 1.82  10-6 5.19  10-7 Southern 

Company 2003 

Fort Calhoun 5.26  10-4 3.41  10-7 1.06  10-7 OPPD 2004 

Indian Point 2.30  10-3 2.22  10-3 2.44  10-4 Entergy 2006b 

Millstone 3.31  10-3 2.20  10-3 2.20  10-4 DNC 2004 

Nine Mile Point 2.40  10-3 1.83  10-6 5.24  10-7 CEG 2004 

Palisades 6.00  10-6 2.89  10-7 9.48  10-8 NMC 2004 

Point Beach 7.79  10-3 2.48  10-2 2.12  10-2 EIML 2005 

San Onofre 7.79  10-3 2.48  10-2 2.12  10-2 SCE 2005 

Vermont Yankee 7.56  10-3 1.85  10-6 5.30  10-7 Entergy 2003 

(a) Dose rates were estimated with RESRAD-BIOTA (DOE 2004e) by using site-specific radionuclide concentrations 

in water, sediment, and soils obtained from the REMP reports. 

refurbishment activities on terrestrial biota would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and would not 

be expected to appreciably change during the renewal period. It is considered a Category 1 

issue. 

Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources (Plants with Once-Through Cooling 

Systems or Cooling Ponds) 

Terrestrial vegetation and wildlife could be affected by the continued operation of cooling 

systems at nuclear power plants during the 20-year license renewal term. This issue applies to 

nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds typically with low 

levels of consumptive use. In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC evaluated the impacts to terrestrial 

ecology from cooling ponds but not the impacts from once-through cooling systems. Impacts of 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-65 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

cooling ponds on terrestrial resources were considered to be SMALL for all plants that used 

cooling ponds and were designated as Category 1 issues in the 1996 GEIS. The impact on 

terrestrial resources from the operations of other cooling systems has been identified by the 

NRC for consideration in this GEIS revision. The impacts of cooling tower operations are 

considered as a separate issue elsewhere in this section. 

Primary impacts of continued operation of the cooling systems at nuclear power plants include 

alterations of the physical environment that terrestrial organisms inhabit. Such changes to the 

physical environment may include increased water temperatures; humidity and fogging; 

contaminants in surface water or groundwater; and disturbance of wetlands from maintenance 

dredging of onsite cooling ponds, disposal of dredged material from such dredging, and erosion 

of shoreline wetlands. Unlike dredging of navigable waterways discussed in other GEIS issues, 

maintenance dredging of onsite cooling ponds and onsite disposal of dredged material 

(e.g., mud) typically do not require permits. Water temperatures in cooling ponds, canals, and 

reservoirs may increase as warm water effluent is discharged from the power plants. The 

elevated water temperatures associated with the cooling system may affect the distributions of 

some terrestrial plant and animal species associated with riparian or wetland communities. For 

example, the growth of plants along the cooling pond shoreline is restricted by the thermal 

effluent at the H.B. Robinson plant in South Carolina (NRC 2003b). Increased humidity and 

fogging around the cooling system discharge resulting from elevated water temperatures may 

alter the distributions of some vegetation communities. The cooling system may also transport 

contaminants generated during normal power plant operations to animal and plant receptors. 

Terrestrial biota may be exposed to contaminants released from the power plant’s cooling 

system, either by direct contact with the cooling system effluent or through uptake from aquatic 

food sources near the cooling system. Terrestrial plants and wildlife associated with wetland or 

riparian communities along the receiving water body may be exposed, as well as wildlife that 

forage in these waters, such as waterfowl. In these cases, contaminants associated with the 

cooling system may have adverse impacts on terrestrial organisms. Maintenance dredging near 

cooling system intakes or outfalls may disturb wetland habitats along with accumulated 

sediments, and sedimentation from dredging disposal may indirectly affect wetlands. Shoreline 

wetlands or riparian habitats may be affected by erosion resulting from high-velocity effluent 

discharges or altered current patterns. The impacts of the cooling system are of concern if 

water temperature, humidity and fogging levels, contaminants associated within the discharged 

effluent, maintenance activities, or discharge flows have adverse effects on local plant and 

animal populations. 

The NRC examined the potential impacts of the operation of nuclear power plant cooling 

systems on terrestrial resources during the 20-year license renewal term by reviewing published 

site-specific radiological effluent release (RER) reports, site environmental reports (ERs), and 

SEISs. For this analysis, a total of eight nuclear power plants with different types of cooling 

systems were investigated to determine the effects of cooling system operation on terrestrial 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-66 

resources. The type of cooling system that operated at each of the eight power plants 

reviewed, and a summary of the contaminants evaluated in the aquatic effluent, is shown in 

Table 4.6-2. 

Contaminants investigated to be of potential concern in the liquid effluent associated with 

cooling systems at nuclear power plants include chlorine and other biocides, tritium, heavy 

metals, VOCs, oil products, and strontium. The concentrations of these contaminants have 

been found to be low within the liquid effluent discharged from the nuclear power plants. 

Although water screening guidelines have not been established for terrestrial biota, compliance 

with NPDES permits should ensure that nonradioactive contaminant concentrations discharged 

from the cooling system are low enough to have only SMALL impacts on water quality and 

aquatic communities. 

From a review of the 2006 RER reports for the power plants, quarterly tritium releases in liquid 

effluent may be as high as 1.69  10-5 μCi/mL. These concentrations do not exceed the public 

health-regulated tritium concentrations specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, which 

is set at 0.001 μCi/mL for water effluent concentrations. Tritium concentrations discharged in 

liquid effluent are much lower than those reported to have adverse effects on terrestrial wildlife. 

For example, Cahill et al. (1975) exposed rats to 1, 10, 50, or 100 μCi/mL of tritium in drinking 

water per day. They found that rats exposed to the higher doses (50 and 100 μCi/mL) 

experienced shorter life spans, whereas no adverse chronic effects were observed in rats at the 

two lower doses (1 and 10 μCi/mL). Therefore, the discharge of contaminants on terrestrial 

resources during the license renewal term is considered to be of SMALL significance. 

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

Power Plant Cooling System Contaminants References 

Dresden Cooling lake and spray canal Chlorine, tritium, heavy metals NRC 2004a; Exelon 2003 

Oyster Creek Once-through cooling Chlorine, tritium, VOCs NRC 2007b 

Palisades Mechanical draft cooling 

tower 

Chlorine, tritium, bromine, oil NRC 2006d 

Peach Bottom Once-through cooling with 

towers 

Chlorine, tritium, strontium NRC 2003a; Exelon 

2001a 

Pilgrim Once-through cooling Chlorine, tritium, heavy metals NRC 2007c 

Turkey Point Closed-cycle canal Chlorine, tritium NRC 2002b; FPL 2000 

Vermont Yankee Once-through cooling and 

towers 

Chlorine, copper, iron, zinc NRC 2007a 

Wolf Creek Closed-cycle cooling pond Chlorine, tritium WCNOC 2002; 

WCGS 2003 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-67 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

In the operation of the cooling system, contaminants (e.g., heavy metals) may be leached from 

condenser tubing and discharged by the power plant’s cooling system. Elevated concentrations 

of these contaminants are toxic to aquatic and terrestrial organisms. In the past, the use of 

copper alloy condenser tubes in the cooling systems at the H.B. Robinson plant in South 

Carolina and Diablo Canyon plant in California resulted in the discharge of copper in the liquid 

effluent, which was observed to have adverse effects on the morphology and reproduction of 

resident bluegill populations at the Robinson plant (Harrison 1985), and abalone (Haliotis spp.) 

deaths were attributed to the increased copper levels discharged after a resumption of 

operations at Diablo Canyon (NRC 1996). Terrestrial wildlife that feed on these fish in the 

receiving waters could have been exposed to elevated copper levels. Also, potential reductions 

in populations of prey species could affect predator species. However, the replacement of the 

copper alloy condenser tubes with tubes made of different materials (e.g., titanium) has rectified 

this problem. 

Thermal impacts on terrestrial habitats or wildlife exposed to elevated temperatures have not 

been identified at the nuclear power plants; however, as noted above, the growth of plants along 

portions of cooling pond shorelines may be restricted by high-temperature effluents. 

Temperature increases in receiving water bodies due to effluent discharges are regulated 

through NPDES permits to limit the extent of temperature increases for the protection of biota. 

In addition, because the plant communities present have been influenced by many years of 

facility operation, the elevated temperatures are unlikely to result in mortality of wetland and 

riparian plants that may be exposed to the discharges because species that are intolerant of 

elevated temperatures are unlikely to be growing near the outfall. The heated effluents could 

lengthen the growing season for wetland or riparian plant communities present. A potentially 

beneficial effect of the heated discharges at the Turkey Point plant in Florida has been the 

development of suitable habitat for the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), an established 

population of which occupies the cooling canal system. In addition, ice-free open water areas 

that provide foraging opportunities for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and various 

waterfowl species are often maintained by heated discharges during winter months at a number 

of nuclear plants in northern States. These benefits would be expected to continue during the 

license renewal term. 

The impingement of waterfowl at the cooling water intakes has been observed at some nuclear 

plants, such as the Cook plant in Michigan, the Nine Mile Point plant in New York, and the Point 

Beach plant in Wisconsin. About 400 ducks, primarily lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), were 

impinged at the D.C. Cook plant in December 1991 (Mitchell and Carlson 1993); about 

100 ducks, both greater scaup (Aythya marila) and lesser scaup, were impinged in January 

2000 at the Nine Mile Point plant (NRC 2006e). At Point Beach, a number of double-crested 

cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) were impinged in September 1990, and 33 birds (mostly 

gulls) were impinged from June 2001 through December 2003 (NRC 2005b). Changes in 

operational procedures, such as the periodic cleaning of zebra mussels off intake structures, 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-68 

and changes in intake structure design, have been implemented to minimize the impacts on 

waterfowl. It is likely that any impingement over the license renewal term would result in only 

minor effects on waterfowl populations. 

Groundwater quality can be degraded by contaminants present in cooling ponds and cooling 

canals. Deep-rooted terrestrial plants could be exposed to these contaminants. In addition, 

biota could be exposed to contaminants at locations of groundwater discharge, such as 

wetlands or riparian areas. However, as noted above, contaminant concentrations are typically 

very low, and any effects on terrestrial plants would be expected to be SMALL. Mitigation may 

also be implemented where sensitive resources could be affected. At the Turkey Point plant in 

Florida, for example, the flow of hypersaline groundwater from the cooling canals toward the 

Everglades to the west is prevented by an interceptor ditch, located along the west side of the 

canal system, from which groundwater inflow is extracted (NRC 2002b). 

Surface water or groundwater that is withdrawn by nuclear power plants may potentially reduce 

the availability of water to terrestrial biota, such as those associated with wetlands or riparian 

areas along surface water bodies used as sources of cooling water, or those supported by 

groundwater discharges to wetlands or riparian areas. For once-through cooling systems, flow 

reductions from consumptive use generally represent a small decrease in water availability and 

have not resulted in water use conflicts for terrestrial resources. For example, losses due to the 

operation of the cooling system at the Peach Bottom plant in Pennsylvania, which operates as a 

once-through system with helper cooling towers, represent less than 2 percent of the minimum 

monthly average river flow of the cooling water source (NRC 2003a). In contrast, however, for 

some closed-cycle systems, consumptive water use may result in conflicts with requirements for 

the protection of riparian, wetland, or other communities, primarily where the nuclear plants are 

located on small bodies of water or small streams. Although water withdrawal rates are much 

lower for closed-cycle systems (which require makeup water as a result of evaporative losses) 

than for once-through systems, consumptive losses may be relatively high. Because of 

restrictions imposed at some plants on water withdrawal and consumption rates, which are 

protective of biotic resources, reductions in plant operations may be required under certain 

conditions when there are low water levels, such as during droughts. During extensive 

droughts, temporary impacts on riparian and wetland communities could occur. 

Impacts on terrestrial biota associated with the operation of the cooling system have not been 

reported as a problem at any of the nuclear power plants evaluated. No adverse effects on 

terrestrial plants or animals have been reported as a result of increased water temperatures, 

fogging, humidity, or reduced habitat quality. Because of the low concentrations of 

contaminants within the liquid effluents associated with the cooling systems, the uptake and 

accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of wildlife exposed to the contaminated water or 

aquatic food sources are not expected to be a significant issue, and the impacts are expected to 

be SMALL for all plants. Potential mitigation measures would include regular monitoring of the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-69 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

cooling systems for water quality and measures to exclude wildlife from contaminated ponds. 

On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of continued operation 

of the cooling systems on terrestrial resources would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and is 

considered a Category 1 issue. 

Cooling Tower Impacts on Vegetation (Plants with Cooling Towers) 

Continued operation of cooling towers could affect vegetation during the license renewal term. 

This issue applies only to operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers. The issue is a 

consolidation of two issues evaluated in the 1996 GEIS: (1) cooling tower impacts on crops and 

ornamental vegetation and (2) cooling tower impacts on native plants. Impacts of cooling tower 

emissions on these resources were considered to be SMALL for all plants and were designated 

as Category 1 issues in the 1996 GEIS. 

As discussed in Section 3.6.1, terrestrial habitats in the vicinity of nuclear power plant cooling 

towers have been exposed to deposition of cooling tower drift particulates (including salt), 

deposition of water droplets on vegetation from drift, structural damage from freezing vapor 

plumes, and increased humidity. Drift contains small amounts of particulates that are dispersed 

from cooling towers over a wide area, with particulates from natural draft towers dispersing over 

a larger area and at a lower deposition rate than from mechanical draft towers (NRC 1996). 

However, most of the deposition from cooling towers occurs in relatively close proximity to the 

towers. Generally, deposition rates from these cooling towers have been below those that are 

known to result in measurable adverse impacts on plants, and no deposition effects on 

agricultural crops or plant communities have been observed at most of the nuclear power plants 

(NRC 1996). Exceptions have been observed at some nuclear plants; however, the impacts 

have been addressed by changes to cooling tower operations. For example, high levels of 

sulfate deposition, along with temporary excessive icing conditions at the Palisades plant on the 

southeast shoreline of Lake Michigan, resulted in the loss of about 5 ac (2 ha) of dune forest 

near the cooling towers and its replacement with a dense scrub-shrub community within several 

years of the startup of operations (NRC 2006b). These conditions were subsequently resolved 

by changes made to the cooling system. 

Salt deposition from cooling tower drift is a potential impacting factor that can affect coastal 

power plants that use high-salinity water for cooling. The only such nuclear plant is the Hope 

Creek plant in New Jersey, which has natural draft cooling towers and withdraws cooling water 

from the Delaware River estuary (see Section 3.3.2 for a discussion of Hope Creek cooling 

tower drift emissions). High rates of deposition on plants or soil can result in injury to plants 

from acute effects and may result in changes to plant communities from chronic effects 

(Talbot 1979). Salt-tolerant species may increase in abundance, while sensitive species may 

decrease. Some salt-tolerant species are invasive and may become dominant in affected 

areas. However, no measurable effects from cooling tower drift on plant communities in the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-70 

vicinity of Hope Creek have been observed (NRC 1996). The Palo Verde plant in Arizona uses 

cooling water with somewhat elevated salt concentrations. Studies have detected elevated 

levels of salt in plant leaves near the plant; however, the studies showed that no changes to 

native plants or crop production occurred (see Section 3.3.2 for a discussion of cooling tower 

drift emissions from the Palo Verde plant). 

Impacts from icing have been rare, minor, and localized near nuclear power plant cooling towers 

and have been corrected by changes in tower operation at the plants where they occurred. For 

example, icing damaged oak trees adjacent to the cooling towers at the Prairie Island plant in 

Minnesota, changing the tree canopy structure and reducing acorn viability. Changes in tower 

operations eliminated the impacts (NRC 1996). Impacts from increased humidity have not been 

observed at nuclear power plants. 

The continued operation of nuclear power plants would not be expected to result in increases in 

deposition rates from cooling towers or the accumulation of deposition constituents in soils. 

Because of the solubility of these materials, they are generally removed through precipitation. 

Plant communities in the vicinity of cooling towers have been exposed to many years of cooling 

tower operations, and are unlikely to change during the license renewal term. Any effects of 

icing during the renewal period would continue to be rare, minor, and localized. On the basis of 

these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of continued operation of cooling 

towers on plant communities would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and is considered a 

Category 1 issue. 

Bird Collisions with Plant Structures and Transmission Lines 

This section addresses the issue of avian mortality resulting from collisions of birds with natural 

draft cooling towers and transmission lines, within this scope of review (see Sections 3.1.1 and 

3.1.6.5 in this GEIS), and other plant structures at nuclear power plants. Natural draft towers, 

which are tall structures (usually taller than 330 ft [100 m]), cause some mortality, whereas 

mechanical draft towers, which are smaller (usually shorter than 100 ft [30 m]), cause negligible 

mortality (NRC 1996). Because of these facts, mechanical draft towers are not addressed here. 

The impacts from birds colliding with cooling towers and transmission lines were evaluated by 

reviewing the primary literature for avian collision mortality associated with all types of manmade objects, as well as the results of monitoring studies conducted at six nuclear plants. The 

magnitude of the impact of the mortality caused by cooling towers is determined by examining 

the actual numbers and species of birds killed and comparing this mortality with the total avian 

mortality resulting from other man-made objects relative to bird population size. 

Throughout the United States, it has been estimated that millions of birds are killed each year 

when they collide with man-made objects, including cooling towers, radio and television towers, 

buildings, vehicles, wind generation facilities, transmission lines, and numerous other objects 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-71 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

(Erickson et al. 2001). Many of these deaths can be considered unlawful take under the 

Endangered Species Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Bird mortality resulting from collisions 

with man-made structures is of concern if the stability of the local or migratory population of any 

bird species is threatened or if the reduction in numbers within any bird population significantly 

impairs its function within the ecosystem. 

The number of collision-related bird deaths varies, depending on the type of man-made object. 

For example, Table 4.6-3 shows the estimated annual bird collision mortality in the 

United States. Collisions with buildings and windows account for the greatest number of 

collision mortalities annually, whereas wind generation facilities account for the least number of 

collision- related deaths (Table 4.6-3; Erickson et al. 2001). These estimates differ largely as a 

result of the density of the man-made structures in the study areas. It is estimated that more 

than 98 million commercial and residential buildings exist across the United States (Klem 1990; 

Erickson et al. 2001); compare this number with the number of wind turbines, which is less than 

20,000 in 29 States (Manville 2005). 

There are nearly 100,000 communication towers registered with the Federal Communications 

Commission (68 FR 53696 k), some of which have been observed to cause a large number of 

avian collision mortalities (Able 1973; Kemper 1996; Crawford and Engstrom 2001). Most of 

these large mortality events at communication towers occur at night during spring and fall 

migration periods involving songbirds that appear to become confused by tower lights (Taylor 

and Kershner 1986; Larkin and Frase 1988; Manville 2005). For example, a single television 

tower in northern Florida, Crawford and Engstrom (2001) reported more than 44,000 bird 

Table 4.6-3. Estimated Annual Bird Collision Mortality in the 

United States

Source Annual Mortality(a)

Vehicles(b) 60 million to 80 million 

Buildings and windows(c) 98 million to 980 million 

Power lines(d)

 10,000 to 174 million 

Communication towers(e)

 4 million to 50 million 

Wind generation facilities(f) 10,000 to 40,000 

(a) Estimated annual mortality was extrapolated from literature reviews. 

(b) Includes automobiles, trains, and airplanes. 

(c) Includes buildings and attached structures such as smokestacks and windows. 

(d) Includes all electric communication lines and transmission lines. 

(e) Includes radio, television, cellular, microwave, and public safety towers. 

(f) Includes wind turbines and supporting structures. 

Source: Erickson et al. 2001 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-72 

collision mortalities over a 29-year period. Communication towers involved with the most bird 

collisions are tall (exceeding 1,000 ft [305 m]), illuminated at night with incandescent lights, 

guyed, and located near wetlands and bird migration pathways (Manville 2005). During nights 

of heavy cloud cover or fog, the incandescent lights illuminating the communication towers may 

attract migrating songbirds to the towers, increasing the likelihood of collisions. Compared to 

communication towers, cooling towers at nuclear power plants are shorter (less than 650 ft 

[200 m]) and are illuminated with low-intensity light sources (1.0 ft-candle or less), such that 

migrating birds may not be as attracted to them, thus decreasing the likelihood of collision. 

Natural draft cooling towers and transmission lines create collision hazards for migratory and 

local bird species. Monitoring of bird collisions has been done at several nuclear plants with 

natural draft cooling towers, including the Susquehanna plant on the Susquehanna River near 

Berwick in eastern Pennsylvania, the Davis-Besse plant on the shore of Lake Erie in north 

central Ohio, the Beaver Valley plant on the Ohio River in extreme western Pennsylvania, the 

former Trojan plant on the Columbia River in extreme northwestern Oregon, the Three Mile 

Island plant near Harrisburg in southeastern Pennsylvania, and the Arkansas plant on 

Dardanelle Lake in northwestern Arkansas. The following information regarding those plants 

was obtained from nuclear plant annual monitoring reports and from Temme and 

Jackson (1979). 

At the Susquehanna plant, surveys were conducted on weekdays during the spring and fall bird 

migrations from 1978 through 1986. (Unit 1 began operating in 1983 and Unit 2 came online in 

1985.) The plant’s natural draft towers are 165-m (540-ft) tall and illuminated at the top with 

480-V aircraft warning strobe lights. About 1,500 dead birds (total for all survey years, an 

average of 166 per year) representing 63 species were found; they had apparently collided with 

the cooling towers. Other birds were probably lost in the tower basin water during plant 

operation. Most of the birds were songbirds. Fewer collisions seemed to occur during plant 

operation, when cooling tower plumes and noise may have frightened birds away from the 

towers. 

At Davis-Besse, extensive surveys for dead birds were conducted from fall 1972 to fall 1979. 

Early morning surveys at the 152-m-tall (499-ft-tall) cooling tower were made almost daily from 

mid-April to mid-June and from the first of September to late October. After the tower began 

operating in the fall of 1976, some dead birds were lost through the water outlets of the tower 

basin. A total of 1,561 dead birds were found, an average of 195 per year. The dead birds 

included 1,229 at the cooling tower, 224 around Unit 1 structures, and 108 at the meteorological 

tower. Most were night-migrating songbirds, particularly wood-warblers (family Parulidae), 

vireos (Vireo spp.), and kinglets (Regulus spp.). Waterfowl that were abundant in nearby 

marshes and ponds suffered little collision mortality. Most collision mortalities at the cooling 

tower occurred during years when the cooling tower was not well illuminated (1974 to spring 

1978). After the completion of Unit 1 structures and installation of many safety lights around the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-73 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

buildings in the fall of 1978, collision mortality was significantly reduced (average of 236 per 

year from 1974 through 1977, 135 in 1978, and 51 in 1979). This reduction was accomplished 

by installing low-intensity light sources (1.0 ft-candle or less) to illuminate the cooling tower, 

which allowed birds to see and avoid it. It appears that the lights at nuclear plants do not 

confuse birds to the extent that lights on radio or TV towers sometimes do. 

At Beaver Valley, surveys were conducted at the natural draft tower in the spring and fall 

seasons from 1974 through 1978. A total of 27 dead birds were found. At the Trojan plant, 

surveys were conducted weekly in 1984 and 1988 at the 499-ft-tall (152-m-tall) cooling tower, 

meteorological tower, switchyard, and generation building. No dead birds were found. At the 

371-ft-tall (113-m-tall) cooling towers at Three Mile Island, 66 dead birds were found from 1973 

through 1975. No dead birds were found at the Arkansas plant, where monitoring at the natural 

draft tower was done twice weekly from October 15 through April 15 in 1978–79 and 1979–80. 

The available data on cooling-tower collision mortality suggest that cooling towers at nuclear 

power plants cause only a very small fraction of the total annual bird collision mortality from all 

sources. A very high percentage of all collision mortalities occur during the spring and fall bird 

migration periods and involve primarily songbirds migrating at night. The relatively few nuclear 

power plants in the United States that have natural draft towers (24 towers at operating nuclear 

power plants), combined with the relatively low bird mortality at individual natural draft towers, 

indicates that (1) bird populations are not greatly affected by collisions with nuclear power plant 

cooling towers and (2) the contribution of cooling towers to the cumulative effects of bird 

collision mortalities is very small. Mechanical draft cooling towers, which are not nearly as tall 

as natural draft towers, pose little risk to migrating birds. 

Because the frequency of avian mortality resulting from collisions with cooling towers is small for 

any species, it is unlikely that the losses would threaten the stability of local migratory bird 

populations or result in a noticeable impairment of the function of a species within local 

ecosystems. There is no reason to believe that the annual mortality rate resulting from collision 

of birds with any cooling tower would be different during the license renewal term. Mitigation 

measures may include illuminating the natural draft cooling towers at night with low-intensity 

lights so birds can see the towers and avoid collisions. Because cooling towers represent only 

a small part of total bird collision mortality, it is not expected that there will be any incremental 

impact on bird populations from cooling tower collision mortality as a result of license renewal. 

The impact from bird collisions with cooling towers during the license renewal term was 

considered to be SMALL for all nuclear plants and was designated as a Category 1 issue in the 

1996 GEIS. No new information has been identified in the plant-specific SEISs prepared to date 

or the literature that would alter that conclusion. 

The potential for birds to collide with transmission lines depends on a number of factors, such 

as bird species, migration behavior, and location and physical characteristics of the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-74 

transmission line (Bevanger 1988; Janss 2000; Manville 2005). Larger-bodied bird species 

such as raptors are more likely to collide with transmission lines (Harness and Wilson 2001; 

Manville 2005), whereas smaller-bodied birds such as migrating songbirds are more likely to 

collide with towers (Temme and Jackson 1979). This difference is most likely the result of 

differences in the behavior of raptors and songbirds. Raptors are known to use utility structures 

as perch locations and nest sites more often than do songbirds (Blue 1996; Manville 2005), 

whereas nocturnal migrating songbirds may become confused by the lights on communication 

towers (Crawford and Engstrom 2001). Lights are not a contributing factor in bird collisions at 

transmission lines because lights are not generally used to mark transmission lines. 

It is unknown to what extent bird populations are negatively affected by deaths caused by 

collisions with transmission lines. Generally, bird mortality resulting from collisions with 

transmission lines has appeared to be only a small fraction of total mortality; therefore, it has not 

been considered to have significant population impacts (Stout and Cornwell 1976; Banks 1979). 

However, rare, threatened, or endangered species may be affected by transmission lines, 

particularly if the lines pass through areas where such species are concentrated (Sergio et al. 

2004; Sundar and Choudhury 2005). There are no reports of relatively high collision mortality 

occurring at the transmission lines associated with nuclear power plants in the United States. As 

described in Section 3.1.6.5 and further in 3.1.1, in-scope transmission lines include only those 

lines that connect the plant to the first substation that feeds into the regional power distribution 

system. This substation is frequently, but not always, located on the plant property. The length 

of transmission lines associated with nuclear plants is considerably less than the total 

500,000 mi (800,000 km) of transmission lines estimated within the United States (Manville 

2005). Therefore, transmission lines associated with nuclear power plants are likely responsible 

for only a small fraction of total bird collision mortality. 

Because the literature does not indicate there is a significant impact from collision mortality on 

overall species populations and because there are no known instances in which nuclear plant 

transmission lines have affected local bird populations, it is not expected that the mortality 

resulting from bird collisions with transmission lines associated with nuclear plants and an 

additional 20 years of plant operation would cause long-term reductions in bird populations. 

The impact of bird collisions with transmission lines during the license renewal term was 

considered to be SMALL for all plants and was designated as a Category 1 issue in the 

1996 GEIS. No new information was identified in the site-specific SEISs prepared to date or the 

literature that would alter that conclusion. On the basis of these considerations, the NRC 

concludes that the impact of bird collisions with plant structures and transmission lines during 

the license renewal term would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and remains a Category 1 

issue. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-75 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Water Use Conflicts with Terrestrial Resources (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling 

Towers Using Makeup Water from a River) 

In the 1996 GEIS, water use conflicts included ecological impacts on aquatic and riparian 

communities. The NRC separated out the ecological impacts in this revised GEIS to specifically 

address the effects of water use conflict on terrestrial resources in riparian communities. This 

new issue specifically applies to nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers, 

typically with high levels of consumptive use and that use makeup water from a river. Water 

use conflicts with terrestrial resources in riparian communities could occur when water that 

supports these resources is diminished either because of decreased availability due to 

droughts; increased water demand for agricultural, municipal, or industrial usage; or a 

combination of such factors. For example, Wolf Creek uses Coffee County Lake for cooling 

(NRC 2008a). Makeup water for the lake is withdrawn from the Neosho River downstream of 

John Redmond Reservoir. The Neosho River is a small river with especially low water flow 

during drought conditions. The riparian communities downstream of this reservoir may be 

affected by the plant’s water use during periods when the lake level is low and makeup water is 

obtained from the Neosho River. For the Wolf Creek plant, the water use conflict impact is 

SMALL to MODERATE and a site-specific condition. For future license renewals, the potential 

range of impact levels at plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a 

river cannot be determined at this time. The NRC concludes that the impact of water use 

conflicts with riparian communities is a plant-specific Category 2 issue. 

Transmission Line ROW Management Impacts on Terrestrial Resources 

This section evaluates the extent to which plant communities and wildlife populations could be 

affected by transmission line ROW management during the license renewal term at all nuclear 

power plants. This issue is a consolidation of two issues that were evaluated in the 1996 GEIS: 

(1) power line ROW management (cutting and herbicide application) and (2) floodplains and 

wetland on power line ROW. Impacts on these resources were considered to be SMALL for all 

plants and were designated as Category 1 issues in the 1996 GEIS. As described in 

Section 3.1.6.5 and further in 3.1.1, in-scope transmission lines include only those lines that 

connect the plant to the first substation that feeds into the regional power distribution system. 

This substation is frequently, but not always, located on the plant property. 

Generally, ROW management involves clearcutting, selective cutting of tall woody vegetation, 

mowing, or herbicide application. These activities alter the physical features of vegetation 

communities by reducing vegetation height, density, and species diversity, which may impact 

wildlife populations inhabiting those areas. The cutting of woody vegetation is usually not 

needed in grassland, desert, or shrub habitats, so associated impacts are not an issue there. 

Habitat quality in the ROW and nearby areas may be affected, and ROW management may 

affect local wildlife populations. Data on the effects of maintenance of transmission line ROWs 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-76 

specifically associated with nuclear power plants are not available, but the literature applies to 

such transmission lines because the methods used to maintain transmission line ROWs are 

similar for any transmission line ROW at any facility. 

Plant communities are affected by the presence of maintained ROWs as well as other ongoing 

maintenance activities. The principal impacts associated with transmission line ROWs occur as 

a result of the initial clearing activities during transmission line installation. During installation, 

forested upland and wetland habitats in ROWs are typically converted to scrub-shrub 

communities, herbaceous upland, or emergent wetland types when trees are removed. Effects 

are less extensive where ROWs are established in grassland, desert, or shrub habitats. ROW 

effects extend beyond the area of direct disturbance. Transmission line ROWs established in 

otherwise undeveloped areas contribute to habitat fragmentation and affect the distribution of 

species in undisturbed areas along the corridors. The effects of habitat fragmentation 

associated with clearings and the creation of edges may continue to develop over a 

considerable period of time, since some species are lost while others become established 

(Saunders et al. 1991). Clearings in wooded areas tend to contribute to an increase in deer 

populations and increased access to forest interior areas (Alverson et al. 1988). The gradual 

loss of some plant species from these areas due to browsing may extend over many decades. 

The operation of heavy equipment during ROW maintenance activities can result in soil 

compaction, affecting the establishment of some native plant species. ROW corridors 

occasionally provide a route for the introduction or expansion of invasive species populations 

into new areas. Significant changes in vegetation cover, such as removal of the tree canopy, 

and compaction of upland soils within the watershed of a wetland generally result in increased 

runoff and reduced infiltration to shallow groundwater, causing an increase or decrease in 

hydrologic input to nearby wetlands (EPA 1993, 1996; Wright et al. 2006). Effects include 

changes in the frequency or duration of inundation or soil saturation and greater fluctuations in 

wetland water levels. Runoff often contains sediments, contaminants from road and parking 

surfaces, or herbicides used in ROW or site vegetation management. Erosion of wetland 

substrates and plants can result from increased flow velocities that result from the changes in 

runoff and surface drainage patterns. 

The presence of the ROWs would continue to affect the habitats within and adjacent to the 

transmission line corridors during the license renewal term; there would be more light and less 

soil moisture than found in undisturbed habitats. The plant communities that became 

established during the years of the initial operating license would generally remain altered 

communities, with a different species composition and community structure than undisturbed 

habitats. In many areas, ROW management would prevent the development of mature plant 

communities. Plant species that are typically associated with high-quality, undisturbed native 

habitats and are intolerant of disturbed conditions would generally continue to be excluded from 

ROWs. Although species diversity may be high in these disturbed habitats, many of the species 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-77 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

may be common or weedy native species or non-natives. However, in some areas, rare or 

protected species that require open canopies, such as the golden sedge (Carex lutea), Cooley’s 

meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), and rough-leaf loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), which 

occur within the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant ROWs in North Carolina, would continue to 

occur under the conditions existing within the ROWs. Invasive upland or wetland species that 

became established within the ROWs during the initial operating license would continue to 

exclude native species and reduce species diversity (BPA 2000). Invasive species populations 

may continue to expand unless aggressive management efforts are implemented. 

Plant communities in and along ROWs are generally maintained in a modified condition for safe 

and efficient operation of the transmission lines. To protect the electric conductors, ROW 

management typically includes the periodic cutting of tall trees and application of herbicides. 

Tree cutting is a minor management activity in regions where tree growth in ROWs is limited, 

such as in grasslands, desert, or shrubland areas. Mowing is also frequently used as a 

management method to control the growth of woody species and promote the establishment of 

grassland or other herbaceous habitat types. Management activities and transmission line 

repair occasionally result in the erosion of exposed soils where vegetation has been removed or 

where soils are disturbed by equipment. Management activities that result in the disturbance, 

compaction, or exposure of soils may promote the establishment of invasive species 

(BPA 2000). Erosion of upland soils may result in sedimentation or increased turbidity in 

wetlands within the watershed. Herbicides used to manage undesirable species may drift onto 

nontarget species or affect wetland communities through runoff from treated areas (BLM 2007). 

The operation of heavy equipment in wetlands during ROW maintenance or transmission line 

repair can damage or compact wetland soils and vegetation. 

Many of the nuclear power plants incorporate mitigation into their ROW management plans to 

protect wetlands or other sensitive or high-quality habitats. For example, within the ROWs of 

the Millstone plant in Connecticut, precautions are taken to protect and promote quality habitats. 

Herbicide use is prohibited within 10 ft of wetlands or surface water, and mowing is conducted 

only from November through April to protect saturated soils and minimize loss of fruit and seeds 

(NRC 2005c). ROW maintenance practices used at the Brunswick plant in North Carolina, such 

as methods of herbicide use, are designed to preserve and protect rare and listed plant species 

and sensitive natural areas known to occur within the ROWs. Established procedures are in 

place to protect rare and listed plant species if they are encountered by maintenance crews 

(NRC 2006b). At the Browns Ferry plant in Alabama, field studies are conducted to inventory 

and protect listed plant species and sensitive habitats. Species populations are monitored, and 

habitats are managed and maintained. In the most sensitive areas, vehicles and equipment are 

prohibited, and all vegetation clearing is done by hand (NRC 2005d). 

Most data on the impacts of transmission line ROWs on wildlife are for relatively moist areas of 

the United States where vegetation growth is rapid and vegetation must be controlled to prevent 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-78 

its interference with the transmission lines. In arid regions, little or no vegetation control is 

required, and the potential effects on wildlife are small. Potential effects are also small where 

lines cross croplands, because no vegetation management is required. The following 

discussion is therefore applicable primarily to forested regions where the utility must control 

vegetation on transmission line ROWs. 

The maintenance of a transmission line ROW could directly affect wildlife as the result 

of (1) continued habitat loss or alteration; (2) displacement due to noise during maintenance 

activities; (3) mortality from maintenance equipment, conductors, or wires; (4) reduced mobility 

of some species, such as amphibians, across the cleared ROW; and (5) toxicity from herbicide 

or fuel spills. ROW creation establishes, and maintenance activities maintain, a new habitat 

type that divides a pre-existing and usually much larger habitat type, such as a forest 

(Yahner et al. 2004). The increased amount of edge along the boundary of the two habitats 

may affect wildlife by (1) increasing rates of predation among nesting birds, (2) restricting 

wildlife dispersal and migration patterns, (3) negatively affecting wildlife species that require 

large undisturbed areas, or (4) increasing local wildlife abundance and diversity. 

Many studies identify the potential effects of ROW maintenance on wildlife populations. 

Transmission line ROWs may represent a barrier for species, such as large mammalian 

carnivores, that require large tracts of contiguous forested habitat (Crooks 2002). ROW 

maintenance may also have negative effects on smaller, less mobile wildlife species. For 

example, studies have shown that some amphibian species have difficulty crossing disturbed 

habitat and may experience increased rates of mortality as a result of physiological stress 

(Gibbs 1998; Rothermel 2004). 

Traditionally, habitat edges have been considered to be beneficial to wildlife because species 

diversity is usually greater there (Yahner 1988). However, some species such as neotropical 

migrating songbirds that prefer interior forest habitat may be adversely affected by the increase 

in edge habitat associated with ROW clearings. These species require large blocks of forest for 

successful reproduction and survival (Wilcove 1988). Studies have found that nests of these 

bird species placed near edges are more likely to fail as a result of predation or nest parasitism 

than nests located near the forest interior (Paton 1994; Robinson et al. 1995). This failure is 

often due to an increase in the abundance of predators (e.g., skunks and raccoons) and nest 

parasites (e.g., brown-headed cowbirds [Molothrus ater] that lay their eggs in the nests of other 

birds), which are capable of proliferating in disturbed areas and edge habitats (Evans and 

Gates 1997; Crooks and Soulé 1999). Increased predation and nest parasitism rates along 

edge habitats have reduced the populations of some neotropical bird species to the point where 

they have become locally extinct (Crooks and Soulé 1999). 

Numerous studies indicate that wildlife populations can benefit from ROW management. 

Ongoing research on the effects of ROW management on wildlife has been conducted for more 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-79 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

than 50 years at the State Game Lands 33 Research Project in Pennsylvania (Yahner 2004). 

Results of the studies conducted at that site indicate that long-term management of the ROW 

may provide an essential food source and cover habitat for insects, amphibians and reptiles, 

numerous bird species, and mammals such as black bear (Ursus americanus) and white-tailed 

deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Even species of concern, such as neotropical migrant birds, 

have been commonly observed using the brushy habitats provided by the ROW. 

Yahner et al. (2002, 2004) found that herbicide treatments in the ROW did not have any 

adverse effects on the nesting success of neotropical migrating bird species like the eastern 

towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus). King and Byers (2002) discovered that songbird nesting 

success was greater within the brushy ROW habitat than in nearby vegetation communities. 

In a study of rodent populations in Oregon, Wolff et al. (1997) found higher densities of graytailed voles (Microtus canicaudus) in disturbed open habitats than in other habitats. They also 

found no effect of habitat disturbance on vole survival, reproductive success, or population size. 

Johnson et al. (1979) found that the diversity of small mammals was greater in ROW habitats 

than in adjacent forest habitats. There is also evidence that ROW maintenance can provide 

suitable habitat for some important insect populations, such as butterflies (Bramble et al. 1999). 

Thus, the management of ROW habitats may provide suitable habitat for a number of wildlife 

species, including some sensitive species such as neotropical migrant songbirds. 

An important aspect of ROW management is the consideration of management strategies that 

limit the adverse effects on wildlife species. Herbicides are generally not highly toxic to wildlife 

when they are properly applied for ROW management. Therefore, toxic effects of herbicides on 

wildlife are generally of little concern to wildlife biologists or wildlife managers. Of the papers 

reviewed for this analysis, none expressed serious concern about toxic effects. In fact, some 

management techniques using herbicides have been proposed to maintain the function of the 

ROW and maximize the amount of suitable habitat for wildlife species. Yahner et al. (2002) 

proposed a phased approach to control the growth of undesirable plants, such as large trees, 

and maintain an early successional shrub-like plant community along the ROW. This objective 

could be accomplished through a combination of mechanical treatments (e.g., mowing) and 

selective herbicide applications. This approach could minimize the costs associated with 

vegetation management along a ROW and might be an important conservation tool for 

numerous wildlife species (Marshall and Vandruff 2002; Yahner et al. 2002). 

The overall impact of transmission line ROW areas appears to be neither significantly adverse 

nor significantly beneficial. The consensus among wildlife biologists appears to be that although 

the initial habitat destruction associated with ROW clearing can have numerous consequences 

on wildlife populations, the proper management of transmission line ROW areas does not have 

significant adverse impacts on current wildlife populations, and ROW management can provide 

valuable wildlife habitats. Of the papers reviewed for this evaluation, none identified any 

significant impact of transmission line corridors on wildlife. The evidence supports a conclusion 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-80 

that continued ROW management during the license renewal term will not lower habitat quality 

or cause significant changes in wildlife populations in the surrounding habitat. On the basis of 

these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of continued transmission line ROW 

management on terrestrial resources is SMALL for all nuclear plants and remains a Category 1 

issue. 

Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna (Plants, Agricultural Crops, Honeybees, 

Wildlife, Livestock) 

As described in Section 3.1.6.5 and further in 3.1.1, in-scope transmission lines include only 

those lines that connect the plant to the first substation that feeds into the regional power 

distribution system. This substation is frequently, but not always, located on the plant property. 

The effects of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial biota are considered to be of SMALL 

significance if the overall health, productivity, and reproduction of individual species appear 

unaffected. 

The EMFs produced by operating transmission lines up to 1,100 kV have not been reported to 

have any biologically or economically significant impact on plants, wildlife, agricultural crops, or 

livestock (Lee et al. 1989; Miller 1983). Areas under and in the vicinity of the lines have been 

studied numerous times. Vegetation, foliar damage due to EMF-induced corona at leaf 

margins, agricultural crop production, wildlife population abundance, livestock production, and 

potential livestock avoidance of the lines have been investigated. Also, many laboratory 

experiments with plants and laboratory animals have been conducted, often using electric fields 

much stronger than those occurring under transmission lines. 

Plants—Studies have shown that minor damage to plant foliage and buds can occur in the 

vicinity of strong electric fields. For example, tree foliage and buds that are close to 

transmission lines can be damaged and upward or outward growth of branches can be reduced. 

Damage typically occurs only to the tips and margins of leaves in the uppermost plant parts that 

are the closest to the lines. The damage in the form of a leaf burn is most prevalent on small 

pointed leaves and is similar to leaf damage that might occur as a result of drought or other 

environmental stresses. The damage generally does not interfere with overall plant growth 

(Miller 1983). 

The damage is thought to result from heating caused by induced corona at the leaf tips and 

margins. The electric field is greatly focused by leaf points or marginal teeth, thus increasing its 

strength to the point that corona (Section 4.6.1.3) occurs. Night-vision instruments have shown 

this corona as a glow of light concentrated at leaf tips and margins. The damage apparently 

does not extend to lower levels of the plant because the electric field weakens with distance 

from the lines and because the upper plant parts shield the lower parts from the electric field. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-81 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

In one experiment under an 1,100-kV prototype line, the upward growth of alder and Douglas fir 

trees was reduced by this damage, with the result that the crowns of the trees became 

somewhat flattened on top and the overall crown developed a broader appearance than usual 

(Rogers et al. 1984). The growth of the lower parts of the trees and of lower-growing plants 

such as pasture grass, barley, and peas appeared unaffected (Rogers and Hinds 1983). In 

another experiment, 50-kV/m fields had no apparent effect on corn germination or the growth of 

corn seedlings; and the growth of corn, bluegrass, and alfalfa apparently was not affected by 

fields of 25–50 kV even though minor damage occurred to the outer fringes of the uppermost 

leaves (Bankoske et al. 1976). Germination of sunflower seeds in a 5-kV/m electric field was 

reduced by about 5 percent in some cases [4 out of 11 replicates (Marino et al. 1983)]. An 

experiment with several species of agricultural plants found that a maximum of about 1 percent 

of the total plant tissue was damaged by exposing the plants to 50-kV/m fields (Poznaniak and 

Reed 1978). 

Lee et al. (1989) reviewed several papers reporting studies in Indiana, Tennessee, and 

Arkansas. The productivity of corn and other crop plants was not affected by electric fields of 

12 to 16 kV/m under a 765-kV line and a UHV test line in Indiana, although plants under the 

larger line suffered some leaf tip damage from induced corona. Corn production in Tennessee 

may have been reduced by electric fields up to 8.5 kV/m, but the authors indicated the results 

were inconclusive. An Arkansas study found normal yields of rice and soybeans, but a 

15 percent reduced yield of cotton beneath a 500-kV line (see Section 4.3.1.1). The 

researchers could not determine whether the reduced cotton yield resulted from electric field or 

ineffective aerial application of agricultural chemicals beneath the line. 

Honeybees—Several studies have shown that honeybees in hives under transmission lines are 

affected by EMF (Greenburg et al. 1985; Rogers and Hinds 1983; Warren et al. 1981). Adverse 

effects include increased propolis (a reddish resinous cement) production, reduced growth, 

greater irritability, and increased mortality. These effects can be greatly reduced by shielding 

the hives with a grounded metal screen or by moving the hives away from the lines (Rogers and 

Hinds 1983; Lee 1980). Bindokas et al. (1988) showed that these impacts were not caused by 

direct effects of the electric fields on the bees but by voltage buildup and electric currents within 

the hives and the resultant shocks to bees. Bees kept in moisture-free nonconductive 

conditions were not adversely affected, even in electric fields as strong as 100 kV/m. 

Wildlife and Livestock—Chronic exposure to EMF is experienced by small birds and mammals 

that primarily inhabit ROW corridors and by birds (primarily raptors) that nest in transmission 

line towers. EMF exposures to larger animals and livestock are usually relatively brief because 

these animals inhabit relatively large areas instead of small areas beneath the lines. Exposures 

occur as these larger animals pass beneath the lines or as birds fly by the lines. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-82 

The voluminous literature on population studies of small bird and mammal species in 

transmission line corridors (presented earlier in this section) has expressed virtually no concern 

for possible impacts of EMFs. These species apparently thrive underneath the lines, where 

their abundance appears to depend on habitat quality rather than on the strength of the electric 

fields to which they are exposed or the size of the line. For example, the density of breeding 

birds under 500-kV lines in eastern Tennessee is greater than that in adjacent forests 

(Kroodsma 1984, 1987) and appears to be greater than bird density in most grassland habitats 

or agricultural fields. Also, the density of small mammal populations near these lines appears to 

depend on habitat type rather than on the presence of the lines (Schreiber et al. 1976). 

A Minnesota study of a 500-kV line found little evidence of either a positive or negative effect of 

the power line on bird populations (Niemi and Hanowski 1984). Bird and small mammal 

populations under an 1,100-kV line in Oregon were also apparently unaffected by line 

operations (Rogers and Hinds 1983). Habitat use by elk in western Montana was apparently 

unaffected by operation of a 500-kV line, as the elk used habitats along the power line in 

proportion to their availability (Canfield 1988). 

Raptors, ravens, and some water bird species frequently nest and perch on transmission line 

towers, particularly in grassland areas where other suitable nest sites are lacking. Thus, the 

birds are able to use habitats without suitable nest sites—habitats that they otherwise would not 

have used (Gilmer and Stewart 1983; Williams and Colson 1989). On high-voltage lines 

supported by metal lattice towers, the birds usually nest on the top (bridge) of the tower where 

the strength of the electric field is minimal (e.g., 5 kV/m or less) (Lee 1980). Lee found 

80 percent of 110 nests on towers to be located on the tower bridge and cited previous studies 

that showed similar results. 

The success of these tower nests in producing young appears to be no different from nests 

located in areas not exposed to EMF. In central North Dakota, 113 ferruginous hawk nests in 

high-voltage transmission line towers (18 percent of a total of 628 nests found) had a higher 

success rate (87 percent) than nests in other locations (however, a hail storm that missed the 

lines reduced the success of some other nests). The number of fledglings per occupied nest 

was 2.8 for ground nests (which were larger than tower or tree nests), 2.6 for tower nests, 

2.3 for haystack nests, and 2.0 for tree nests (Gilmer and Stewart 1983). In Idaho, 

Steenhof et al. (1993) studied nesting success of ravens and raptors on a 370-mile (576-km) 

segment of 500-kV transmission line constructed in 1981. From 1981 through 1989 (the last 

year reported by Steenhof et al. 1993), the numbers of these species nesting on transmission 

towers increased to 133 pairs, including roughly 64 percent common ravens, 21 percent 

red-tailed hawks, 9 percent ferruginous hawks, 6 percent golden eagles, and 0.3 percent great 

horned owls. Nesting success of these birds averaged 65 percent to 86 percent and was similar 

to or better than that of the same species nesting on other structures. Lee (1980) reported 

finding 110 hawk and raven nests on 260 miles (418 km) of 230-kV and 500-kV lines of the 

Bonneville Power Administration. Although the success of these nests was not monitored, the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-83 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

author reported that, based on a literature review, it was unlikely that nesting would be 

adversely affected by EMF found in most locations in transmission line towers. 

Livestock in both field and laboratory studies have shown no significant impacts when exposed 

to EMF. Lee et al. (1989) reviewed about 10 reports on effects of transmission lines on 

livestock in the United States and Sweden. These studies found no evidence that the growth, 

production, or behavior of beef and dairy cattle, sheep, hogs, or horses were affected by EMFs. 

The studies involved 11 farms along a 765-kV line in Indiana, 55 dairy farms near 765-kV lines 

in Ohio, 36 herds of cattle near 400-kV lines in Sweden, a mail survey of 106 farms in Sweden, 

a study of fertility of 58 cows under a 400-kV line in Sweden compared with 58 in a control area, 

30 swine raised beneath a 345-kV line in Iowa compared with 30 raised in a control area, and 

cattle behavior under an 1,100-kV prototype line in Oregon. Cattle under the 1,100-kV test line 

in Oregon were startled by the first occurrence of corona noise when the line was re-energized 

after a reactor shutdown period (Rogers and Hinds 1983). From 1977 through 1981, grazing of 

cattle in pasture under the line appeared to be unaffected by line operation. In 1980–1981, the 

cattle spent more time near the line during periods when it was de-energized than when it was 

operating, but spent an increasing amount of time under the line when it was operating as the 

growing season progressed (Rogers and Hinds 1983). 

In the Indiana study (Amstutz and Miller 1980), performance of livestock frequently under a 

765-kV line on 11 farms was studied during a 2-year period (1977–1979; 9 farms participated 

for the full 2 years). Animals included 10 horses, 55 sheep, 149 beef cattle, 337 hogs, and 

429 dairy cattle. Maximum field voltage levels recorded near ground level were about 9.1 kV/m. 

General health, behavior, and performance of the animals were not affected by the transmission 

line EMF. 

In the Swedish study of cow fertility, 58 heifers were exposed to a 400-kV, 50-Hz transmission 

line from June to mid-October 1985 (Algers and Hultgren 1987). The length of exposure was 

15 to 20 times longer than the average exposure per year for Swedish dairy herds exposed 

to 400-kV lines. No effects were observed on the frequency of malformations, the length or 

variation of the estrous cycle, the mid-cycle plasma progesterone level, the intensity of estrus, 

the number of inseminations per pregnancy, the overall conception rate, or the fetal viability. 

Previous studies of cattle showed no significant effects of EMFs on reproduction. 

Conclusion—No significant impacts of EMFs on terrestrial biota have been identified. Although 

foliage very close to lines can be damaged, the overall productivity and reproduction of native 

and agricultural plants appear unaffected. Also, no evidence suggests significant impacts on 

individual animals or wildlife populations that are chronically exposed to EMFs under 

transmission lines or in the towers. Livestock behavior and production also appear unaffected 

by line operation. Therefore, the potential impact of EMFs on terrestrial biota is expected to be 

of SMALL significance for all plants. The only potential mitigation would be to exclude plants 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-84 

and animals from the right of way, a measure with very severe impacts of its own. However, 

because the impact is of small significance and because mitigation measures could create 

additional environmental impacts and would be costly, no mitigation measures beyond those 

implemented during the current term license would be warranted. This remains a Category 1 

issue. 

4.6.1.2 Aquatic Resources 

Continued operations of the nuclear power plants during the 20-year license renewal term 

includes the operation of the cooling system (once-through, cooling ponds, or cooling towers), 

transmission line ROW maintenance, releases of gaseous and liquid effluents, facility 

maintenance, and refurbishment-related construction activities. Aquatic organisms would 

continue to be subject to impingement, entrainment, thermal discharges, chemical and 

radiological contaminants, and erosion and sedimentation. This section considers eleven 

issues concerning impacts of the proposed action on aquatic resources: 

• Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling 

systems or cooling ponds) (consolidation of two issues from the 1996 GEIS: 

(1) entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages and (2) impingement of fish and 

shellfish (for plants with once-through cooling and cooling pond heat dissipation 

systems)). 

• Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers) 

(consolidation of two issues from the 1996 GEIS: (1) entrainment of fish and shellfish in 

early life stages and (2) impingement of fish and shellfish (for plants with cooling towerbased heat dissipation systems)). 

• Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton (all plants) (issue in the 1996 GEIS); 

• Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or 

cooling ponds) (issue was modified and renamed from the 1996 GEIS issue, “Heat 

shock (for plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems)”); 

• Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers) (issue was modified 

and renamed from the 1996 GEIS issue, “Heat shock (for plants with cooling-towerbased heat dissipation systems)”); 

• Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all plants) (consolidation of five issues from the 

1996 GEIS: (1) cold shock, (2) thermal plume barrier to migrating fish, (3) distribution of 

aquatic organisms, (4) premature emergence of aquatic insects; and (5) stimulation of 

nuisance organisms (e.g., shipworms)); 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-85 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

• Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and 

eutrophication (consolidation of three issues from the 1996 GEIS: (1) eutrophication, 

(2) gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease), and (3) low dissolved oxygen in the 

discharge); 

• Effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms (issue was modified and 

renamed from the 1996 GEIS issue, accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota, 

to include contaminant effects other than just accumulation); 

• Exposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides (new issue not considered in the 

1996 GEIS); 

• Effects of dredging on aquatic organisms (new issue not considered in the 1996 GEIS); 

• Water use conflicts with aquatic resources (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers 

using makeup water from a river) (new issue not considered in the 1996 GEIS); 

• Effects on aquatic resources (non-cooling system impacts) (issue was modified and 

renamed from the 1996 GEIS issue, “Refurbishment,” to include non-refurbishment 

impacts); 

• Impacts of transmission line ROW management on aquatic resources (new issue not 

considered in the 1996 GEIS); 

• Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal 

stresses (issue in the 1996 GEIS). 

Overview of Impingement and Entrainment 

Impingement occurs when organisms are held 

against the intake screen or netting placed 

within intake canals. Most impingement 

involves fish and shellfish. Table 4.6-4 lists 

some of the fish species commonly impinged at 

power plants. At some nuclear power plants, 

other vertebrate species may also be impinged 

on the traveling screens or on intake netting 

placed within intake canals. These include five 

species of sea turtle: loggerhead (Caretta

caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s 

Impingement 

Impingement is the entrapment of all life 

stages of fish and shellfish on the outer part 

of an intake structure or against a screening 

device during periods of water withdrawal 

(40 CFR 125.83). 

Entrainment 

Entrainment is incorporation of all life stages 

of fish and shellfish with intake water flow 

entering and passing through a cooling-water 

intake structure and into a cooling water 

system (40 CFR 125.83). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-86 

Table 4.6-4. Fish Species Commonly Impinged or 

Entrained at Power Plants 

Ecosystem Type Fish Species 

Rivers Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) 

 Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) 

 Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) 

 White bass (Morone chrysops) 

 Sunfish (Lepomis spp.) 

 Crappie (Pomoxis spp.) 

 Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) 

 Freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) 

 

Great Lakes Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) 

 Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) 

 Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) 

 Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) 

 

Estuaries Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) 

 Tautog (Tautoga onitis) 

 Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) 

 Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) 

 Winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) 

 Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) 

 

Oceans Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) 

 Striped anchovy (Anchoa hepsetus) 

 Silver perch (Bairdiella chrysura) 

 Cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus) 

 Scaled sardine (Harengula jaquana) 

 Queenfish (Seriphus politus) 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-87 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

ridley (Lepidochelys kempi), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys

imbricata). Impingement of these sea turtles has occurred at the Diablo Canyon and San 

Onofre plants on the Pacific coast; at the Salem, Oyster Creek, Brunswick, and St. Lucie plants 

on the Atlantic coast; and at the Crystal River plant on the Gulf coast on the either Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico coasts or east coast (Gunter et al. 2001). Waterfowl have also been impinged at 

several plants; examples are double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) at Point Beach 

plant in Wisconsin (NRC 2005b), lesser scaup (Aythya affinis) at Cook in Michigan (Mitchell and 

Carlson 1993), and lesser scaup and greater scaup (A. marila) at Nine Mile Point in New York 

(NRC 2006d). Isolated incidents of impingement or other impacts from power plants have been 

reported for other vertebrates, such as the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) at Turkey 

Point in Florida and the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) at Turkey Point and 

St. Lucie in Florida (Gunter et al. 2001). Small numbers of harbor (Phoca vitulina), gray 

(Halichoerus grypus), harp (Pagophilus groenlandicus), and hooded (Cystophora cristata) seals 

have been impinged at Seabrook in New Hampshire (67 FR 61). Impingement impacts are 

expected to continue during the license renewal term. The impacts of impingement are different 

for once-through and closed-cycle cooling systems and are therefore discussed separately 

below. 

Entrainment occurs when organisms pass through the intake screens and travel through the 

condenser cooling system. Aquatic organisms typically entrained include ichthyoplankton (fish 

eggs and larvae), larval stages of shellfish and other macroinvertebrates, zooplankton, and 

phytoplankton. Juveniles and adults of some species may also be entrained if they are small 

enough to pass through the intake screen openings, which are commonly 0.38 in. (1 cm) at the 

widest point. Table 4.6-4 lists fish species commonly entrained at power plants. 

 

Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Once-Through Cooling 

Systems and Cooling Ponds) 

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC considered that for plants with a once-through cooling systems or 

cooling ponds, the impacts of impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms were SMALL 

at many plants but MODERATE to LARGE at a few nuclear plants. Therefore, impingement 

and entrainment were considered Category 2 issues. For plants that operate in a hybrid mode, 

impingement and entrainment would be SMALL at most nuclear plants, but could be 

MODERATE or LARGE at a few plants, and were also considered Category 2 issues. 

Impingement is more of a concern at nuclear plants that have once-through cooling because 

these plants require a larger amount of water than plants that operate under closed-cycle (NRC 

1996). Impingement monitoring at the Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan demonstrated 

this difference. In 1972, when the plant used once-through cooling, 654,000 fish were impinged 

yearly at a water withdrawal rate of 400,000 gpm. In 1976, cooling towers were added to the 

plant, and it began operating as a closed-cycle plant. Intake withdrawal rate was reduced to 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-88 

78,000 gpm, and impingement dropped to 7,200 fish per year (Consumers Energy Company 

and Nuclear Management Company 2001). McLean et al. (2002) reported that the magnitude 

of impingement at Maryland power plants with similar intake designs within Chesapeake Bay 

differed greatly according to the location of the intake. 

Impingement at the Quad Cities plant in Illinois is often an order of magnitude higher from 

February through April than during summer and fall, even though the cooling water intake flow is 

only half that of the rest of the year (Bodensteiner and Lewis 1992). Impingement at Quad 

Cities was primarily composed of young-of-year and juveniles; in the case of gizzard shad 

(Dorosoma cepedianum) and freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), fish of these ages 

cannot tolerate near-freezing to freezing temperatures during winter and early spring. Other 

species, such as the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and 

white bass (Morone chrysops), are also prominent in winter impingement collections 

(Bodensteiner and Lewis 1992, 1994; LaJeone and Monzingo 2000). Although the number of 

fish impinged at Quad Cities was relatively high (e.g., nearly 3 million in 1989), most (up 

to 90 percent) of the fishes that entered the intake forebay were dead or moribund. Therefore, 

even if these fish were not impinged, they would have still been lost from the fishery (LaJeone 

and Monzingo 2000). Similar results have been noted for impingement of threadfin shad 

(Dorosoma petenense) at the McGuire plant in North Carolina (NRC 2002c) and gizzard shad at 

the Summer plant in South Carolina (NRC 2004b). 

For the Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts, the NRC concluded that impingement during continued 

operation of the plant would have a MODERATE impact on the Jones River population of the 

rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) on the basis of an observed decline of that population, 

uncertainty about the stock’s status, impingement rates, and low impingement survivability. 

Impingement had a SMALL to MODERATE impact on all other species (NRC 2007c). 

For the Wolf Creek plant in Kansas, the NRC concluded that impingement during continued 

operation of the plant could have SMALL to MODERATE impacts at the makeup water screen 

house during periods when river water levels were low, because fish would have less available 

habitat to use as a refuge and would likely be exposed to greater pumping frequency and 

volume removals from the Neosho River. During most of the license renewal term, the impacts 

of impingement would be SMALL (NRC 2008a). 

Various methods that have been used to reduce impingement include returning impinged fish to 

the water source, bypassing fish at the intake screens, and preventing the approach of fish to 

the intake area (Lieberman and Muessio 1978). Various deflection methods that have been 

used at power plants to reduce impingement include physical barriers, visual stimuli (e.g., airbubble screens and static or strobe lights), water velocity and pressure changes, electrical 

shocks, and sound (Maes et al. 2004). These methods have variable effectiveness. For 

example, sound has been most effective at plants that primarily impinge clupeids 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-89 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

(Maes et al. 2004; Ross et al. 1993, 1996; NRC 2005a,b). Stocking, restoring habitat, and 

installing cooling towers are also mitigation options. 

At the Surry plant in Virginia, about 94 percent of all fish impinged were returned alive to the 

river through the fish return system. Only five species had less than 80 percent survival. These 

were the spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic menhaden (Brevvortia tyrannus), blueback 

herring (Alosa aestivalis), threadfin shad, and bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) (NRC 2002d). 

These species generally are susceptible to physical injuries while impinged (e.g., because of 

their delicate scales). A mitigation program at St. Lucie involves Florida Power and Light 

Company periodically trapping fish from the intake canal, tagging them, and releasing them in 

the ocean. The goal is to tag and release 1000 fish per year (NRC 2003a). At the Calvert Cliffs 

plant in Maryland, about 5.25 million blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) were impinged between 

1975 and 1982, but impingement survival was 99 percent (NRC 1999b). 

Physical stresses experienced by organisms during impingement are affected by screen wash 

frequency, screen rotation speed, and screen modifications intended to reduce stress 

associated with fish separation and handling. Low pressure spray is often used to return 

organisms to a water body, whereas high pressure spray is used for debris removal. When 

screens are infrequently washed, impinged organisms may become moribund from repeated 

attempts to free themselves and may suffocate against the screen (Jinks 2005). Generally, 

species with heavier skeletal structures, thick scales or bony scutes, thick protective slimes, or 

hard exoskeletons are most likely to resist physical injury and desiccation during impingement 

(Jinks 2005). 

Although fish return systems can decrease impingement mortality, some stressed and injured 

fish returned to the water body may take a number of days to die. Even those with minor 

damage may develop a bacterial or fungal infection that eventually leads to mortality. Also, 

returned fish may be exhausted, disoriented, and damaged, which makes them more 

susceptible to predation (Henderson et al. 2003). Replacing conventional intake screens with 

Ristroph screens is unlikely to result in a significant reduction in impingement mortality at 

localities where clupeid and sciaenid species predominate (Henderson et al. 2003). 

While planktonic organisms are generally not uniformly distributed throughout a water body, it is 

often assumed that withdrawal of a certain percentage of the source water would result in 

entrainment of that percentage of the planktonic organisms that pass by a plant (EPA 2002). At 

Browns Ferry in Alabama, the portion of the river flow that passed through the plant was found 

to be higher than the percentage of larval fishes in the river that were entrained (NRC 2005c). 

Fish species with free-floating early life stages are those most susceptible to entrainment 

(EPA 2002). For power plants (nuclear and fossil) located in the Great Lakes, the number of 

fish entrained increased with increasing power capacity (Kelso and Milburn 1979). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-90 

Entrained organisms are exposed to heat, mechanical, pressure, and chemical stresses 

(NRC 1996). Entrained organisms are exposed to a rapid temperature rise that is essentially 

equivalent to the temperature rise across the condensers during their passage through the plant 

(Schubel et al. 1977). It has been conservatively concluded that mortality of planktonic 

organisms is assumed to be 100 percent. For ichthyoplankton, this assumption is based on the 

extreme delicacy of eggs and the fact that their skeleton, musculature, and integument are soft, 

thereby providing only a minimal amount of protection for vital organs (EPA 2002). 

Nevertheless, these killed organisms provide food for consumers and decomposers in the 

receiving water body (Fox and Moyer 1973). Conversely, bacteria and other microorganisms 

that are entrained may increase in number as a result of prolonged exposure to increased heat 

(Fox and Moyer 1973; see Section 3.9.3). At the Quad Cities plant in Illinois, LaJeone and 

Monzingo (2000) concluded that as long as discharge temperatures do not exceed 100°F 

(37.8°C), some entrainment survival would occur. 

Fish eggs and larvae have a high natural mortality rate; thus, the number of entrained 

ichthyoplankton that would have survived to become adult fish is much lower than the number of 

eggs and larvae entrained (EPA 2002). In a laboratory study on the exposure of larval common 

shrimp (Crangon crangon) and lobster (Homarus gammarus) and adult copepods (Acartia

tonsa) to simulated entrainment stresses (i.e., thermal, mechanical, chlorine, and pressure 

effects, both alone and in combination), it was concluded that most individuals of each species 

would survive passage through a nuclear power station under normal operating conditions. 

Since the experiments on these crustaceans demonstrated that each species has different 

responses to different stressors, the only generalization that could be made is that mortality 

from the totality of entrainment passage would be 10 to 20 percent (Bamber and Seaby 2004). 

Mitigation has been used to minimize entrainment losses. This includes several measures that 

also minimize impingement impacts (e.g., using closed-cycle cooling and designing intakes to 

minimize velocities through the intake screens). At the McGuire plant in North Carolina, 

about 45 percent of the cooling water is obtained from the low-level intake, which pulls water 

from the hypolimnion at a depth of about 100 ft (30 m), where few planktonic organisms occur. 

Therefore, entrainment is minimized (NRC 2002c). Skimmer walls inside the intake bays at the 

Robinson plant in South Carolina similarly reduce entrainment (NRC 2003b). At the Millstone 

plant, potential mitigation measures that were identified included reducing intake flows during 

the winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) spawning season; conducting regular 

 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-91 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

inspections, maintenance, or refueling during the spawning season; importing fish into the 

areas; installing fine mesh screens on the intakes; or installing cooling towers (NRC 2005c).(b)

Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of 

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

and entrainment of aquatic organisms. Section 316(b) is regulated under the NPDES program. 

Two rulemaking phases initiated by EPA associated with Section 316(b) are relevant to nuclear 

power plant cooling water intake structures. Phase I (enacted in December 2001) is for new 

facilities (40 CFR 125.83) with a design intake flow greater than 2 million gpd (7.6 million L/d) 

and that use at least 25 percent of water withdrawn used for cooling purposes 

(40 CFR Part 125, Subpart I). Phase II (enacted in July 2004) applies to existing large electric 

generating facilities with a design intake flow of 50 million gpd (189 million L/d) or more and that 

use at least 25 percent of the water withdrawn for cooling purposes (40 CFR Part 125, 

Subpart J). The Phase II Rule was suspended on July 9, 2007, after several of its key 

provisions were remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals. 

As of late 2012, existing nuclear power plant facilities with a cooling water intake structure that 

are not currently subject to a national rule require Section 316(b) NPDES permit conditions that 

reflect best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact on a case-bycase, best professional judgment basis (40 CFR 125.90(b) and 401.14). The NRC expects that 

any site-specific mitigation required under the NPDES permitting process should result in a 

reduction in the impacts of continued plant operations. 

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC categorized the impacts of license renewal on impingement and 

entrainment of aquatic organisms to be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE at plants with oncethrough cooling or cooling ponds (i.e., a Category 2 issue). No new information has been 

identified in the plant-specific SEISs prepared to date or in the literature that would alter those 

conclusions. 

On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impingement and entrainment 

of aquatic organisms over the license renewal term at nuclear plants with once-through cooling 

or cooling ponds could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE and remains a Category 2 issue. 

The magnitude of the impact would depend on plant-specific characteristics of the cooling 

system (including location, intake velocities, screening technologies, and withdrawal rates) and 

 

(b) The NRC cannot impose water quality mitigation requirements on licensees. The Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Appeal Board, in the “Yellow Creek” case, determined that the EPA has sole jurisdiction 

over the regulation of water quality with respect to the withdrawal and discharge of waters for nuclear 

power stations, and it also determined that the NRC is prohibited from placing any restrictions or 

requirements on the licensees of those facilities with regard to water quality (Tennessee Valley 

Authority [Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2], ALAB-515, 8 NRC 702, 712-13 [1978]). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-92 

characteristics of the aquatic resource (including population distribution, status, management 

objectives, and life history). 

Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Cooling Towers) 

Removal of any substantial volume of water from a natural body of water by a cooling system 

will likely also remove or kill some of the aquatic organisms that live there through impingement 

or entrainment. However, the number of individuals that could be removed from a population 

before detectable negative effects would occur is often not known. The potential for 

impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms is influenced by a variety of factors such as: 

• Amount of water withdrawn relative to the size of the cooling water source, 

• Location and configuration of intake structures, 

• Type of water body from which water is withdrawn and the conditions within that water 

body, 

• Proximity of withdrawal structures to sensitive biological habitats (e.g., spawning and 

nursery habitats), 

• Sensitivity of populations of impinged and entrained organisms to potential losses of 

individuals, and 

• Mitigation measures in place to reduce impingement and entrainment. 

Of these factors, the volume of water withdrawn relative to the size of the water source appears 

to be the best predictor of the number of organisms that would be impinged or entrained within a 

given aquatic system (Henderson and Seaby 2000). Because the volume of water withdrawn 

by a power plant is minimized when a closed-cycle cooling system is employed, the impacts to 

aquatic organisms from impingement and entrainment would be smaller than the impacts from 

impingement and entrainment that would occur if that plant employed a once-through cooling 

system instead. 

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC determined that impingement and entrainment of fish and shellfish 

was a Category 1 issue for plants with cooling towers, because the level of impingement and 

entrainment of fish and shellfish with this type of cooling system was not found to be a problem 

at operating plants, and was not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term 

(NRC 1996). This finding was also based on the lower rates of water withdrawal required for 

plants with cooling towers when operating in a closed-cycle mode. Withdrawal rates would not 

be reduced in situations where cooling towers are used in a helper mode to cool discharge 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-93 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

temperatures under once-through operating conditions. These types of systems are included 

under the evaluation of once-through systems above. 

In considering the impingement and entrainment effects of closed-cycle cooling systems on 

aquatic ecology, the NRC evaluated the same issues that were evaluated for plants with oncethrough cooling systems or cooling ponds. On the basis of reviews of the literature and license 

renewal SEISs published to date, reduced populations of aquatic biota attributable to 

occurrences of impingement and entrainment have not been reported for any existing nuclear 

power plants with cooling towers operated in closed-cycle mode. 

On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impingement and entrainment 

of aquatic organisms at plants with cooling towers operating as a closed-cycle cooling system 

over the license renewal term would be SMALL and remains a Category 1 issue. 

 

Entrainment of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton (All Plants) 

 

In addition to the entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages, the entrainment of 

phytoplankton and zooplankton was evaluated in the 1996 GEIS, and entrainment was 

categorized as a Category 1 issue for all cooling systems. 

 

As described in the previous sections, water that is withdrawn for power plant cooling carries 

with it a variety of aquatic organisms. Those organisms that are small enough to pass through 

the debris screens in the intake pass through the entire cooling system and are exposed to 

heat, mechanical and pressure stresses, and possibly biocides before being discharged to the 

receiving water. This process, called entrainment, may affect phytoplankton and zooplankton, 

as well as planktonic larval stages of benthic organisms such as shellfish (i.e., meroplankton), 

and fish eggs and larvae (ichthyoplankton), as separately evaluated above. Most nuclear power 

plants have been required to monitor for entrainment effects during the initial years of operation. 

Entrainment impacts to phytoplankton and zooplankton are considered to be of SMALL 

significance if there is no evidence of reductions of populations of phytoplankton or zooplankton. 

 

For example, about 70 percent of the copepod entrained at the Millstone plant in Connecticut 

suffered mortality, but this loss only represented 0.1 to 0.3 percent of the copepod production of 

eastern Long Island Sound (Carpenter et al. 1974). At the Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland, 

entrainment survival for the five most abundant zooplankton species was 65 to 100 percent 

(NRC 1999b). Except for one sample (when discharge temperatures at the Cook plant in 

Michigan exceeded 95°F [35°C] and resulted in a 14 to 22 percent mortality difference in 

zooplankton), there was no relationship between zooplankton mortality and discharge water 

temperatures, suggesting that mechanical stress was the major cause of zooplankton 

entrainment mortality. During the period of the study, chlorination was infrequent because 

entrained sand provided sufficient scouring action to negate the need for biocides. The sand 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-94 

may have added to the mechanical stress experienced by entrained zooplankton. Zooplankton 

mortality was significantly greater in the discharge waters than the intake waters, but differences 

averaged less than 3 percent. Such small losses due to entrainment cannot be detected in the 

lake. It was concluded that fish predation rather than entrainment was the major source of 

zooplankton mortality in inshore waters during most of the year (Evans et al. 1986). 

 

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton is expected to have a SMALL impact on 

populations of these organisms in source water bodies for all plants. No change in operation of 

the cooling system is expected during the license renewal term, so no change in effects on 

entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton is anticipated. Effects on entrainment of 

phytoplankton and zooplankton could be reduced by changing to a closed cycle cooling system 

or by reducing the plant's generation rate. However, because the effects on entrainment of 

phytoplankton and zooplankton are considered to be impacts of SMALL significance, this issue 

continues to be Category 1. 

Effects of Thermal Discharges on Aquatic Organisms 

During the license renewal term, thermal discharges from the cooling system would continue to 

affect aquatic resources. The potential impacts of thermal discharges are different for oncethrough and closed-cycle cooling systems as discussed below. 

Thermal Impacts on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems 

or Cooling Ponds)

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC found that for plants with a once-through cooling system or cooling 

ponds, the level of impact for thermal discharge on aquatic biota (primarily due to heat shock) 

was SMALL at many plants and MODERATE or LARGE at some nuclear plants. Because 

characteristics of both the thermal discharges and the affected aquatic resources are specific to 

each site, NRC classified heat shock as a Category 2 issue that required a site-specific 

assessment for license renewal. The NRC (1996) found the potential for thermal discharge 

impacts to be greatest at plants with once-through cooling systems (NRC 1996), primarily 

because of the higher discharge temperatures and larger thermal plume area compared to 

plants with cooling towers. 

In the revised GEIS, the NRC assessed potential impacts of thermal discharges during the 

renewal term (the remaining years of the original license plus 20 additional years) by reviewing 

published applicant’s Environmental Reports, NRC’s license renewal SEISs, and the relevant 

scientific literature. For most nuclear plants involved in license renewal, NRC projected that 

the impact levels of thermal discharges during the license renewal term would be SMALL. The 

NRC found impact levels at the Crystal River plant, for example, to be SMALL to MODERATE. 

According to York et al. (2005), thermal discharges from the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-95 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

plants, both located on the California coast and employing once-through cooling systems, have 

had significant impacts on aquatic habitats. The NRC is reviewing the Diablo Canyon plant’s 

application for license renewal, and the San Onofre plant has not submitted an application at the 

time of this review, so NRC has neither completely assessed impacts at these two plants nor 

assigned impact levels. Other site-specific considerations for thermal discharges during the 

license renewal term for plants with once-through cooling systems can occur for plants located 

in areas where restoration efforts are under way to increase natural resource populations or 

reestablish migratory fish species or where thermal discharge plumes could encompass 

otherwise high-quality habitats. Site-specific design features, such as locating the discharge 

structures in areas where warmer water would be rapidly diluted, may mitigate adverse thermal 

effects (Beitinger et al. 2000). Hall et al.’s (1978) finding that the potential for thermal discharge 

impacts is greatest in shallow, enclosed, and poorly mixed water bodies illustrates the sitespecific influence of receiving water body characteristics on environmental impact. 

One form of thermal impact is heat shock, which NRC defines as occurring when the water 

temperature meets or exceeds the thermal tolerance of a species for some duration of exposure 

(NRC 2007d). In most situations, fish are capable of moving out of an area that exceeds their 

thermal tolerance limits, although many aquatic resource species lack such mobility. Heat 

shock is typically observable only for fish species, particularly those that float when dead, so the 

following discussion emphasizes fish. 

Some nuclear plants have reported occasional fish kills from heat shock. At the Pilgrim plant in 

Massachusetts, only two fish mortality incidents have been attributed to heat shock. In 1975, 

about 3,000 Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) were killed, and in 1978, about 

2,300 clupeids (schooling fish such as menhaden sardines, and shad (Alosa spp.)) were killed 

(NRC 2007d). At the McGuire plant in North Carolina, five dead striped bass (Morone saxatilis) 

were found in and near the discharge, although their deaths may or may not have been related 

to heat shock (NRC 2002c). Over 94,000 dead fish, mostly bluefill (Lepomis macrochirus), were 

killed when cooling lake temperatures near the La Salle County Station in Illinois exceeded 

upper lethal temperatures for most species (Exelon 2001c). Similar heat shock kills happened 

at the Braidwood Nuclear Station’s cooling lake when about 1,000 fish, mostly gizzard shad 

(Dorosoma cepedianum), died (NRC 2005e); on July 22, 2001, when about 700 unidentified fish 

were killed (Exelon 2001b); and on June 28, 2005, when about 10,000 unidentified fish were 

killed (Exelon 2005). 

Another form of thermal impact involves the sublethal effects from thermal discharges 

(e.g., stunning or disorientation) that could alter predator-prey interactions by increasing the 

susceptibility of affected individuals to predation. Schubel et al. (1977) concluded that the 

exposure of fish larvae (e.g., blueback herring (Alosa aestvalis), American shad 

(A. sapidissima), striped bass) to an excess of 59°F (15°C) would significantly increase their 

vulnerability to predation. However, the 1996 GEIS did not report population- or community-
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-96 

level effects from power plant influences on predator-prey relationships in the field, and such 

effects are difficult to prove from field studies. Organisms overwintering within thermal plumes 

can also experience chronic malnutrition (Hall et al. 1978). Thermal discharges can also 

increase the susceptibility of fishes to diseases and parasites as a result of a combination of the 

increased density of fish within the thermal plume (potentially leading to increased exposure to 

infectious diseases or other stresses), the fish being more prone to infection in warmer water, 

and the ability of diseases and parasites to develop faster at higher temperatures. Examples of 

other temperature-related impacts on aquatic resources could include the loss of smolt 

characteristics in salmon (McCormick et al. 1999) and premature spawning (Hall et al. 1978). 

A number of mitigative measures can reduce thermal discharge effects. These include lowering 

the effluent temperatures before discharges reach the receiving water body (e.g., the cooling 

pond at the Dresden plant in Illinois or the cooling canal system at the Turkey Point plant in 

Florida) or enhancing rapid mixing and heat dissipation (e.g., high-velocity jet diffusers at 

FitzPatrick in New York) (NRC 1996). At the Surry plant in Virginia, the thermal discharge lies 

about 6 mi (9.7 km) upstream of the intake structure to protect downstream oyster beds from 

potential thermal discharge impacts (NRC 2002d). After several fish kills at the Summer plant in 

the 1980s, South Caroline Electric & Gas Co. removed a hump in the discharge canal, limited 

reservoir drawdowns, and dredged the discharge canal to reduce the likelihood of future fish 

kills (NRC 2004b). 

The NRC (1996) concluded that the impact levels of heat shock on aquatic biota during the 

license renewal term could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE at plants with once-through 

cooling or cooling ponds (i.e., a Category 2 issue). The present review identified no new 

information that would alter those conclusions for effects of thermal discharges in the plantspecific SEISs prepared to date or in other literature. Based on these considerations, the NRC 

concludes that the issue of thermal discharges on aquatic organisms at nuclear plants with 

once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds over the license renewal term could have 

SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE impact levels and is a Category 2 issue. The impact level at 

any plant depends on the characteristics of its cooling system (including location and type of 

discharge structure, discharge velocity and volume, and three-dimensional characteristics of the 

thermal plume) and characteristics of the affected aquatic resources (including the species 

present and their physiology, habitat, population distribution, status, management objectives, 

and life history). 

Thermal Impacts on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Cooling Towers)

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC determined that for plants with cooling towers, the effects of thermal 

discharges with respect to heat shock (i.e., the potential for heated effluents to directly kill 

aquatic organisms) was a Category 1 issue. This determination was made because thermal 

effects associated with this type of cooling system were not found to be a problem at operating 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-97 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term (NRC 1996). This 

finding was based, in part, on the presence of smaller thermal plumes at plants with closedcycle cooling towers than would occur if a once-through cooling system was used at those 

plants. Other sublethal effects of thermal discharges are discussed and evaluated separately 

below (see Infrequency Reported Thermal Impacts (All Plants)). 

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC considered the impacts of thermal discharges on aquatic organisms 

during the license renewal term to be SMALL at nuclear plants with cooling towers (i.e., a 

Category 1 issue). No new information has been identified in the plant-specific SEISs prepared 

to date or in the literature that would alter those conclusions. On the basis of these 

considerations, the NRC concludes that the direct impact of thermal discharges on aquatic 

organisms at nuclear plants with cooling towers over the license renewal term would be SMALL 

and remains a Category 1 issue. 

Infrequently Reported Thermal Impacts (All Plants)

 

In addition to the effects of heat shock as described above for plants with once-through cooling 

systems or cooling ponds and those using cooling towers, other potential effects common to the 

operation of plant cooling systems include cold shock, the creation of thermal plume migration 

barriers, changes in the distribution of aquatic organisms, accelerated development of aquatic 

insect maturation, and stimulation of the growth of aquatic nuisance species. The 1996 GEIS 

addressed these uncommon impacts individually; this revised GEIS consolidates them. The 

components of the consolidated issue are further described below. 

 

Cold shock can occur when organisms acclimated to the elevated temperatures of a thermal 

plume are abruptly exposed to temperature decreases when the artificial source of heating 

stops. Such events are most likely to occur during winter. Cold shock events have only rarely 

occurred at nuclear plants (e.g., Haddam Neck [no longer operating], Prairie Island, Monticello, 

and Oyster Creek). Fish mortalities usually involved only a few fish and did not result in 

population-level effects (NRC 1996). Gradual shutdown of plant operations generally precludes 

cold shock events. 

 

The potential exists for thermal plumes to create a barrier to migrating fishes if the mixing zone 

covers an extensive cross-sectional area of a river and exceeds the fish avoidance temperature 

(NRC 1996). For example, concerns were expressed that thermal discharge from the Vermont 

Yankee plant could affect both spawning and outmigration of American shad (Alosa 

sapidissima) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and potentially cause a reduction in Atlantic 

salmon smoltification, particularly since a hydroelectric facility was located immediately 

downstream of the plant and because the fish passage facility and thermal discharge were 

located on the same side of the river (NRC 2007a). In the 316(b) demonstration to support 

increased discharge temperature limits at the Vermont Yankee plant, it was determined that the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-98 

smolts would not be delayed because the thermal plume covered only a small cross section of 

the Connecticut River. To date, significant impacts on migratory fishes have not been reported 

for nuclear power plants. 

Impacts of thermal discharges on the geographic distribution of aquatic organisms are 

considered to be of SMALL significance if populations in the overall region are not reduced. 

Based on review of literature, operational monitoring reports, consultations with utilities and 

regulatory agencies, and license renewal SEISs published to date, thermal discharges have not 

been shown to constrain the regional geographic distribution of aquatic organisms at any 

existing nuclear power plant. This is because heat is usually dissipated rapidly from power plant 

discharge plumes, and heated plumes are often small relative to the size of the receiving water 

body. 

 

Heated effluents could accelerate the development of immature stages of aquatic insects in 

freshwater systems, resulting in premature emergence. If adults emerge before the normal 

seasonal cycle, they may be unable to feed or reproduce. Premature emergence has been 

observed in laboratory investigations (e.g., Nebeker 1971) but not in field investigations 

(e.g., Langford 1975). Heated effluents could also stimulate population growth of 

macroinvertebrates. Thermal discharges from the Oconee plant in South Carolina stimulated 

the population growth of oligochaetes (aquatic worms) in the immediate vicinity of the power 

plant (less than 5 percent of the total cooling reservoir surface). However, the local changes in 

oligochaete populations could not be linked to the direct increases in water temperatures, but 

they may have been directly or indirectly affected by increases in zooplankton, vegetation, and 

current velocities in the area of the discharge (Nichols 1981). 

 

An aquatic nuisance species is “a nonindigenous species that threatens the diversity or 

abundance of native species or the ecological stability of infested waters, or commercial, 

agricultural, aquacultural or recreational activities dependent on such waters” (Nonindigenous 

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990). A wide variety of nuisance or non-native 

species may become established or proliferate as a result of power plant operations, including 

fouling organisms such as the Asiatic clam and the recently introduced zebra mussel. Aspects 

of the operation of the power plants (e.g., warm temperatures or high flow rates that bring food 

to filter-feeding organisms) may be conducive to the growth and development of these 

organisms. Asiatic clams and zebra mussels may become so abundant as to cause operational 

difficulties for the power plant and may out-compete native clams and mussels in thermally 

enriched waters. A population of tropical, nonnative blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus) became 

established in the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania by congregating in thermal effluents 

during the winter. Exposure to rapid temperature decreases (cold shock) killed these fish and 

eradicated the population from the vicinity of the plant. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-99 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Langford (1983) reports a number of instances in which wood-boring crustaceans and mollusks, 

notably “shipworms,” have caused concern in British waters. Although increased abundance of 

shipworms in the area influenced by heated power plant effluents caused substantial damage to 

wooden structures, replacement of old wood with concrete or metal structures eliminated the 

problem. Langford concluded that increased temperatures could enhance the activity and 

reproduction of wood-boring organisms in enclosed or limited areas but that elevated 

temperature patterns were not sufficiently stable to cause widespread effects. 

 

Thermal discharges can allow nuisance species, such as the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) 

and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), to become established or proliferate (NRC 1996). 

At the North Anna plant in Virginia, the higher water discharges related to plant operation were 

found to increase the growing season of the water hyacinth (Hydrilla verticillata). Nuisance 

levels of this plant resulted. The water hyacinth was brought under control by stocking triploid 

(sterile) herbivorous grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) (NRC 2002e). 

 

The influence of the operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station on abundance and 

distribution of a nonnative, tropical-subtropical, wood-boring shipworm (Teredo bartschi) has 

been extensively studied (see summary in Richards et al. 1984). Although numerous studies 

have varied somewhat in their conclusions, there is agreement that heated effluents from the 

plant increased the distribution and abundance of shipworms (Kennish et al. 1984). This 

species has not been found in Oyster Creek or Barnegat Bay since 1982, perhaps because of 

low water temperatures in Oyster Creek during a station outage in the winter of 1981–82 and 

the pathological effects of a parasite (GPU Nuclear Corporation response to a Nuclear 

Management and Resources Council [NUMARC] survey [NUMARC 1990]). In addition, the 

removal of substantial amounts of driftwood and the replacement of untreated structural wood is 

thought to have contributed to reducing the populations of wood-boring organisms in Oyster 

Creek. No other concerns about nuisance organisms were cited by the regulatory or resource 

agencies contacted for this GEIS revision (Appendix F). Measures taken by licensees to control 

nuisance species (e.g., increased chlorination or use of molluscicides) may result in impacts on 

other species. This impact is also controlled by NPDES permitting procedures. 

 

The effects of stimulating the growth of nuisance organisms are considered to be of SMALL 

significance to aquatic resources if these organisms are restricted to the condenser cooling 

system (e.g., Asiatic clam; zebra mussel) or do not proliferate beyond the immediate vicinity of 

the plant. Mitigation measures were effective at the one plant that experienced problems with 

nuisance organisms (e.g., shipworms). Effects on nuisance organisms could be reduced by 

changing to a closed-cycle cooling system or by reducing the plant’s generation rate, but, based 

on the review conducted by NRC for this GEIS revision, NRC categorizes the impact level as 

SMALL and would expect it to be SMALL for all plants. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-100 

The NRC’s review revealed only small levels of impact in the aquatic resources due to the 

infrequently reported thermal impacts and expects the same at all plants. As a result, NRC 

classifies this combined issue as Category 1. 

Effects of Cooling Water Discharge on Dissolved Oxygen, Gas Supersaturation, and 

Eutrophication

The potential effects on aquatic biota from low dissolved oxygen levels, gas supersaturation 

(gas bubble disease), and eutrophication in the cooling water discharge of nuclear power plants 

were identified as Category 1 issues in the 1996 GEIS. These three issues are combined and 

discussed together here. 

The availability of oxygen is a requirement for the metabolism of aerobic organisms. It also 

influences inorganic chemical reactions. For aquatic organisms with gills, the concentration of 

dissolved oxygen in the water is one of the most important parameters to consider for evaluating 

water quality. In general, dissolved oxygen concentrations of less than 3 ppm in warmwater 

habitats or less than 5 ppm in coldwater habitats can adversely affect fish (Morrow and 

Fischenich 2000). Oxygen dissolves into water via diffusion from the surrounding air, by 

aeration (i.e., mixing with atmospheric air due to turbulent movement of the water), and as a 

product of photosynthesis. The level of dissolved oxygen in water is highly dependent on 

temperature, and the amount of oxygen that can dissolve in a given volume of water (i.e., the 

saturation point) is inversely proportional to the temperature of the water. Thus, when other 

chemical and physical conditions are equal, the warmer the water is, the less dissolved oxygen 

it can hold. An increase in water temperature also affects the amount of oxygen that aquatic 

organisms need by increasing the chemical reaction rates and metabolic rates. The rates of 

many chemical reactions in water approximately double for every 18°F (10°C) increase in 

temperature. Thus, the addition of a heat load to an aquatic ecosystem via the discharge of 

cooling water has the potential to stress aquatic biota by simultaneously increasing metabolic 

rates and the need for oxygen and by reducing dissolved oxygen concentrations to suboptimal 

levels. 

The potential for effects on biota from a reduction in the dissolved oxygen concentration is 

greater in ecosystems where dissolved oxygen levels are already approaching suboptimal 

levels as a result of other factors that affect the environment. Thus, organisms in ecosystems 

where (1) the biological demand for dissolved oxygen is elevated as a result of increased levels 

of detritus or nutrients (e.g., eutrophication from runoff containing fertilizers or manure or from 

the release of dead, entrained organisms in the discharge of once-through cooling systems) 

or (2) low flow levels and high ambient temperatures already exist (e.g., as a result of drought 

conditions or hot weather) may be more susceptible to negative effects if dissolved oxygen 

levels are reduced further. For this reason, the EPA and States often regulate dissolved oxygen 

to ensure that minimum levels will be maintained. The following discussion focuses on 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-101 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

dissolved oxygen because it directly affects aquatic resources rather than focusing on the 

contributing causes of low dissolved oxygen levels associated with cooling water system 

operation (e.g., eutrophication due to increased temperature, lower dissolved oxygen capacity 

with increased temperature, higher biological oxygen demand (BOD), and chemical oxygen 

demand (COD) with increased temperature, etc.). 

After cooling water is discharged, additional oxygen dissolves in the water as a result of 

diffusion and the introduction of oxygen released by aquatic plants and algae as a by-product of 

photosynthesis (during daylight hours only). The saturation point for the water increases as it 

cools, and aeration due to turbulent movement can further increase the rate of oxygenation. For 

these reasons, effects on aquatic biota due to low dissolved oxygen levels are not expected to 

extend beyond the thermal mixing zone. Thus, even in cases where dissolved oxygen levels in 

the immediate vicinity of the discharge structures of power plants may be too low to support 

some aquatic biota, the amount of aquatic habitat affected is typically small relative to that 

available in the receiving water body as a whole. Discharge systems are typically designed to 

minimize the affected area by promoting mixing of introduced warmer water with ambient water 

from the receiving system, by increasing turbulence near the discharge point, or by introducing 

air into the water. 

The impacts of low dissolved oxygen concentrations in the discharge are considered to be of 

SMALL significance if populations of aquatic organisms in the vicinity of the plant are not 

reduced. On the basis of reviews of literature and operational monitoring reports, dissolved 

oxygen concentrations have been adequate for maintaining aquatic ecosystems in the water 

bodies that receive cooling water from currently operating nuclear power plants. Operational 

mitigation measures (increasing the oxygenation of water released from an upstream dam) have 

been effective at the one plant (Sequoyah plant in Tennessee) for which periodic low dissolved 

oxygen levels in the receiving water (Chickamauga Reservoir) were identified as potentially 

affecting downstream mussel beds and sauger (Sander canadensis) reproduction during the 

initial license term. 

In addition to the effects of cooling systems on dissolved oxygen described above, rapid heating 

of water in the condenser cooling system also decreases the solubility and saturation point for 

other dissolved gases. Thus, as the water passing through the cooling system is heated, the 

water becomes supersaturated with gases. Although the levels of dissolved gases will 

equilibrate to normal values as the water cools and mixes with ambient waters, tissues of 

aquatic organisms that remain in the supersaturated effluent for extended periods can become 

equilibrated to the increased partial pressures of gases within the effluent. If these organisms 

are subsequently exposed to water with lower partial pressures (which occurs when the water 

cools or when the organisms move to water in other locations or at other depths), dissolved gas 

(especially nitrogen) within the tissues may come out of solution and form embolisms (bubbles) 

within the affected tissues, most noticeably the eyes and fins. The resulting condition is known 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-102 

as gas bubble disease. Swelling and hemorrhages in tissues can cause behavioral 

abnormalities or death, depending on the number of bubbles that form and the tissues that are 

affected (Noga 2000). Fish mortalities generally occur at gas supersaturation levels above 

110 to 115 percent (EPA 1986). Aquatic insects and crustaceans appear to be more tolerant of 

supersaturated water than fish (Nebeker et al. 1981). 

The ability to detect and avoid supersaturated waters varies among species. A fish can avoid 

supersaturated waters by either not entering the affected area or by diving to avoid the onset of 

supersaturated conditions near the surface. Some species, however, may not avoid 

supersaturated waters until symptoms of gas bubble disease occur; at that point, some fish may 

already have been lethally exposed. Other species may be attracted to supersaturated waters 

due to stimuli such as warmwater discharges (Gray et al. 1983). 

Gas supersaturation and gas bubble disease have resulted in the death of fish in the discharge 

of some steam-electric power plants, as has been reported in the past from the Pilgrim plant in 

Massachusetts (NRC 1996, 2007c). Gas supersaturation and gas bubble disease are also 

commonly associated with hydroelectric dams, typically resulting when water that is mixed with 

air while traveling over spillways is subsequently pushed to depth within stilling basins 

(Parametrix, Inc. 1975). The death of organisms due to gas supersaturation in heated effluents 

from power plants appears to be most likely at plants that have discharge canals where fish may 

reside for extended periods of time (i.e., long enough to equilibrate with supersaturated 

effluents). Gas solubility tends to increase with decreases in water temperatures; therefore, gas 

bubble disease at steam-electric stations would be most likely to occur during winter months 

(McInerny 1990). As reported in the 1996 GEIS, observed incidences of gas bubble disease at 

the Waukegan Generating Station (a coal-fired plant on Lake Michigan), Marshall Steam Station 

(a coal-fired plant on Lake Norman), and the Pilgrim plant involved fish residing in discharge 

canals. At the Pilgrim plant, the loss of approximately 43,000 Atlantic menhaden in 1973 was 

attributed to gas bubble disease (McInerny 1990), and other species of fish may also have been 

affected (Fairbanks and Lawton 1977). Promoting the rapid mixing of effluents with receiving 

waters (e.g., with jet diffuser systems) appears to effectively prevent such mortalities by 

inhibiting residence of organisms in the thermal plume (Lee and Martin 1975) and by limiting the 

extent of the area where supersaturated conditions may occur. Restricting entry of fish into 

discharge canals may also be effective at controlling mortality. A fish barrier net was installed in 

the discharge canal at the Pilgrim plant after the mortality events observed during the 1970s, 

although subsequent implementation of engineering controls have mitigated conditions so that 

the use of the net has not been required since then. 

Impacts from gas supersaturation are considered to be of SMALL significance if populations of 

aquatic organisms in the vicinity of the plant are not reduced. On the basis of reviews of the 

available scientific literature, plant-specific ERs, and the SEISs that have been completed to 

date, deaths of aquatic organisms attributable to gas supersaturation have not been a concern 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-103 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

at most existing nuclear power plants. Operational and structural mitigation measures have 

been effective at controlling effects on fish at the Pilgrim plant, where fish kills attributable to gas 

supersaturation occurred during the initial license period. In no case has a substantial effect on 

populations of aquatic organisms been observed. Use of engineering controls (e.g., use of jet 

diffusers for cooling water discharge systems) that prevent the occurrence of mortality due to 

gas bubble disease at individual power plants also reduces the likelihood that discharges from 

cooling systems would contribute to cumulative effects. 

Unless the operation of the cooling system or the ambient conditions that affect levels of 

dissolved oxygen or gas supersaturation in the receiving waters were to change substantially, it 

is anticipated that there would be no change in effects of low dissolved oxygen concentrations 

or gas supersaturation on aquatic biota during the license renewal term. Overall, effects of low 

dissolved oxygen concentrations and gas supersaturation attributable to cooling water 

discharges are considered to be of SMALL significance for all plants. 

For some plants, the potential for effects of low dissolved oxygen concentrations or gas 

supersaturation on aquatic resources could be further reduced by changing from a once-through 

cooling system to a closed-cycle cooling system or by reducing the plant’s generation rate. 

However, because the continued effects of operations on dissolved oxygen concentrations and 

gas supersaturation are considered to be of SMALL overall significance to populations of 

aquatic resources and because implementation of these changes would be costly, it is believed 

that such changes are not warranted on the basis of controlling levels of dissolved gases. 

Impacts of license renewal on dissolved oxygen levels and on the incidence of gas bubble 

disease were considered to be SMALL for all nuclear plants and were designated as Category 1 

issues in the 1996 GEIS. No new information has been identified in the plant-specific SEISs 

prepared to date or in the literature that would alter those conclusions. 

On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact on aquatic biota from 

the alteration of dissolved oxygen levels and gas supersaturation associated with continued 

operations over the license renewal term would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and remains a 

Category 1 issue. 

Effects of Nonradiological Contaminants on Aquatic Organisms 

The potential for nonradiological contaminants to accumulate in sediments or aquatic biota was 

identified as a Category 1 issue in the 1996 GEIS. This was originally raised as an issue of 

concern at a few power plants that used copper alloy condenser tubes, but this concern has 

been successfully mitigated by replacing copper alloy tubes with those made from other metals 

(e.g., titanium). An operating nuclear power plant can contribute other contaminants by 

concentrating existing constituents from the water body (e.g., in blowdown at closed-cycle 

plants) or by the addition of chemicals to cooling water during plant operations (e.g., biocides).
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-104 

Biocides are used in cooling water systems to prevent the buildup of microorganisms that can 

impede heat transfer across heat exchange surfaces. Biocides are also used to prevent 

excessive growth of algae or other organisms that attach to structures, which can reduce 

cooling water flow by blocking pipes, tubing, and other water conveyances. For example, zebra 

mussels and Asiatic clams within the intakes or cooling systems of power plants can cause 

partial to total blockage of grates and pipes or cause damage to pipes and facilities, requiring 

the plants to temporarily suspend operations in order to remove the blockage or repair the 

damage. To prevent this from happening, plants in areas where these mollusks occur generally 

use nonoxidizing molluscicides (e.g., quaternary ammonium salts, glutaraldehyde, isothiazoline, 

triazine, and carbamates). The amount of a biocide that is applied to the cooling waters is 

controlled so that the concentrations that are discharged from the cooling system are too low to 

cause adverse effects to native mussels in the receiving water body. Allowable concentrations 

for biocides in discharged cooling waters are governed by NPDES permit restrictions to reduce 

the potential for toxic effects on nontargeted organisms (e.g., native mussels and fishes). At the 

Browns Ferry plant in Alabama, small sponge rubber balls are continuously recirculated through 

the condenser tubes to keep them clear of Asiatic clams and thus reduce the use of 

molluscicides (NRC 2005c). Also, various means can be used to minimize the discharged 

concentrations of biocides in the blowdown, including closing the blowdown valve before 

biocides are added, discharging blowdown to large sediment or retention ponds, and 

dechlorination (Veil et al. 1997). 

As reported in the 1996 GEIS, heavy or toxic metals (e.g., copper, zinc, and chromium) may be 

leached from condenser tubing and other heat exchangers and discharged by power plants as 

small-volume waste streams or corrosion products. Although heavy metals are found in small 

quantities in natural waters (and many are essential micronutrients), concentrations in the power 

plant discharge are typically controlled in the NPDES permit because excessive concentrations 

of heavy metals can be toxic to aquatic organisms. Discharge of metal and other toxic 

contaminants may also be subject to individual control strategies developed by the States to 

control toxic pollutants under the CWA. These strategies for point source discharges of toxic 

pollutants are implemented through the NPDES permit program. Heavy metal concentrations in 

discharges during normal operations are generally low. However, reactor shutdowns for testing 

and refueling keep stagnant water in contact with condenser tubes and other metal structures 

for extended periods and may allow abnormally large amounts of metals to be leached into the 

water. 

The ability of aquatic organisms to bioaccumulate heavy metals, even at low concentrations, 

has led to concerns about toxicity both to the humans and biota that consume contaminated fish 

and shellfish. For example, the bioconcentration of copper discharged from the Chalk Point 

plant (a fossil fuel power plant on Chesapeake Bay) resulted in discoloration (“greening”) effects 

on eastern oysters (Crassotrea virginica) (Roosenburg 1969), and the bioaccumulation of 

copper released from the Robinson plant in South Carolina resulted in malformations and 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-105 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

decreased reproductive capacity among bluegill in the cooling reservoir. Replacement of 

copper alloy tubes with tubes made from other metals (e.g., titanium) alleviated the elevated 

copper levels in both of these cases (NRC 1996, 2003b). 

Concentrations of heavy metals and other contaminants in the discharges of nuclear power 

plants are normally quickly diluted or flushed from the area by the large volumes of the receiving 

water. The discharge of metals and other toxic contaminants may also be subject to controls 

implemented by State or Federal agencies through the NPDES permit process. Impacts of 

contaminant discharges are considered to be of SMALL significance if water quality criteria 

(e.g., NPDES permits) are not violated and if aquatic organisms in the vicinity of the plant are 

not bioaccumulating the contaminants. 

The accumulation of contaminants in sediments and biota was designated as a Category 1 

issue in the 1996 GEIS. No new information has been identified in plant-specific SEISs 

prepared to date or in the reviewed literature that would alter those conclusions. However, this 

issue has been modified to look at contaminant effects other than accumulation. As long as 

changes to the cooling system, such as during refurbishment, do not occur during the license 

renewal term and the discharge requirements of the NPDES permit are met, no impact of 

contaminants on aquatic biota would be anticipated. On the basis of these considerations, the 

NRC concludes that the impact of contaminants on aquatic organisms associated with 

continued operations and refurbishment would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and remains a 

Category 1 issue. 

Exposure of Aquatic Organisms to Radionuclides 

The potential impact of radionuclides on aquatic organisms from normal operations of a nuclear 

power plant during the license renewal term was not identified as an issue in the 1996 GEIS. 

However, the impact of radionuclides on aquatic organisms has been raised as an issue by the 

public for several of the plants that have undergone license renewal, and that issue is reviewed 

here. 

Aquatic biota can be exposed externally to ionizing radiation from radionuclides in water, 

sediment, and other biota, and aquatic biota can be exposed internally via ingested food and 

water and, in certain situations, absorption through the skin and respiratory organs 

(Blaylock et al. 1993). No evidence of significant differences in sensitivity to radionuclides 

between marine and freshwater organisms has been reported (Blaylock et al. 1993). Some 

radionuclides tend to follow pathways similar to their nutrient analogs and can therefore be 

transferred rapidly through the food chain. These include (1) radionuclides such as 

strontium-90, barium-140, radon-226, and calcium-46 that behave like calcium and are therefore 

accumulated in bony tissues; (2) radionuclides such as iodine-129 and iodine-131 that act like 

stable iodine and accumulate in thyroid tissue; (3) radionuclides such as potassium-40, 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-106 

cesium-137, and rubidium-86 that follow the general movement of potassium and can be 

distributed throughout the body; and (4) radionuclides such as tritium, which resembles stable 

hydrogen, that are distributed throughout the body of an organism (Ahier and Tracy 1995). 

Fish, especially developing eggs and young, appear to be the aquatic organisms that are the 

most sensitive to the effects of ionizing radiation, while phytoplankton and zooplankton are 

relatively resistant to effects from exposure (NCRP 1991; Blaylock et al. 1993). DOE’s guideline 

for radiation dose rates from environmental sources recommends limiting the radiation dose to 

aquatic biota to no more than 1 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d). As described in Blaylock et al. (1993), this 

guideline was derived by reviewing the results of experimental data (NCRP 1991) that indicated 

there would not be any negative population-level effects on aquatic biota at doses up to 1 rad/d 

(0.01 Gy/d). That review reported that significant histological effects on the gonads of small 

tropical fish were detected at a dose of 1 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d), although the majority of controlled 

studies that examined the potential chronic effects of ionizing radiation on aquatic organisms did 

not find significant effects unless the dose was much greater than 1 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d) 

(NCRP 1991). Real et al. (2004) summarized several chronic irradiation studies on fish (mostly 

from gamma radiation at dose rates of 0.2 to 120 rad/d [0.02 to 1.2 Gy/d]) that reported effects, 

such as lowered fecundity, delayed spawning, reduced testis mass and sperm production, 

reduced immune response, reduced larval survival, and increased vertebral anomalies. They 

concluded that dose rates of less than approximately 10 rad/d (0.1 Gy/d) to any life stage are 

unlikely to affect survival (Real et al. 2004). Kryshev and Sazykina (1998) reported that 

ecological effects of ionizing radiation on aquatic biota occur at dose rates between 0.2 and 

80,000 rad/d (0.002 and 800 Gy/d)]. For comparison, Brown et al. (2004) used models to 

estimate doses to aquatic biota from naturally occurring radionuclides as ranging from 

0.00024 to 0.11 rad/d (2.4  10-6 to 1.1  10-3 Gy/d) for European freshwater ecosystems and 

0.00024 to 0.06 rad/d (2.4  10-6 to 6.0  10-4 Gy/d) for European marine waters. 

Dose rates for aquatic biota were calculated with the RESRAD-BIOTA dose evaluation model 

(DOE 2004e) using site-specific radionuclide concentrations in water and sediments reported in 

the REMP reports for 15 NRC-licensed power plants (Table 4.6-5). (See Section D.5 in 

Appendix D for a description of the methodology used.) These 15 plants represent plants with a 

range of radionuclide concentrations in environmental media. The total estimated dose rates for 

aquatic biota for these plants were all less than 0.2 rad/d (0.002 Gy/d), considerably less than 

the guideline value of 1 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d). Thus, it is anticipated that normal operations of these 

facilities would not result in negative effects on aquatic biota. Effects on populations of aquatic 

biota from such doses would be SMALL. A 25-year study of gamma-ray-emitting radionuclide 

levels near the Susquehanna plant in Pennsylvania indicated that there have been no known 

environmental impacts on aquatic resources (Patrick et al. 2007). On the basis of the reviewed 

literature and the dose rates that have been estimated for aquatic biota from site-specific data, 

the NRC concludes that the impact of radionuclides on aquatic biota from past operations would 

be SMALL for all plants, and it would not be expected to change appreciably during the renewal 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-107 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 4.6-5. Estimated Radiation Dose Rates to Aquatic 

Animals from Radionuclides Measured in Water 

and Sediments at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants 

 Estimated Dose Rates (rad/d)(a)

Plant Water Sediment Total 

Arkansas Nuclear 1.87  10-4 1.98  10-6 1.89  10-4

Browns Ferry 1.43  10-2 2.88  10-5 1.43  10-2

Calvert Cliffs 1.53  10-7 1.09  10-10 1.54  10-7

Columbia 5.01  10-2 2.17  10-5 5.01  10-2

Comanche Peak 5.82  10-2 1.03  10-4 5.83  10-2

D.C. Cook 5.01  10-2 1.46  10-4 5.02  10-2

Hatch 5.02  10-2 1.22  10-5 5.02  10-2

Fort Calhoun 1.06  10-1 5.71  10-6 1.06  10-1

Indian Point 5.01  10-2 2.03  10-5 5.01  10-2

Millstone 5.02  10-2 5.73  10-4 5.08  10-2

Nine Mile Point 5.02  10-2 1.02  10-5 5.02  10-2

Palisades 1.34  10-7 3.65  10-6 3.78  10-6

Point Beach 2.67  10-3 2.73  10-4 2.95  10-3

San Onofre 1.12  10-2 3.00  10-4 1.15  10-2

Vermont Yankee 5.02  10-2 1.11  10-3 5.13  10-2

(a) Dose rates were estimated with RESRAD-BIOTA (DOE 2004e) by using sitespecific radionuclide concentrations in water and sediments obtained from REMP 

reports. 

period. Therefore, the impact of radionuclides on aquatic biota that would result from continued 

operations is considered a Category 1 issue. 

Effects of Dredging on Aquatic Organisms 

Dredging is an activity that is performed at some power plants to remove accumulated 

sediments from intake and discharge areas (or, more rarely, to maintain barge slips) and may 

have localized impacts on aquatic biota. The impacts of dredging were not evaluated in the 

1996 GEIS. 

Sediment (especially sand and silt) that enters water bodies through the process of erosion can 

accumulate and gradually fill in some areas. Because of this, maintenance dredging may be 

required at some power plants to keep cooling water intakes and discharges clear of sediment 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-108 

(Allen et al. 2004; NRC 2007b,c). Dredging may also occur as part of power plant operation to 

maintain appropriate water circulation in water bodies that provide cooling water (e.g., at the 

Millstone plant; NRC 2005c) or to maintain access for barges (e.g., at the Calvert Cliffs plant in 

Maryland; NRC 1999b). Dredging can be accomplished in a number of ways (e.g., using 

various types of mechanical or hydraulic dredges), but it generally entails excavating a layer of 

sediment from the affected areas and transporting it to onshore or offshore areas for disposal. 

 

Dredging can affect aquatic biota in a variety of ways. Except for some deep-burrowing animals 

or motile animals, such as larger crustaceans and fish, that may survive dredging through 

avoidance, it is assumed that organisms living on or in the affected sediments will be killed. 

Sediments suspended in the water column during dredging activities may settle onto and bury 

adjacent habitats, clog the feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, or reduce light 

penetration. The potential for impacts on aquatic organisms as a result of direct effects of 

suspended sediment depends on the types of organisms present in the affected area, the 

amount and particle sizes of the sediment, and the duration of dredging activities 

(Nichols et al. 1990; Wilber and Clarke 2001). 

The recovery of benthic communities in habitats disturbed by dredging depends, in part, on 

the characteristics of the remaining sediments (Diaz 1994; Haynes and Makarewicz 1982), 

the sources and types of organisms available to recolonize from surrounding areas, and the 

size of the disturbed area (Whitlatch et al. 1998). In soft-sediment environments, such as 

those that are most likely to require dredging in the vicinity of power plant intakes, recovery 

of animal communities generally occurs relatively quickly (sometimes within weeks) especially 

if the dredged areas are relatively small (e.g., Diaz 1994). In some cases, however, 

recovery of benthic communities may take several years (e.g., Kaplan et al. 1975; 

Guerra-García et al. 2003). Recovery of benthic communities following dredging also tends to 

be faster in areas exposed to periodic disturbances, such as tidally influenced habitats 

(Diaz 1994). 

Sediments in and around cities and industrial areas are often contaminated with a variety of 

pollutants. These pollutants are introduced to waterways from point sources such as combined 

sewer overflows, municipal and industrial discharges and spills, or may be introduced from 

nonpoint sources such as surface runoff and atmospheric deposition. Contaminants that have 

accumulated in buried layers of sediment are often less readily bioavailable or less chemically 

active (EPA 2004). Depending on the concentrations of specific contaminants in accumulated 

sediments, there could be increased bioavailability and increased toxicity of those contaminants 

if they are resuspended in the water column due to dredging activities (Petersen et al. 1997; 

Su et al. 2002; EPA 2004). On the basis of a review of the information in the ERs and SEISs 

that have been prepared for previous renewal applications, the levels of chemical and 

radionuclide contamination of sediments in the areas near power plant intakes and discharges 

that would need to be dredged are likely to be relatively low. For example, as reported in the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-109 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

SEIS for license renewal for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Massachusetts, the toxicity of 

sediments to marine organisms, which was evaluated prior to dredging the intake channel, was 

found to be low (NRC 2007c). 

In general, maintenance dredging for nuclear power plant operations would occur infrequently, 

would be of relatively short duration, and would affect relatively small areas. For example, at 

the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania, it is estimated that dredging of the 

intake basins is performed approximately once every 20 years and a total area of approximately 

6 ac (2.4 ha) would need to be dredged (NRC 2003a). Portions of either the intake or the 

discharge canals at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey have been 

dredged approximately every 10 years (NRC 2007b), and the intake area for the Monticello 

Nuclear Generating Plant in Minnesota requires dredging every 6 to 8 years (NRC 2006c). It is 

anticipated that maintenance dredging would be primarily undertaken in areas containing soft 

sediments that would be recolonized fairly rapidly by benthic organisms in surrounding areas. 

In addition, permits from the USACE, State environmental agencies, or other applicable 

regulatory authorities would be required prior to initiating dredging. Site-specific evaluation of 

potential environmental impacts, including potential impacts on listed species of aquatic 

organisms, would be considered as part of the permitting process, and appropriate mitigation 

measures, if needed, could be identified and implemented. 

Available scientific literature, plant-specific ERs, and the SEISs that were reviewed indicate that 

the effects of these dredging activities on populations or communities of aquatic organisms 

would likely be SMALL at all plants where they occur. On the basis of these considerations, the 

NRC concludes that the impact of dredging on aquatic resources would be SMALL for all 

nuclear plants and is considered a Category 1 issue. 

Water Use Conflicts with Aquatic Resources (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling 

Towers Using Makeup Water from a River) 

In the 1996 GEIS, water use conflicts was listed as a site-specific, surface water quantity issue 

that included within it ecological impacts on aquatic and riparian communities. The NRC 

separated out the ecological impacts in this revised GEIS because the effects of water use 

conflicts on aquatic resources in stream communities could occur under many scenarios. 

Increased temperatures and/or decreased rainfall would result in lower river flows, increased 

cooling pond evaporation, and lowered water levels in the Great Lakes or reservoirs. 

Regardless of overall climate change, droughts could result in problems with water supplies and 

allocations. Because future agricultural, municipal, and industrial users would continue to share 

their demands for surface water with power plants, conflicts might arise if the availability of this 

resource decreased. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-110 

Water use conflicts with aquatic resources could occur when water to support these resources 

is diminished either because of decreased water availability due to droughts; increased demand 

for agricultural, municipal, or industrial usage; or due to a combination of such factors. Water 

use conflicts with biological resources in stream communities is a concern due to the duration of 

license renewal and potentially increasing demands on surface water. 

For example, Wolf Creek uses Coffee County Lake for cooling (NRC 2008a). Makeup water for 

the lake is withdrawn from the Neosho River downstream of John Redmond Reservoir. The 

Neosho River is a river with low water flow during drought conditions. The aquatic communities 

in the Neosho River downstream include an endangered fish species, the Neosho madtom 

(Noturus placidus), that may be affected by the plant’s water use during periods when the lake 

level is low and makeup water is obtained from the Neosho River. For the Wolf Creek plant, the 

water use conflict impact is SMALL to MODERATE and a site-specific condition. For future 

license renewals, the potential range of impact levels at plants with cooling ponds or cooling 

towers using makeup water from a river with low flow cannot be determined at this time. The 

impact of water use conflicts with stream communities is considered a plant-specific Category 2 

issue. 

Effects on Aquatic Resources (Non-Cooling System Impacts) 

Impacts on aquatic resources from continued operations and refurbishment activities could 

occur at all operating nuclear power plants during the license renewal term as a result of 

(1) direct disturbance of aquatic habitats within project areas, (2) sedimentation of nearby 

aquatic habitats as a consequence of soil erosion, (3) changes in water quantity or water quality 

(e.g., grading that affects surface runoff patterns or depletions or discharges of water into 

aquatic habitats), or (4) releases of chemical contaminants into nearby aquatic systems. In 

some cases, impacts have a potential to continue to occur throughout the period covered by 

license renewal. In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC considered only the impact of refurbishment on 

aquatic habitats and concluded that the impact would be SMALL for all nuclear plants 

(i.e., a Category 1 issue). 

The surface area disturbed during construction of new waste storage facilities (e.g., ISFSIs) 

would be expected to range from about 2.5 to 10 ac (1 to 4 ha). Other supporting activities that 

could occur at specific sites may include the construction of new parking areas for plant 

employees, utility corridors, access roads, or new buildings or facilities, or the demolition of 

existing buildings. Land used for equipment storage, worker parking, and material laydown 

areas could result in disturbance to aquatic resources within the plant boundaries. Surface 

water habitats could also be affected by draining ponds, blocking or redirecting streams, or 

placing rip-rap along shorelines. Depending on the size and nature of the water body, and other 

project-specific aspects, organisms within the affected habitats could be displaced or killed, or 

the community structure within the water body could be altered. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-111 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

The potential for soil erosion and sediment loading of nearby aquatic habitats is typically 

proportional to the amount of surface disturbance, erosion potential of the soil, slope, condition 

of disturbed areas at any given time, and proximity to aquatic habitats. Ground-disturbing 

activities have a higher erosion potential. Mitigation measures include controlling surface runoff 

with ditches, berms, and sedimentation basins; prompt revegetation to control erosion; 

stockpiling and reusing excavated topsoil; and various other techniques used to control soil 

erosion and water pollution. These mitigation measures (often referred to as BMPs) are 

expected to be implemented as part of project activities undertaken during the license renewal 

term to minimize impacts on surface water quality and aquatic resources. 

During refurbishment, effluent discharges from the cooling system of a nuclear power plant 

would either remain similar to those occurring during normal operations during refurbishment or 

would decrease if the plant was partially or totally shut down. Consequently, effects of changes 

in water withdrawals and discharges during refurbishment would be of SMALL significance. The 

impact on aquatic biota from water use would not be expected to substantially change during 

refurbishment or maintenance activities from the impact during existing operations. 

During ground-disturbing activities, contaminants could enter aquatic habitats as a result of 

runoff from project sites or from accidental releases of fuels or lubricants. The level of impacts 

from releases of toxicants would depend on the type and volume of chemicals entering the 

waterway, the location of the release, the nature of the water body (e.g., size, volume, flow 

rates, and water chemistry), and the types and life stages of organisms present in the affected 

area. In general, lubricants and fuel would not be expected to enter waterways as long as 

construction machinery and fuel storage areas and fueling locations were located away from 

water bodies, and spill prevention and control measures are in place. 

Obstructions to fish movement could occur in streams with low flows. Restrictions on fish 

movement would likely be most significant if they occurred in streams that supported species 

that need to move to specific areas in order to reproduce. 

The impact of refurbishment on aquatic habitats was evaluated in the 1996 GEIS and 

considered a Category 1 issue. Permits from various Federal, State, and local governmental 

authorities are typically required for ground-disturbing activities. For example, refurbishment 

may require the issuance of permits under Section 404 of the CWA if the activities were to 

directly affect aquatic habitats. With proper application of environmental reviews, permitting 

processes, and BMPs, impacts on sensitive aquatic habitats would likely be avoided. The NRC 

concludes that the impact of continued operations and refurbishment activities on aquatic 

resources is SMALL and is considered a Category 1 issue. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-112 

Impacts of Transmission Line ROW Management on Aquatic Resources 

Impacts on aquatic resources from transmission line ROW management could occur as a result 

of the direct disturbance of aquatic habitats, soil erosion, changes in water quality (from 

sedimentation and thermal effects), or inadvertent releases of chemical contaminants from 

herbicide use. These impacts could occur throughout the license renewal term. The NRC did 

not evaluate the impact of transmission line ROW maintenance on aquatic biota in the 

1996 GEIS, but this issue has been identified by the NRC for consideration in this GEIS revision 

on the basis of past environmental reviews conducted for plant-specific SEISs. 

Water quality impacts could result from maintaining transmission line ROWs and, as necessary, 

service roads. Where access roads cross or border on surface waters, soil erosion could cause 

elevated turbidity and sedimentation. Application of appropriate control techniques 

(e.g., establishing and maintaining vegetated buffer strips between the road and the body of 

water) would reduce impacts. Because ROWs are normally maintained by mowing, selective 

cutting, and/or selective application of herbicides, soil erosion from transmission line corridors 

should not normally be a problem. Potential toxic effects of herbicides that are applied to 

transmission line ROWs and subsequently transported to surface waters should be considered 

in the ROW maintenance program. By using herbicides approved for ROW use in accordance 

with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, significant adverse effects of 

herbicides on aquatic ecosystems should be minimized. Maintenance activities in the vicinity of 

stream and river crossings employ procedures to minimize erosion and shoreline disturbance 

(e.g., control of vegetation within streamside buffer zones is generally accomplished by manual 

techniques) while encouraging small tree, shrub, and other low-growth vegetative cover. The 

nature or frequency of these activities is not expected to change substantially during the license 

renewal term. 

For small streams in particular, trees may have grown sufficiently between cutting cycles to 

provide stream shading. Removal of these trees to maintain required conductor clearance 

could increase water temperature. Coldwater species may avoid such areas. The normal 

reaction of fish exposed to stressful temperatures is to move along the temperature gradient 

until preferred temperatures are encountered. Fish could avoid elevated temperatures within 

the opened ROW by swimming upstream or downstream to areas of groundwater inflow, to 

deep holes, or to shaded areas. However, effects that result in avoidance of specific areas by 

some species could represent a partial loss of available habitat. Thermal conditions of larger 

streams (e.g., those that are 10 ft [3 m] wide or wider) would be generally unaltered, since they 

are mostly unshaded. 

Most transmission line ROWs are maintained on a 3- to 6-year cycle, so impacts on a water 

body would be infrequent. Any adverse impacts would be localized and temporary and would 

occur primarily on small streams. To minimize potential impacts from siltation and 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-113 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

sedimentation, herbicide application, and stream warming, the licensee or owner of the 

transmission line typically adheres to standard mitigation practices (application of herbicides 

according to label instructions and by licensed personnel) listed in the vegetation management 

plan. Most operators establish stream buffer setbacks within which herbicides cannot be 

applied, and most widely used herbicides (e.g., glyphosate, fosamine, and imazapyr) pose 

minimal risks to aquatic organisms. 

Changes in aquatic species diversity, abundance, or health from transmission line ROW 

maintenance are likely to be SMALL. The continued use of proper management practices with 

respect to soil erosion and application of herbicides is expected. Consequently, it is anticipated 

that the impact of transmission lines on surface water quality and aquatic resources would be 

SMALL. The decision to renew the license for a specific plant would affect only the portion of 

the transmission line that connects the power plant to the first substation. In many cases, the 

first substation is within or near the boundary of the plant property, and only a short distance of 

transmission line would be affected by the license renewal decision. Consequently, the amount 

of aquatic habitat crossed by this portion of a transmission line is also likely to be SMALL. 

The impact on aquatic resources of maintaining transmission line ROWs was not identified as 

an issue in the 1996 GEIS. However, the impact is expected to be SMALL, short term, and 

localized. The NRC concludes that the impact of transmission line ROW maintenance on 

aquatic resources would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and is considered a Category 1 issue. 

Losses from Predation, Parasitism, and Disease Among Organisms Exposed to 

Sublethal Stresses 

Sublethal power plant stresses may alter predator-prey interactions in the receiving body of 

water, as evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. Aquatic organisms that are stunned but not killed by 

entrainment, impingement, or thermal effects may still suffer “indirect” mortality through 

increased susceptibility to predators. Numerous laboratory studies have been carried out to 

evaluate the level of indirect mortality that might occur following heat and cold shocks or 

entrainment (reviews in Cada et al. 1981; Coutant 1981). These studies have commonly 

demonstrated increased susceptibility to predation, but field evidence of such effects is often 

limited to anecdotal information such as observations of enhanced feeding activity of seagulls 

and predatory fish near power plant outfalls. For example, Barkley and Perrin (1971) and 

Romberg et al. (1974) reported increased concentrations of predators feeding on forage fish 

attracted to thermal plumes. Neither quantification of the levels of stress needed to increase 

predation rates, nor prediction of the subsequent population- and community-level effects of 

such changes can be made easily in the field. It is likely that operation of once-through cooling 

systems will cause some changes in predator-prey relationships, but the best evidence for 

impacts (or lack of impacts) may come from long-term monitoring of fish populations. Neither 

the literature reviews nor consultations with agencies and utilities (Appendix F) have revealed 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-114 

studies that demonstrate population- or community-level effects from power-plant-induced 

alterations of predator-prey relationships. 

Elevated water temperatures in power plant discharges have been hypothesized to increase the 

susceptibility of fish to diseases and parasites. Langford (1983) cites a number of factors that 

could contribute to such an effect, including the tendency for fish to congregate in the heated 

discharge area in greater than normal concentrations, increased stresses on fish in warmer 

water that makes them more prone to infection, and the ability of some diseases and parasites 

to develop faster at higher temperatures. Additionally, it has been suggested that stress and 

injury from entrainment and impingement contribute to increased susceptibility of fish to 

disease, parasites, and predation. Coutant (1981) noted that although some studies of 

increased disease and parasitism in heated waters have found localized effects, most were not 

adequately designed to determine the significance of the effects to the overall population. The 

greatest risks appear to be associated with changes in animal concentrations; crowding can 

occur among fish that are attracted to heated effluents in the winter or that avoid heated water in 

the summer by occupying limited cool-water refugia. Crowding increases the chances of 

exposure to infectious diseases and may also lead to other stresses (decreased food supply or 

reduced oxygen concentrations) that increase susceptibility to disease (Coutant 1987). Despite 

limited laboratory studies that confirm this phenomenon, population-level effects in the vicinity of 

plants have not been observed. 

Impact levels due to sublethal stresses on the susceptibility of aquatic organisms to predation, 

parasitism, and disease are considered to be of SMALL significance if changes are localized 

and populations in the receiving water body are not reduced. Based on reviews of literature and 

operational monitoring reports, consultations with utilities and regulatory agencies, and 

comments on the draft GEIS, these forms of indirect, power plant-induced mortality have not 

been shown to cause reductions in the overall populations near any existing nuclear power 

plants. Levels of impact are SMALL for all plants reviewed. Although sublethal power plant 

stresses contribute to cumulative impacts experienced by aquatic biota, monitoring has revealed 

no evidence for significant effects; the regulatory and resource agencies consulted in the 

preparation of this GEIS did not express concerns about the contribution of sublethal power 

plant stresses to cumulative impacts. 

On the basis of its review, the NRC concludes that the level of impact due to sublethal stresses 

has been SMALL at plants reviewed and expects it to be SMALL for all nuclear plants. The 

issue remains Category 1. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-115 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

4.6.1.3 Special Status Species and Habitats 

Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species and Essential Fish Habitat 

 

The impacts associated with continued nuclear power plant operations and refurbishment 

activities during the license renewal term that could affect threatened, endangered, and 

protected species, critical habitat, and essential fish habitat (EFH) are similar to those described 

for terrestrial resources (Section 4.6.1.1) and aquatic resources (Section 4.6.1.2). Continued 

operations during the license renewal term would be expected to include such stressors as 

operation of cooling towers, operation of once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds, 

transmission line ROW management, maintenance of site facilities, releases of gaseous and 

liquid effluents, withdrawal of surface water, and potentially refurbishment activities. Details are 

presented in Section 3.6.3. There are several Federal Acts that provide protection to certain 

species and habitats that are treated here under a single issue. The issue includes impacts to 

biological resources such as threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat under 

the ESA, EFH as protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA), and impacts to mammalian species protected under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. 

Terrestrial Species 

 

Continued operations and refurbishment activities at all nuclear plants could have an impact on 

Federally or State-listed threatened and endangered species during the license renewal term. 

Factors that could potentially result in impacts on listed terrestrial species include habitat 

disturbance, cooling tower drift, operation and maintenance of cooling systems, transmission 

line ROW maintenance, collisions with cooling towers and transmission lines, and exposure to 

radionuclides. In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC considered the impacts of refurbishment and 

continued operation on threatened and endangered terrestrial species and concluded that the 

impacts would not necessarily be the same at all sites (i.e., a Category 2 issue) and could range 

from SMALL to LARGE. 

Federally listed threatened and endangered terrestrial species are protected under the ESA, 

while State-listed species are protected under provisions of various State regulations. Prior to 

license renewal, the NRC must consult with the USFWS to determine the presence of any 

Federally listed species or critical habitat at or near the site and assess the potential for impacts 

from continued operation of the plant or associated transmission lines. The impacts of 

refurbishment activities on threatened or endangered species must also be considered during 

project planning, and consultation with the USFWS must be initiated if the possibility for impacts 

exists. Guidance for the consultation process is provided in the Endangered Species 

Consultation Handbook (USFWS and NMFS 1998). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-116 

Site-specific factors related to continued operations and refurbishment activities may vary widely 

among nuclear power plants. The listed species on or in the vicinity of nuclear power plants 

also range widely, depending on numerous factors such as the plant location and habitat types 

present (see Section 3.6.3.1). In addition, the list of threatened and endangered species is not 

static and is frequently modified by the USFWS and NMFS, with new listings being added as 

some species are determined to be eligible, other species being delisted (removed from the list), 

or the listing category of some species being changed because of changes in the status of or 

threats to the species population. Therefore, a generic determination of potential impacts on 

listed species during a nuclear power plant’s license renewal term is not possible. Impacts on 

threatened and endangered species would depend on site-specific factors, and impact 

assessments would need to be conducted on a site-specific basis. Nuclear plants known to 

support terrestrial listed species on the site or along transmission line ROWs generally have 

monitoring programs to identify changes in populations and report impacts to the USFWS and 

State agencies. Monitoring provides information that can be used for developing or adjusting 

mitigation during the license renewal term. 

Aquatic Species and Essential Fish Habitats 

Potential impacts of continued operations and refurbishment activities on Federally or Statelisted threatened and endangered species, protected marine mammals, and EFH could occur 

during the license renewal term. This issue applies to all operating nuclear power plants. 

Factors that could potentially result in impacts to these species and habitats include impacts of 

refurbishment, other ground-disturbing activities, release of contaminants, effects of cooling 

water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, eutrophication, thermal discharges, 

entrainment, impingement, reduction in water levels due to the cooling system operations, 

dredging, radionuclides, and transmission line ROW maintenance. In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC 

considered potential impacts on threatened and endangered aquatic species from the operation 

of all nuclear power plants as a Category 2 issue and concluded that the impacts could range 

from SMALL to LARGE.

Power plants (nuclear and otherwise) that use estuarine or marine waters for cooling could 

entrain or impinge sea turtles (National Research Council 1990). The impingement mortality of 

sea turtles (all of which are Federally listed) has received the most attention to date with regard 

to the effects of nuclear power plant operations on listed species. Sea turtles are commonly 

encountered at some coastal nuclear plants, including the St. Lucie plant in Florida, the Oyster 

Creek plant in New Jersey, and the Brunswick plant in North Carolina. Between 1977 and 

1997, the average number of sea turtles removed from the intake canal at the St. Lucie plant 

was 266 per year (Gunter et al. 2001). These included loggerhead, green, leatherback, 

hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. Most were loggerhead and green sea turtles, with an 

average of 150 and 103 removed per year, respectively. Among the sea turtles removed, about 

4 percent of the loggerheads, 2 percent of the green, and 13 percent of the Kemp’s ridley sea 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-117 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

turtles were dead (Gunter et al. 2001). Sixty-eight sea turtles were impinged on intake screens 

at the Oyster Creek plant between 1992 and 2005, and 28 (41 percent) of those individuals died 

(NRC 2007c). The incidental take limit established by the NMFS for Kemp’s ridley sea turtles 

was exceeded at the Oyster Creek plant in 2004, which required re-initiation of ESA Section 7 

consultation with the NMFS (NRC 2007c). All three sea turtle species have been collected, as 

recently as 2004, in the vicinity of the Brunswick plant intake canal in North Carolina 

(NRC 2006e). Seventy-five percent of these turtles were released unharmed to the ocean or 

transported to a sea turtle facility for rehabilitation. Special panels have been installed at the 

diversion structure of the Brunswick plant, located at the entrance to the intake canal, to 

minimize the potential for sea turtles to enter the intake canal (NRC 2006e). 

The licensees of the St. Lucie, Oyster Creek, and Brunswick plants have also implemented 

programs to monitor the intake canals for sea turtles and to capture and release to the wild any 

sea turtles observed in the intake canals (NRC 2003a, 2007c, 2006e). In addition, the licensee 

of the St. Lucie plant has initiated programs to monitor turtle nests on nearby beaches and has 

implemented facility lighting restrictions (NRC 2003a). Incidental takes of sea turtles have also 

been recorded for other plants that use estuarine or marine waters for cooling, including the 

Crystal River and Salem plants (Sackschewsky 2004). Sea turtles also have the potential to 

occur in the vicinity of other nuclear power plants located near estuarine or marine ecosystems, 

including the Calvert Cliffs, Diablo Canyon, Hope Creek, and Millstone plants 

(Sackschewsky 2004). In the SEISs prepared for the Calvert Cliffs plant (NRC 1999b) and the 

Millstone plant (NRC 2005c), it was determined that continued operations would not adversely 

affect endangered sea turtles. 

Many nuclear plants whose operations are known to affect special status aquatic species have 

been required to establish monitoring programs and implemented mitigations in consultation 

with the USFWS or NMFS. For some plants, NMFS or FWS have developed incidental take 

limits to ensure that effects on species do not exceed specific levels. If takes exceed these 

incidental take limits, the NRC would be required to reinitiate consultation with USFWS or 

NMFS. Continued implementation of these actions would reduce the potential for adverse 

impacts to listed species during the license renewal term. 

Prior to license renewal, the NRC consults with the USFWS and NMFS to determine the 

presence of and possible impacts on any ESA-listed aquatic species. Guidance for the ESA 

consultation process is provided in the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS 

and NMFS 1998). The NRC also contacts the NMFS for license renewal applications for plants 

located in areas that may contain EFH for Federally managed marine or anadromous fisheries 

or for plants that may have an effect on protected marine mammals. In addition, the appropriate 

State agencies are contacted to determine the potential for State-listed species to be affected 

by continued operations and refurbishment activities during the license renewal term. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-118 

Subsequent consultation could be required for specific maintenance or refurbishment activities 

undertaken at a plant during the license renewal term. 

Site-specific factors related to operations and refurbishment varies widely among nuclear power 

plants. The special status aquatic species and habitats in the vicinity of nuclear power plants 

and their transmission lines also vary widely, depending on numerous factors such as the plant 

location and habitat types present (see Section 3.6.3.2). In addition, the lists of special status 

species and habitats are not static and are frequently modified by the USFWS, NMFS, and 

State agencies, with new listings being added as some species are determined to be eligible, 

other species being delisted (removed from the list), or the listing category of some species 

being changed because of changes in the status of or threats to the species population. EFH 

designations and status also can change through time. Therefore, a generic determination of 

potential impacts on species and habitats during a nuclear power plant’s license renewal term is 

not possible. Impacts on special status species and habitats would depend on site-specific 

factors, and impact assessments would need to be conducted on a site-specific basis in the 

plant-specific SEISs prepared for license renewal applications. 

In preparing this revised GEIS, the NRC staff has determined that the levels of impact that it 

developed to implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (i.e., SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE) are not sufficiently clear with respect to the ESA and MSA, as these 

laws define and require other findings. So, in complying with the ESA, the NRC will report in its 

plant-specific environmental reviews and future SEISs the effects of continued operations and 

refurbishment in terms of its ESA findings of (1) no effect, (2) not likely to adversely affect, 

(3) likely to adversely affect, or (4) is likely to jeopardize the listed species or adversely modify 

the designated critical habitat of Federally listed species populations or their critical habitat. For 

listed species where the NRC has found that its action is “likely to adversely affect” the species 

or habitat, the NRC may further characterize the effects as “is [or is not] likely to jeopardize 

listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat.” Similarly, in complying with the 

MSA, the NRC will report the effects of continued operations and refurbishment in terms of its 

MSA findings of (1) no adverse impact, (2) minimal adverse impact, or (3) substantial adverse 

impact to the essential habitat of Federally managed fish populations during the license renewal 

term. 

On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of continued 

operations and refurbishment activities on threatened, endangered, and protected species and 

habitats as well as essential fish habitat would depend on plant-specific design and operating 

characteristics, environmental review procedures established for ground-disturbing activities, 

the occurrence of species and habitats, and other site-specific considerations. Consequently, 

this issue remains a plant-specific, or Category 2, issue. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-119 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

4.6.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

Construction—For all alternatives discussed in this section, the impacts of construction on 

ecological resources would be qualitatively similar. Ecological impacts are site-dependent. 

Impacts would depend on the type and location of a proposed facility, the technologies to be 

employed, the size of the area affected, and the specific ecological characteristics of the area to 

be developed. Vegetation would be removed from construction and material storage areas, and 

along utility pathways. Some disturbed areas would be re-vegetated after plant construction. 

Native vegetation could be displaced by invasive species in areas disturbed by construction. 

Some areas near access roads may be affected by the release of fugitive dust. 

Construction-related noise could disturb wildlife. Permanent habitat loss could occur for some 

species. Despite reclamation efforts, a certain amount of natural habitat at greenfield sites 

could be permanently lost. Industrial development at brownfield and existing nuclear power 

plant sites have already affected or altered the natural habitat. 

Operations—Various impacts on ecological resources can be anticipated throughout the 

operating period of an electrical power plant. Impacts include fugitive dust; impingement and 

entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms; heated effluent from cooling water discharge 

and blowdown; gasifier and boiler blowdowns; steam water treatment; cooling tower drift 

(fogging and ice); salt deposition; maintenance of transmission line ROWs; bird collisions; and 

wildlife avoidance behavior due to operational activities and noise. Aquatic ecosystems would 

be affected by cooling water discharge, steam-cycle blowdown, and other (NPDES-permitted) 

wastewater. Onsite maintenance, accumulation of contaminants in sediment or biota, changes 

in levels of dissolved oxygen in surface water, dredging, and possible deposition of 

radionuclides would also impact aquatic resources. The magnitude of potential impacts from a 

proposed facility could be greater than or less than renewing the license for an existing facility 

depending upon site-specific and project-specific factors. 

4.6.2.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives 

Operations—Many of the potential ecological impacts from operations of a fossil energy facility 

(coal- or gas-fired) would essentially be similar to those for a nuclear facility. 

 

Unique features of a coal-fired power plant that could impact ecological resources include: 

 

• Coal delivery, cleaning and storage—periodic maintenance dredging (if coal is delivered 

by barge), noise, dust, loss of habitat, sedimentation and turbidity, and introduction of 

minerals and terrace elements (including contaminants that can cause impacts similar to 

acid mine drainage); 

 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-120 

• Limestone preparation and storage—dust and runoff can affect soil and vegetation and 

increase water hardness and turbidity; 

 

• Air emissions—most notably, acid precipitation can cause direct and indirect effects on 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms including injury to foliage, leaching of nutrients, 

decreased biodiversity, and elimination of certain fish species from lakes and streams; 

and 

 

• Disposal of combustion wastes—habitat loss and potential seepage of trace and other 

elements into groundwater, soils, and surface waters. 

 

The unique feature of a gas-fired power plant that could impact ecological resources would be 

the need for a gas pipeline. The main impact of a pipeline would be the loss, modification, and 

fragmentation of habitat. 

 

Overall, ecological impacts from a fossil energy facility would depend on whether it would be 

located at a new site or replace an existing energy facility and whether the fossil energy facility 

would use once-through or closed-cycle cooling. The range of ecological impacts would be 

SMALL to MODERATE at an existing industrial site using closed-cycle cooling to MODERATE 

to LARGE at a new location using open-cycle cooling. 

 

4.6.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives 

 

Operations—Since 1997, the NRC has certified four new standard designs for light-water 

nuclear power plants under 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B. Therefore, impacts on ecological 

resources from construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant are considered in this 

section. The NRC assumes that the new nuclear reactor would have a 40-year lifetime. The 

extent of ecological impacts would depend on the location of the facility. A new nuclear plant 

located at the site of the existing nuclear facility would limit the amount of habitat disturbance 

that would be required (e.g., a new reactor at an alternative site would require about 500 to 

1,000 acres [202 to 405 ha]). Additionally, existing transmission facilities, roads, parking areas, 

and possibly cooling system could be used if the new nuclear facility is located at the site of the 

existing facility. Ecological communities would experience reduced productivity and biological 

diversity from land disturbance. Regardless of whether a new reactor was constructed at an 

existing or alternative site, the amount of habitat disturbance would be greater than for license 

renewal of an existing nuclear facility. 

 

Operational impacts on terrestrial ecology from a new nuclear reactor would be similar to those 

for the existing facility (Section 4.6.1.1). It is expected that a new nuclear reactor facility would 

use a closed-cycle cooling system. If the existing nuclear facility had once-through cooling, then 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-121 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

impacts on aquatic resources for the new nuclear reactor would be reduced. Otherwise, 

operational impacts on aquatic ecology would be similar. 

 

Overall, the ecological impacts of the nuclear alternative would be SMALL to MODERATE at an 

existing site and MODERATE to LARGE at an alternative site. 

4.6.2.3 Renewable Alternatives 

Construction—Dams and reservoirs would alter river flow and temperature, which could affect 

aquatic and terrestrial resources downstream. Dams create a barrier to fish migration if fish 

passages are not installed. Aquatic and terrestrial resources would have to adapt to the newly 

created reservoir. Disruptions to the sea bottom for installation of power and communication 

cables would affect benthic populations and other species that rely on benthic organisms for 

food. Unique ecological impacts could result from construction of offshore facilities from boat 

traffic to and from the construction site. Other impacts include underwater noise, alteration of 

sediment transport and deposition patterns, and possible disruption of onshore and nearshore 

nesting areas. 

Operations—The operational impacts of alternative energy technologies on terrestrial and 

aquatic ecology are summarized in the following subsections. 

Hydroelectric Energy Sources 

Downstream conditions could be affected by dam operations (store-and-release of water) that 

could vary river flow conditions. Aquatic and terrestrial resources would be affected by 

fluctuating water levels downstream of the dam. Aquatic organisms could become stranded 

temporarily when river levels are lowered. Temperature and nutrient stratification in the 

reservoir and reduced levels of dissolved oxygen could result in hypotoxic or anoxic conditions 

for aquatic organisms. Aquatic and riparian ecosystems downstream would be affected by a 

variety of dam-induced conditions, such as changes in sediment transport and deposition 

patterns, and channel erosion or scouring. Hydropower operations could enhance populations 

of nonnative aquatic biota and riparian plants.

Geothermal 

Birds and bats could be affected by contact with geothermal fluids temporarily stored in surface 

impoundments.
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-122 

Wind 

Aerodynamic and mechanical noise from wind turbines would affect wildlife. Collisions with 

wind turbines would increase bird and bat mortality. However technological advances allow 

rotors to turn at lower speeds, thus reducing the potential for bird and bat strikes. Underwater 

noise impacts from offshore facilities would extend to great distances due to the density of 

water. Offshore facilities could impact threatened and endangered species, marine mammals, 

birds, or sea turtles. Other impacts include disturbance of nesting areas, alteration of key 

habitat, underwater noise, or fuel spills.

Biomass 

Habitat loss could occur from the cultivation of energy crops. Deposition of toxic constituents 

from municipal solid waste feedstock could affect aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic 

Solar fields occupy large areas of land that could reduce or preclude natural vegetation 

communities and wildlife use. Synthetic organic heat transfer fluids could affect surrounding 

vegetation. Misalignment of mirrors could also increase fire risk.

Ocean Wave and Current 

Boat traffic, noise, navigation safety lights, inspection and maintenance activities could affect 

marine mammals, fish, and sea turtles. Sea turtles could be affected by wave-topping devices. 

Onshore nesting areas could be affected. Fish, sea turtles, and marine mammals could collide 

with underwater turbines. 

4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

4.7.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action—Continued 

Operations and Refurbishment 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to take into 

account the effects of their undertakings (license renewal) on historic properties. As discussed 

in Section 3.7.1, the NRC fulfills its Section 106 requirements through the NEPA process (see 

36 CFR 800.8). In license renewal, only one impact issue is evaluated: 

• Historic and cultural resources; issue encompasses the impact of continued operations 

and refurbishment activities on historic properties located onsite and in transmission line 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-123 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

ROWs (issue was modified and renamed from the1996 GEIS issue, “Historic and 

archaeological resources”). 

This issue was addressed in the 1996 GEIS; however, the process for considering historic 

properties has been updated, and the range of historic properties has been expanded to include 

traditional cultural properties. 

Many facilities were constructed prior to the implementation of Section 106 regulations; 

therefore, many nuclear plant sites were not investigated for the presence of historic and 

cultural resources prior to construction. As most licensees are not aware of the presence or 

status of historic and cultural resources on their site, a review of the site and plant activities 

since construction should be conducted by qualified cultural resource professionals and 

approved by the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). A variety of historic and 

cultural resources can be found at plant sites. Archaeological sites are generally identifiable 

only through field investigations. Traditional cultural properties (TCPs), historic and cultural 

resources that are important for a community to maintain its cultural heritage, can also be found 

in the immediate environs of a nuclear power plant. In some cases, the nuclear power plant 

itself may be considered a historic property for its design or engineering. Ultimately, historic and 

cultural resources at each site can be quite different and must be assessed at a plant-specific 

level and in consultation with SHPOs, Tribal representatives, and other interested parties. 

The NRC will identify historic and cultural resources within a defined Area of Potential Effect 

(APE). The license renewal APE is the area that may be impacted by land-disturbing, or other 

operational, activities associated with continued plant operations and maintenance during the 

license renewal term and/or refurbishment. The APE typically encompasses the nuclear power 

plant site, its immediate environs including viewshed, and the transmission lines within this 

scope of review (see Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.6.5 in this GEIS). The APE may extend beyond the 

nuclear plant site and transmission lines when these activities may affect historic and cultural 

resources. This determination is made irrespective of land ownership or control. If any historic 

properties are present, their significance is determined through application of the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria. 

Continued operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment activities at a nuclear 

power plant can affect historic and cultural resources through (1) ground-disturbing activities 

associated with plant operations and ongoing maintenance (e.g., construction of new parking 

lots or buildings), landscaping, agricultural or other use of plant property, (2) activities 

associated with transmission line maintenance (e.g., maintenance of access roads or removal of 

danger trees), and (3) changes to the appearance of nuclear power plants and transmission 

lines. Licensee renewal environmental reviews have shown that the appearance of nuclear 

power plants and transmission lines have not changed significantly over time; therefore 

additional viewshed impacts to historic and cultural resources are not anticipated. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-124 

Extensive ground-disturbing activities occurred during nuclear power plant construction at 

nuclear power plant sites, and much of the land immediately surrounding the power block was 

disturbed down to bedrock. This activity would have eliminated any potential for historic or 

cultural resources to be present in this portion of the power plant site. However, to effectively 

determine areas that could potentially contain historic and cultural resources, a survey of any 

area which may be disturbed by continued operations during the license renewal term or by 

refurbishment associated with license renewal, including previously disturbed areas of the 

nuclear power plant site (other than the land immediately surrounding the power block), should 

be conducted by qualified professionals and in consultation with the appropriate SHPO and 

other consulting parties. 

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC considered the impact of continued operations and refurbishment on 

historic and archaeological resources at nuclear power plants and concluded that impacts would 

not be the same at all plants (i.e., a Category 2 issue) and could range from SMALL to LARGE. 

Subsequent license renewal environmental reviews conducted by the NRC support the 

Category 2 designation. 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires the NRC to conduct a sitespecific assessment to determine whether historic properties are present in the APE, and if so, 

whether the license renewal decision would result in any adverse effect upon such properties. 

Thus, the NRC concludes that it is more appropriate to make one of the following 

determinations in its plant-specific environmental reviews instead of assigning a significance 

level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE): (1) no historic properties present; (2) historic 

properties are present, but not adversely affected; or (3) there is an adverse effect on a historic 

property. On the basis of these considerations, the impact of continued operations and 

refurbishment activities on historic properties (and cultural resources) remains a Category 2 

issue. 

4.7.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

Construction—Impacts to historic and cultural resources from the construction of a replacement 

power facility are primarily related to ground disturbance and are dependent on the location of 

the power plant. Before constructing a new replacement power plant or a facility at a greenfield, 

brownfield, or existing nuclear power plant site, a historic and cultural resource inventory would 

need to be performed by a qualified cultural resource professional. Any land needed to support 

the replacement power plant including roads, transmission corridors, rail lines, or other ROWs 

would also need to be surveyed for historic properties. 

4.7.2.1 Fossil Fuel Alternatives 

Operations—Ground-disturbing activities during power plant operations and maintenance could 

impact historic and cultural resources at the power plant site. Other ongoing activities at the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-125 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

power plant site could also affect historic and cultural resources. These activities include, but 

are not limited to, grading, excavating, landscaping, and operating large vehicles over 

previously undisturbed portions of the site. 

4.7.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives 

 

Operations—Ground-disturbing activities during power plant operations and maintenance could 

impact historic and cultural resources at the power plant site. Other ongoing activities at the 

power plant site could also affect historic and cultural resources. These activities include, but 

are not limited to, grading, excavating, landscaping, and operating large vehicles over 

previously undisturbed portions of the site. 

4.7.2.3 Renewable Alternatives 

Hydroelectric Energy Sources

Operations—Fluctuations of river flow could erode embankments affecting downstream historic 

properties. Ground-disturbing activities during power plant operations and maintenance could 

impact historic and cultural resources at the dam site. It is assumed that impacts to historic 

properties would have been addressed prior to construction. 

Wind

Operations—Historic properties would be affected by the presence of wind turbines in the 

viewshed. Ground-disturbing activities during power plant operations and maintenance could 

impact historic and cultural resources at the wind farm site. It is assumed that impacts to 

historic properties would have been addressed prior to construction.

Ocean Wave and Current

Operations—Historic properties located offshore could be affected by kinetic energy by ocean 

wave and/or current-energy-capturing devices. Ground-disturbing activities during power plant 

operations and maintenance could impact historic and cultural resources on the ocean floor. It 

is assumed that impacts to historic properties would have been addressed prior to construction. 

Geothermal, Biomass, and Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic 

Operations – Ground-disturbing activities during power facility operations and maintenance 

could impact historic and cultural resources at the power plant site. Other ongoing activities at 

the power facility site could also affect historic and cultural resources. These activities include, 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-126 

but are not limited to, grading, excavating, landscaping, operating large vehicles over previously 

undisturbed portions of the site. 

4.8 Socioeconomics 

4.8.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action—Continued 

Operations and Refurbishment Activities 

The socioeconomic impact of ongoing power plant operations has become well established 

during the current license term for all nuclear power plants. Changes in employment and tax 

payments caused by license renewal and associated refurbishment activities can have a direct 

and indirect effect on community services and housing demand, as well as traffic volumes in the 

communities around each nuclear power plant. 

A review of license renewal applications provides no evidence that the number of permanent 

power plant operations workers would increase during the license renewal term. This differs 

from the conservative assumption that up to 60 additional workers per reactor unit (upper 

bound) could be needed to support aging management-related maintenance and inspection 

activities (see 1996 GEIS). Licensees, however, indicated that they had no plans to add nonoutage workers during the license renewal term and that increased maintenance and inspection 

activities could be managed using the current workforce. This review also revealed that 

refurbishment activities, such as steam generator and vessel head replacement, have not 

required the large numbers of workers and months of time that was conservatively predicted in 

the 1996 GEIS. Therefore, people living in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant are not likely to 

experience any changes in socioeconomic conditions during the license renewal term beyond 

what is currently being experienced. In addition, refurbishment impacts are expected to be 

similar to what has been experienced during regularly scheduled power plant refueling and 

maintenance outages. 

The environmental review conducted for this GEIS revision identified five socioeconomic impact 

issues, which include all of the original socioeconomic license renewal term and refurbishment 

impact issues addressed in the 1996 GEIS. These five issues are: 

• Employment and income, recreation and tourism (new, consolidated issue that adds 

impacts on employment and income that were not addressed in the 1996 GEIS). Also 

included in this issue are the impacts on recreation and tourism (impacts on tourism and 

recreation were addressed in the 1996 GEIS as part of the issue, “Public services: 

public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation”); 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-127 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

• Tax revenues (new issue; issue was considered and discussed in the 1996 GEIS, but 

not identified as a separate environmental review issue); 

• Community services and education (consolidation and reclassification of the following 

issues in the 1996 GEIS: (1) public services: public safety, social services [excluding 

public services: tourism and recreation]; (2) public services: public utilities; (3) public 

services: education [license renewal term]; and (4) public services: education 

[refurbishment]); 

• Population and housing (issue was reclassified and renamed from the 1996 GEIS issue, 

“Housing impacts”; these impacts were considered in the 1996 GEIS, although the 

population impacts component was not identified as a separate issue); and 

• Transportation (issue was reclassified and renamed from the 1996 GEIS issue, “Public 

services: transportation”). 

4.8.1.1 Employment and Income, Recreation, and Tourism 

As discussed in Chapter 3, the nuclear power plant and the communities that support it can be 

described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The communities provide the people, goods, 

and services required to operate the nuclear power plant. Power plant operations, in turn, 

provides employment and income and pays for goods and services from the communities. 

Employees receive income from the nuclear power plant in the form of wages, salaries, and 

benefits. Employees and their families, in turn, spend this income on goods and services within 

the community thereby creating additional opportunities for employment and income. In 

addition, people and businesses in the community 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. 

As previously discussed, it is unlikely that the number of power plant operations workers would 

change at a nuclear power plant during the license renewal term. While it was conservatively 

estimated in the 1996 GEIS that up to 60 additional workers per unit could be required during 

the license renewal term, subsequent license renewal environmental reviews have shown little 

or no need to hire additional operations workers. In addition, refurbishment activities, such as 

steam generator and vessel head replacement, have not required the numbers of workers and 

the months of time conservatively estimated in the 1996 GEIS. Consequently, employment 

levels at a nuclear power plant are not expected to change as a result of license renewal. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-128 

Some communities experience seasonal transient population growth due to local tourism and 

recreational activities. Income from tourism and recreational activities creates employment and 

income opportunities in the communities around nuclear power plants. Communities located 

near nuclear power plants in coastal regions, notably Pilgrim near Plymouth and Cape Cod, 

Massachusetts; the D.C. Cook and Palisades plants on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, and 

the Oyster Creek plant on the New Jersey shore north of Atlantic City, experience summer, 

weekend, and retirement population increases due to the recreational and tourism activities that 

attract visitors. Some communities, such as those located in the region around the Vermont 

Yankee plant in Vermont, attract visitors interested in outdoor recreational activities, such as 

camping, hiking, and skiing. 

As discussed in Section 4.2.1.2, the NRC considered the impacts of continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term and refurbishment on visual resources, which could affect 

tourism and recreational business interests. The NRC concluded in the 1996 GEIS that the 

impacts on visual resources would be SMALL for all plants and was a Category 1 issue, 

primarily because the impact had already occurred and the visual profile of nuclear power plants 

were not expected to change as a result of license renewal. Also, visual impacts tend to wear 

off over time when viewed repeatedly. 

However, a case study performed for the 1996 GEIS found situations where nuclear power 

plants have had a negative effect on visual resources. Negative perceptions were based on 

aesthetic considerations (for instance, the plant is out of character or scale with the community 

or the viewshed), physical environmental concerns, safety and perceived risk issues, an antipower plant (or utility) attitude, or an anti-nuclear orientation. It is believed that some of these 

negative perceptions would persist regardless of mitigation measures. Subsequent license 

renewal reviews have not revealed any new information that would change this perception. 

Nevertheless, the effects of power plant operations on employment, income, recreation, and 

tourism are ongoing and have become well-established during the current license term for all 

nuclear power plants. The impacts from power plant operations during the license renewal term 

on employment and income in the region around each nuclear power plant are not expected to 

change from what are currently being experienced. In addition, tourism and recreational 

activities in the vicinity of nuclear plants are not expected to change as a result of license 

renewal. On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of continued 

nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities on employment, income, recreation, and 

tourism would be SMALL and is therefore considered a Category 1 issue. 

 

4.8.1.2 Tax Revenues 

Nuclear power plants and the workers who operate them are an important source of tax revenue 

for many local governments and public school systems. Tax revenues from nuclear power 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-129 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

plants mostly come from property tax payments or other forms of payments such as payments 

in lieu of (property) taxes, or PILOT payments, although taxes on energy production have also 

been collected from a number of nuclear power plants. County and municipal governments and 

public school districts receive tax revenue either directly or indirectly through State tax and 

revenue-sharing programs. 

Counties and municipal governments in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant also receive tax 

revenue from sales taxes and fees from the power plant and its employees. Changes in the 

number of workers and the amount of taxes paid to county, municipal governments, and public 

schools can affect socioeconomic conditions in the counties and communities around the 

nuclear power plant. 

A review of license renewal applications received by the NRC since the 1996 GEIS has shown 

that refurbishment activities, such as steam generator and vessel head replacement, have not 

had a noticeable effect on the assessed value of nuclear plants, thus changes in tax revenues 

are not anticipated from future refurbishment activities. Refurbishment activities involving the 

one-for-one replacement of existing components and equipment are generally not considered a 

taxable improvement. Also, property tax assessments; proprietary payments in lieu of tax 

stipulations, settlements, and agreements; and State tax laws are continually changing the 

amount of taxes paid to taxing jurisdictions by nuclear plant owners. These changes are 

independent of license renewal and refurbishment activities. 

The primary impact of license renewal would be the continuation or change in the amount of 

taxes paid by nuclear power plant owners to local governments and public school systems. The 

impact of nuclear plant operations on tax revenues in local communities and the impact that the 

expenditure of tax revenues has on the region are not expected to change appreciably from the 

amount of taxes paid during the current license term. Tax payments during the license renewal 

term would be similar to those currently being paid by each nuclear plant. On the basis of these 

considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of continued nuclear plant operations and 

refurbishment on tax revenue would be SMALL and is therefore considered a Category 1 issue. 

4.8.1.3 Community Services and Education 

In the 1996 GEIS, impacts on public (community) services and education were evaluated 

based on the projected number of “in-migrating” workers accompanied by their families. In 

addition, impacts on (1) public services: public safety, social services...; (2) public services: 

public utilities; (3) public services, education (license renewal term); and (4) public services, 

education (refurbishment) were considered as separate impact issues in the 1996 GEIS but 

have been consolidated and reclassified under this issue. All but the “public services: tourism 

and recreation” component of the 1996 GEIS issue, “Public services: public safety, social 

services, and tourism and recreation” are considered here. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-130 

The four 1996 GEIS issues have been consolidated because all public services are equally 

affected by changes in nuclear power plant operations and refurbishment activities. Any 

changes in the number of workers at a nuclear plant will affect the demand for public services 

from local communities. Environmental reviews conducted by NRC since the 1996 GEIS have 

shown, however, that the number of workers at relicensed nuclear plants has not changed 

significantly because of license renewal, so demand-related impacts on community services, 

including public utilities, are no longer anticipated from future license renewals. 

In addition, refurbishment activities, such as steam generator and vessel head replacement, 

have not required the large numbers of workers and the months of time that was conservatively 

analyzed in the 1996 GEIS, so significant impacts on community services are no longer 

anticipated. Because of the relatively short duration of refurbishment-related activities, workers 

are not expected to bring families and school-age children with them; therefore, impacts from 

refurbishment on educational services are also no longer anticipated. 

Taxes paid by nuclear power plant owners support a range of community services, including 

public water, safety, fire protection, health, and judicial, social, and educational services. 

In some communities, tax revenues from power plants can have a noticeable impact on the 

quality of services available to local residents. Although many of the community services paid 

for by tax revenues from power plants are used by plant workers and their families, the impact 

of nuclear plant operations on the availability and quality of community services and education 

is SMALL and is not expected to change as a result of license renewal. On the basis of these 

considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of continued nuclear plant operations and 

refurbishment activities on community services and education would be SMALL and is therefore 

considered a Category 1 issue. 

4.8.1.4 Population and Housing 

Socioeconomic impact analyses of resources (e.g., housing) affected by changes in regional 

population are based on employment trends at nuclear power plants. Population growth from 

increased employment and spending at a nuclear power plant is important because it is one of 

the main drivers of socioeconomic impacts. Plant-induced population growth, while not an 

impact itself, was studied as a potential influence on a number of impact issues analyzed in the 

1996 GEIS. As previously discussed, however, employment levels at nuclear power plants are 

expected to remain relatively constant with little or no population growth or increased demand 

for permanent housing during the license renewal term. The operational effects on population 

and housing values and availability in the vicinity of nuclear power plants are not expected to 

change from what is currently being experienced, and no demand-related impacts are expected 

during the license renewal term. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-131 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

The increased number of workers at nuclear power plants during regularly scheduled plant 

refueling and maintenance outages does create a short-term increase in the demand for 

temporary (rental) housing units in the region around each plant. However, because of the 

short duration and the repeated nature of these scheduled outages and the general availability 

of rental housing units (including portable trailers) in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, 

employment-related housing impacts have had little or no long-term impact on the price and 

availability of rental housing. Refurbishment impacts would be similar to what is experienced 

during routine plant refueling and maintenance outages. 

License renewal reviews conducted since the 1996 GEIS have shown that housing has not 

been an issue at relicensed nuclear plants including those plants located in “sparsely populated 

areas.” Therefore, impacts to these resources are no longer anticipated from future license 

renewals. On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of 

continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities on population and housing 

would be SMALL and is therefore considered a Category 1 issue. 

4.8.1.5 Transportation 

Transportation impacts depend on the size of the workforce, the capacity of the local road 

network, traffic patterns, and the availability of alternate commuting routes to and from the plant. 

Because most sites have only a single access road, there is often congestion on these roads 

during shift changes. 

Nevertheless, license renewal is not likely to affect local transportation conditions in the vicinity 

of a nuclear power plant beyond what is currently being experienced. Transportation impacts 

are ongoing and have become well established during the current licensing term for all nuclear 

power plants. As previously discussed, it is unlikely that the number of permanent operations 

workers would increase at a nuclear power plant during the license renewal term. While it was 

estimated in the 1996 GEIS that up to 60 additional workers per unit could be required during 

the license renewal term, subsequent environmental reviews have shown little or no need for 

additional operations workers. In addition, refurbishment activities, such as steam generator 

and vessel head replacement, have not required the numbers of workers and the months of 

time conservatively estimated in the 1996 GEIS. Consequently, employment at nuclear power 

plants during the license renewal term is expected to remain unchanged. Refurbishment 

impacts would be similar to what has been experienced during routine plant refueling and 

maintenance outages. 

The increased number of workers at nuclear power plants during regularly scheduled plant 

refueling and maintenance outages have caused short-term increases in traffic volumes on 

roads in the vicinity of each plant. However, because of the relative short duration of these 

outages, increased traffic volumes have had little or no lasting impact. Therefore, there would 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-132 

be no transportation impacts during the license renewal term beyond those already being 

experienced. On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of 

continued operations and refurbishment activities on local transportation would be SMALL and 

is therefore considered a Category 1 issue. 

4.8.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

The impacts of power plant development on local and regional socioeconomic conditions would 

be qualitatively similar for all alternatives discussed in this section. Local economies have the 

potential to be directly or indirectly affected by power plant construction and operation. The 

power plant and the communities that support it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic 

system. The communities provide the people, goods, and services required by power plant 

construction and operation. Activities at the plant, in turn, create the demand and pay for the 

people, goods, and services in the form of wages, salaries, and benefits for jobs and dollar 

expenditures for goods and services. The measure of the communities’ ability to support the 

demands of the power plant depends on their ability to respond to changing environmental, 

social, economic, and demographic conditions. 

Construction—The scale of the socioeconomic impacts of construction activities associated with 

each alternative would be related to the cost and complexity of the facility and the size of the 

workforce. The duration of the impact would be determined by the time required to complete 

construction. The impacts of the construction of power plants on employment and income in the 

local area and region around a new plant would vary depending on the location of major 

equipment suppliers and local labor availability. Impacts may be more dramatic and larger at 

greenfield sites located in rural areas than areas on the periphery of larger urban areas. 

Overall, construction is expected to have a temporary effect on the local economy. 

While some construction workers would be local, additional workers may be required from 

outside the immediate area depending on the local availability of appropriate trades and 

occupational groups. At plants in rural locations, a larger number of construction workers would 

come from outside the local area, while most of the workforce in semi-urban locations would 

likely commute to the job site rather than relocate. Construction is likely to have some impact 

on local services such as public utilities, public safety, tourism, and recreation, depending on the 

number of workers required to in-migrate into the area around each plant. Materials needed for 

construction (e.g., sand, gravel, fill, etc.) are expected to be provided locally. However, the 

majority of construction materials and technology components are expected to be purchased in 

other parts of the United States or overseas. Transportation impacts during construction would 

include commuter and truck material and equipment delivery traffic to and from the construction 

site. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-133 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Operations—Operations of a new power plant would have an ongoing effect on the local 

economy, which would be directly or indirectly affected by power plant operation. As would be 

the case for construction, the impacts of the operation of power plants on employment and 

income in the local area and region around a new plant would vary depending on the location of 

major equipment suppliers and the availability of local labor. In addition, operations impacts 

may have a larger relative impact on communities in rural locations, with smaller relative 

impacts in semi-urban locations. The operations workforce would increase demand for social 

services, depending on the number of workers required to migrate into the area around each 

plant. Property values for nearby private residences could be affected positively if plant workers 

were to live locally. Property values could also be affected negatively, if there were impacts 

associated with noise, traffic, or if there were visual impacts associated with the plant. 

Declining property values may mean increased local taxes to support existing levels of service 

in local public and educational services, which combined with declining quality of life, may lead 

to some population out-migration. The loss of recreational opportunity could mean the loss of 

employment and income in local communities hosting recreational suppliers and providing 

temporary accommodation. Transportation impacts would include increased commuter traffic 

during shift changes and deliveries of materials and equipment to the power plant. 

 

The following sections briefly highlight socioeconomic impacts that would be characteristics of 

particular energy alternatives. 

4.8.2.1 Fossil Fuel Alternatives 

A relatively large workforce would be required to construct and operate fossil-fuel alternativetechnology power plants, and, as a consequence, impacts on local employment and income and 

the local public and educational services that would be needed with the in-migration of workers 

during each phase could be large. Fossil-fuel alternatives, including natural gas- and coal-fired 

plants, could have substantial impacts, depending on various key aspects of each technology. 

Differences in stack heights and emissions between the two technologies and the transportation 

impacts associated with coal deliveries to the power plant (primarily by rail) and the removal of 

wastes and byproducts may affect property values and recreation and tourism opportunities in 

the vicinity of plants. 

4.8.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives 

A relatively large workforce would be required to construct and operate new nuclear power 

plants, and, as a consequence, impacts on local employment and income and the local public 

and educational services that would be needed with the in-migration of workers during each 

phase could be large. Impacts of the construction and operation of new nuclear plants would 

also depend on key features of these plants. In addition to the heights of cooling towers and 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-134 

other tall or large structures, the existence of a nuclear power plant could affect property values 

and recreation and tourism through the perception of risk that people may have related to 

nuclear technology itself, and also the presence and visibility of nuclear waste storage facilities. 

4.8.2.3 Renewable Alternatives 

Operations –The impacts of alternative energy technologies on socioeconomics are presented 

in the following subsections. A relatively small workforce would be required to operate 

renewable alternative technology power plants and, as a consequence, impacts on employment 

and income and the local public and educational services that would occur with the in-migration 

of workers during each phase for each alternative technology would be SMALL. 

Hydroelectric Energy Sources 

Although there may be economic losses in the local area and region associated with 

development of hydroelectric resources, notably with the loss of agricultural land, transportation 

infrastructure, and recreational opportunities, the reservoir would create new recreational 

opportunities including parks, campgrounds, and boat ramps. Traffic in the vicinity of the dam 

and reservoir, typically a rural agricultural area, could increase as a result of recreational 

opportunities created by the reservoir.

Geothermal 

Depending on the location of geothermal plants and the amount of land required for power plant 

development, recreation and property values in the area could be adversely affected by noise, 

sights, and odors from plant operations. Transportation impacts are expected to be limited, 

although large vehicle traffic could be required for the deployment and replacement of 

equipment. 

Wind 

Depending on the location of wind energy development, the visual impact of wind turbines, and 

to a lesser extent the associated noise, may have adverse impacts on recreation in the local 

area and on property values and quality of life in local rural communities. Transportation 

impacts are expected to be limited. Large vehicles could be required for the deployment and 

replacement of equipment. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-135 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Biomass 

Truck and rail traffic bringing biomass fuel to the facility and removing solid wastes to offsite 

disposal facilities could impact local transportation networks and may affect property values and 

recreation and tourism opportunities in the vicinity of plants.

Ocean Wave and Current 

Tourist and recreational activities on coastal beaches could be affected by the visual and noise 

impacts of helicopter and boat traffic. Wave energy devices that float on the ocean surface 

could affect navigation and water-borne recreational activities. 

4.9 Human Health 

4.9.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action—Continued 

Operations and Refurbishment Activities 

Human health conditions at all nuclear power plants and associated transmission lines have 

been well established during the current licensing term. These conditions are expected to 

remain unchanged during the 20-year license renewal term. 

4.9.1.1 Environmental Consequences of Normal Operating Conditions 

This section provides an evaluation of the impacts of radiological, chemical, microbiological, 

EMFs, and other hazards on occupational personnel and members of the public from continued 

operation and refurbishment activities during the license renewal term. This evaluation extends 

to all U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors. For safe and reliable operation of a nuclear 

power plant, it is necessary to perform routine maintenance on plant systems and components. 

Maintenance activities conducted at nuclear power plants include inspection, surveillance, and 

repair and/or replacement of material and equipment to maintain the current licensing basis of 

the plant and ensure compliance with environmental and public safety requirements. Certain 

activities can be performed while the reactor is operating, and others require that the reactor be 

shut down. Long-term outages are scheduled for refueling and for certain types of repairs or 

maintenance activities, such as the replacement of steam generators for PWRs. 

4.9.1.1.1 Radiological Impacts 

Two environmental issues related to radiological exposure and risk are reviewed here: 

(1) radiation exposures to plant workers and (2) radiation exposures to the public, both of which 

would result from continued operation and refurbishment activities during the license renewal 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-136 

term. All aspects of these consolidated issues were evaluated in the 1996 GEIS, but the 

impacts of refurbishment were considered separately from those of operations. 

For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, impacts are considered to be SMALL if 

releases and doses do not exceed permissible levels in the NRC’s regulations. This definition 

of SMALL applies to occupational doses as well as to doses to individual members of the public. 

Accidental releases or noncompliance with the standards could conceivably result in releases 

that would cause MODERATE or LARGE radiological impacts. Such conditions are beyond the 

scope of regulations for controlling normal operations and providing an adequate level of 

protection. Environmental consequences and human health effects of potential accidents are 

addressed in Section 4.9.1.2. 

Radiation Exposures to Plant Workers

The occupational radiological exposures from current operations at nuclear power plants are 

discussed in Section 3.9.1.2, and the risk estimates from this radiation exposure are discussed 

in Section 3.9.1.4. 

In the 1996 GEIS, the impacts from occupational radiological exposure from refurbishment and 

continued operations were evaluated separately. To estimate radiation-related impacts on 

workers over the license renewal term, occupational radiation exposure was used as the 

environmental impact initiator that was quantified. It was assumed that occupational radiation 

exposure would change relative to current nuclear plant operations as a result of actions taken 

to support license renewal. To evaluate the impacts, two types of license renewal programs 

were considered: a “typical” or “mid-stream” license renewal program, and a “conservative” or 

“bounding” program (NRC 1996). Each program applied to both PWRs and BWRs. Thus, in all, 

four scenarios were considered. It was assumed that activities carried out in support of license 

renewal would be performed primarily during selected outages. Five types of outages were 

considered: normal refuelings, 5-year in-service inspection (ISI) outages, 10-year ISI outages, 

current-term refurbishment outages, and major refurbishment outages. The potential actions 

and activities that would be undertaken during these outages were identified. All of the rules 

and regulations, in particular, the Maintenance Rule (10 CFR 50.65, “Requirements for 

Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants”), were taken into account 

in developing typical license renewal or plant-life extension (NRC 1996). The occupational 

exposure for each of the five types of outages was estimated for all four scenarios 

(see Table 4.9-1). 

For refurbishment efforts, dose estimates for activities during each of the four current-term 

refurbishment outages were 11 and 10 person-rem for PWRs and BWRs, respectively, for the 

typical case; and 200 and 191 person-rem, respectively, for the conservative case. Dose 

estimates for the assumed single period of major refurbishment were 79 and 153 person-rem for 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-137 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 4.9-1. Additional Collective Occupational Dose (person-rem) for 

Different Actions under Typical and Conservative 

Scenarios during the License Renewal Term 

Outage Type 

Typical 

BWR 

Conservative 

BWR 

Typical 

PWR 

Conservative 

PWR 

Normal refueling(a) 4 10 3 7 

5-yr ISI(b) refueling(c) 71 27 30 35 

10-yr ISI refueling(d)

 91 108 51 66 

Current-term refurbishment(e) 10 191 11 200 

Major refurbishment outage(f) 153 1,561 79 1,380 

Total all occurrences 457 2,666 261 2,374 

(a) 8 occurrences, 2-month duration each. 

(b) ISI = in service inspection. 

(c) 2 occurrences, 3-month duration each. 

(d) 1 occurrence, 4-month duration for conservative and 3-month duration for typical scenario. 

(e) 4 occurrences, 4-month duration for conservative and 3-month duration for typical scenario. 

(f) 1 occurrence, 9-month for conservative and 4-month duration for typical scenario. 

Source: Tables 2.8 and 2.11 in the 1996 GEIS 

PWRs and BWRs, respectively, for the typical case; and 1380 and 1561 person-rem, 

respectively, for the conservative case. The issue was designated as a Category 1 issue in the 

1996 GEIS. 

For continued operations during the license renewal term, the NRC observed in the 1996 GEIS 

that the greatest increment to occupational dose over the present dose would occur during a 

10-year ISI refueling. In a typical case, the occupational dose would increase over the present 

dose by 91 person-rem for a BWR and by 51 person-rem for a PWR. In a conservative case, 

the occupational dose would increase over the present dose by 108 person-rem and 66 personrem, respectively, for BWRs and PWRs. It was noted that there is about an 8 percent increase 

in collective radiation dose over current operating experience. The individual occupational 

doses would be well below regulatory limits (i.e., the impact would be SMALL), and the issue 

was designated as a Category 1 issue. 

For estimating the impacts from continued operation and refurbishment activities during the 

license renewal term in this GEIS revision, the occupational exposure histories for all 

commercial nuclear power plants were evaluated for trends. 

Throughout the nuclear power industry, modification and upgrade activities have continued at 

each operating plant. They have included a broad range of activities in response to NRC 

requirements and industry initiatives, including post-Three Mile Island upgrades, radioactive 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-138 

waste system modifications, and spent fuel storage upgrades. In addition, several nuclear 

power plants have undergone major refurbishment efforts, such as PWR steam generator 

replacement and the replacement of coolant recirculation piping in BWRs. These activities 

offered a significant potential for occupational exposure. Thus, occupational exposure histories 

accumulated to date reflect normal operation plus modifications and additions to existing 

systems. This information forms the basis for evaluating the occupational doses that result from 

refurbishment and continued operations during the license renewal term. The data in 

Tables 3.9-8 and 3.9-9 show that there are variations in occupational dose from year to year, 

but there is no consistent trend that shows that occupational doses are increasing over time. 

Since 1996, over 70 operating reactors at over 40 nuclear power plant sites have undergone an 

environmental review for license renewal. Many nuclear power plants have already replaced 

major components like steam generators during their current license term. Moreover, as part of 

the license renewal application, the plants have conducted an aging management review. All of 

the plants expect to conduct the activities related to managing impacts from aging during plant 

operation or normal refueling and other outages, but they do not plan any outage specifically for 

the purpose of refurbishment. The applicants have indicated that the activities conducted during 

the license renewal term are expected to be within the bounds of normal operations; thus, even 

the typical scenario in the 1996 GEIS can be considered conservative. 

Overall, data presented in Tables 3.9-3 to 3.9-13 provide ample evidence that occupational 

doses at all commercial power plants are far below the occupational dose limit of 5 rem/yr 

established by 10 CFR Part 20 and that the continuing efforts to maintain doses at ALARA 

levels have been successful. 

The wide range of annual collective doses experienced at PWRs and BWRs in the 

United States results from a number of factors, such as the reactor design, amount of required 

maintenance, and amount of reactor operations and in-plant surveillance. Because these 

factors can vary widely and unpredictably, it is very difficult to determine in advance a specific 

year-to-year annual occupational radiation dose for a particular plant throughout its operating 

lifetime. On occasion, relatively high collective occupational doses (as compared with the 

average annual collective dose) may be unavoidable, even at plants with radiation protection 

programs designed to ensure that occupational doses will be kept to ALARA levels. 

During 2005, with occupational radiation protection programs in place, nuclear power plants 

maintained an annual average individual dose of 0.12 rem and 0.18 rem for PWRs and BWRs, 

respectively (Table 3.9-11), compared with an exposure limit of 5 rem. For all nuclear power 

plants combined, the occupational doses to individual workers are estimated to average 

0.15 rem/yr (Table 3.9-4). At these dose levels, the average increase in fatal individual cancer 

risk to a worker is approximately 6  10-5/yr (using the ICRP risk coefficient of 4  10-4/rem from 

Table 3.9-20). If the reactor operates for 60 years, the cumulative increase in fatal cancer to an 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-139 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

individual worker is estimated to be 3.6  10-3 (a 50 percent increase over the baseline of 

40 years of operations). However, it is very unlikely that the same worker would be employed 

for all 60 years of plant operations. 

The average collective occupational exposure for the year 2005 was roughly 171 person-rem 

per plant at BWRs and about 79 person-rem per plant at PWRs (Table 3.9-10). For 2005, 

50 percent of the PWRs reported collective doses between 44 and 107 person-rem, while 

50 percent of the BWRs reported collective doses between 94 and 198 person-rem 

(see Figure 3.9-1). For 2005, no worker received doses greater than 3 rem. Only 17 workers 

(0.01 percent) received an occupational dose exceeding 2 rem during 2005. At BWRs, less 

than 0.03 percent of the workers received doses greater than 2 rem. At PWRs, no worker 

received a dose greater than 2 rem, and less than 0.3 percent of the workers received doses 

greater than 1 rem (Table 3.9-12). 

Over the years, ALARA programs continue to limit occupational doses. Occupational doses 

have shown a declining trend over the past 10 years and have recently leveled off. As plants 

age, there may be slight increases in radioactive inventories, which would result in slight 

increases in occupational radiation doses, but that trend has not yet appeared. 

Overall, data presented in Tables 3.9-1 to 3.9-13 provide evidence that doses to nearly all 

radiation workers are far below the worker dose limit established by 10 CFR Part 20 and that 

the continuing efforts to maintain doses at ALARA levels have been successful. 

It is expected that occupational doses from refurbishment activities associated with license 

renewal and occupational doses for continued operations during the license renewal term would 

be similar to the doses during the current operations and bounded by the analysis conducted in 

the 1996 GEIS. It is estimated that the occupational doses would be much less than the 

regulatory dose limits, as described above. Expected occupational radiation exposures meet 

the standard for being of SMALL significance. No mitigation measures beyond those 

implemented during the current license term would be warranted, because the ALARA process 

continues to be effective in reducing radiation doses. The risks to an individual worker from 

radiological exposure would increase by 50 percent as a result of the plant operating for 

20 more years, but it is unlikely that the same worker would be employed for all 60 years of 

plant operations. 

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC concluded that the occupational radiological exposure impact during 

license renewal and refurbishment would be SMALL for all plants; it was therefore designated 

as a Category 1 issue. No new information has been identified in the SEISs prepared to date or 

the literature that would alter that conclusion. On this basis, the NRC concludes that the impact 

of continued operations and refurbishment activities on occupational radiological exposure 

would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and remains a Category 1 issue. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-140 

Radiation Exposures to the Public

Radiological exposures to the public from current operations at nuclear power plants are 

discussed in Section 3.9.1.3. That section includes a discussion of the effluent pathways used 

in calculating dose and the radiological monitoring performed by each site to ensure that 

unanticipated buildup of radioactivity have not occurred in the environment. The risk estimates 

for the public from radiation exposure are discussed in Section 3.9.1.4. 

Refurbishment Activities—To determine the relative significance of the estimated public dose 

from refurbishment, the public dose during the year refurbishment activities occurred was 

compared with the doses in consecutive years. Exposure from other ongoing support activities 

similar to those that occurred during the current license term (e.g., construction of new parking 

lots, access roads, and buildings) would be less than or equal to the impacts associated with 

refurbishment.

In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC identified the replacement of steam generators at PWRs and the 

replacement of recirculation piping at BWRs as the major anticipated refurbishment activities. 

Public radiation exposures from refurbishment activities during the license renewal term can be 

evaluated on the basis of information derived from past occurrences and projections for other 

repairs. Effluents anticipated during major refurbishment actions were estimated on the basis of 

historical information derived for steam generator replacements at PWRs and replacements of 

recirculation piping at BWRs. These refurbishment tasks have already taken place several 

times within the commercial nuclear power reactor industry. From these estimates, the 

maximum individual dose to the member of the public was compared with the design objective 

of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 (Table 3.9-2) and with baseline effluents produced during 

normal reactor operations. 

Public radiation exposures from gaseous and liquid effluents produced during refurbishment can 

be evaluated on the basis of effluent data from the replacement of steam generators and 

recirculation piping. During the replacement of steam generators and recirculation piping, 

releases of effluents have occurred under controlled conditions and in accordance with ALARA 

principles. Similar refurbishment efforts that may occur as part of the license renewal process 

would also take place under controlled conditions and in accordance with ALARA principles. 

The first several plants to replace steam generators estimated the amounts of radioactivity 

expected to be released in liquid and gaseous effluents as a result of the repair 

(Parkhurst et al. 1983). Actual effluent measurements were performed in several cases. In the 

1996 GEIS, the NRC listed the radioactive effluent releases for early steam generator 

replacements and compared them with typical 1986 effluent releases for PWRs and BWRs (see 

Table 3.10 in NRC 1996). It was found that the effluent releases were approximately the same 

or much less than those from normal operations for a year. For BWR recirculation piping 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-141 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

replacement, the NRC compared the annual release and dose commitment information for five 

reactor sites (Cooper, Monticello, Nine Mile Point, Peach Bottom, and Vermont Yankee) during 

recirculation piping replacement with the data from normal operations of the same plants. It was 

found that the radiation doses to the public were similar to or less than those resulting from 

normal operations (see Table 3.11 in NRC 1996). On the basis of this finding, the NRC 

concluded in the 1996 GEIS that gaseous effluents and liquid discharges occurring during a 

9-month refurbishment action would not be expected to result in maximum individual doses 

exceeding the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 or the allowable EPA standards of 

40 CFR Part 190 (Table 3.9-2). 

For estimating the impacts from refurbishment activities during the license renewal term in this 

GEIS revision, radioactive effluent releases and the dose to the public from the gaseous and 

liquid effluent releases were evaluated for the three sites that have gone through steam 

generator replacement in recent years. The effluent releases and the doses that occurred 

during the year refurbishment was done are compared with the values for prior and subsequent 

years. 

Table 4.9-2 presents the radioactive effluent releases at three sites that have had their steam 

generators replaced in recent years. For Arkansas Unit 2, the steam generator was replaced in 

2000, and the effluent releases are listed from 1999 to 2003. For Calvert Cliffs Unit 1, the 

steam generator was replaced in 2002, for Unit 2, it was replaced in 2003. The effluent 

releases are listed from 2000 to 2004. For Palo Verde Unit 2, the steam generator was 

replaced in 2003. The effluent releases are listed from 2001 to 2005. For this site, there are no 

liquid effluent releases beyond the site boundary. The data show that the effluent releases for 

the year that the steam generators were replaced are on the same order of magnitude or much 

less than the effluent releases for the following year. The effluent releases were also much less 

than or on the same order of magnitude as those shown in Table 3.10 of the 1996 GEIS. 

Table 4.9-3 presents the dose to the public from the gaseous and liquid effluent releases for the 

same three sites. No significant difference in the dose from normal operations was observed 

when the steam generator was replaced. All doses are much less than the design objectives 

shown in Table 3.9-2. Tables 4.9-2 and 4.9-3 show that effluents and dose impacts during the 

year when a steam generator replacement is performed do not differ significantly from those in 

years of normal operations. 

It is expected that doses during any future recirculation piping replacement would not be much 

different than the doses shown in Table 3.11 in the 1996 GEIS. The NRC is updating these 

tables for recent year data. The NRC will also assess dose contributions from the numerous 

plants that have replaced reactor vessel heads. 

When a major refurbishment is performed, it is expected that more work will be performed and 

thus the amounts of some of the effluents, especially atmospheric particulates and possibly 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-142

Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions Table 4.9-2. Radioactive Effluent Releases for Three Nuclear Power Plants That Recently Replaced Steam Generators Releases (Ci) in Gaseous Effluent Releases (Ci) in Liquid Effluent Year(a) Fission and Activation Products Gross Alpha Iodines Particulates Tritium Dissolved and Entrained Gases Fission and Activation Products Gross Alpha Tritium Arkansas Unit 2 1999 3.9 

 101 0 0 3.9 

 10-5 3.7 

 101 2.3 

 10-2 8.5 

 10-2 4.4 

 10-4 5.9 

 102

2000 4.5 3.4 

 10-7 0 7.4 

 10-6 2.0 

 101 2.1 

 10-1 2.6 

 10-1 1.2 

 10-1 5.0 

 102

2001 1.7 

 10-1 0 0 0 2.4 

 101 5.0 

 10-3 7.2 

 10-2 8.9 

 10-4 4.9 

 102

2002 4.6 

 10-1 0 1.7 

 10-5 0 2.8 

 101 5.3 

 10-2 2.0 

 10-2 0 5.6 

 102

2003 3.9 

 10-1 0 1.0 

 10-6 0 2.5 

 101 9.9 

 10-2 3.7 

 10-2 0 7.0 

 102

Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2(b)

2000 9.7 

 101 ND(c) 5.8 

 10-4 ND 3.7 

 101 1.2 

 10-1 2.7 

 10-1 1.4 

 10-4 1.1 

 103

2001 7.3 

 101 ND 1.2 

 10-3 ND 2.0 

 101 6.3 

 10-2 6.8 

 10-1 4.7 

 10-5 1.4 

 103

2002 1.1 

 102 ND 2.7 

 10-3 ND 2.4 

 101 1.9 

 10-1 3.1 

 10-1 ND 9.6 

 102

2003 1.6 

 102 ND 1.8 

 10-3 ND 2.8 

 101 8.9 

 10-2 6.7 

 10-2 ND 8.1 

 102

2004 1.6 

 102 ND 1.5 

 10-3 2.7 

 10-4 2.5 

 101 3.5 

 10-1 2.8 

 10-2 ND 1.5 

 103

Palo Verde Unit 2(d)

2001 1.9 

 102 ND 7.2 

 10-4 2.8 

 10-4 6.3 

 102 None None None None 

2002 1.7 

 102 ND 9.7 

 10-3 2.2 

 10-4 2.7 

 102 None None None None 

2003 9.2

 101 ND 6.4 

 10-3 7.3 

 10-4 1.1 

 103 None None None None 

2004 8.7 

 10-1 ND 1.2 

 10-5 3.3 

 10-10 4.8 

 102 None None None None 

2005 4.6 ND 1.1 

 10-4 5.6 

 10-5 6.2 

 102 None None None None 

(a) Years in which steam generators were replaced are presented in bold text. (b) Steam generator was replaced for Unit 1 in 2002 and for Unit 2 in 2003. The site reported releases from both units together. 

(c) ND = Not detected. (d) There were no liquid effluent releases beyond the site boundary. Sources: Sites’ annual effluent release reports 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-143 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 4.9-3. Dose to the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) from Gaseous and Liquid 

Effluent Releases for Three Nuclear Power Plants That Recently Replaced 

Steam Generators 

 Gaseous Effluents Liquid Effluents 

Year(a) 

Total Body 

(mrem) 

Gamma 

(mrad) 

Beta 

(mrad) 

Critical Organ 

(mrem) 

Total Body 

(mrem) 

Critical Organ 

(mrem) 

Arkansas Unit 2

1999 2.3  10-2 1.2  10-3 3.8  10-3 2.4  10-2 1.7  10-3 2.1  10-3

2000 3.15  10-2 2.70  10-3 2.21  10-3 3.15  10-2 3.00  10-3 3.90  10-3

2001 1.5  10-2 0 0 1.5  10-2 1.0  10-3 1.2  10-3

2002 1.7  10-2 0 1.0  10-4 2.1  10-2 1.6  10-3 1.9  10-3

2003 1.6  10-2 0 1.0  10-4 1.6  10-2 1.3  10-3 1.5  10-3

Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2(b)

2000 NR(c)

 1.0  10-3 7.0  10-3 7.6  10-1 3.0  10-1 2.1  10-1

2001 NR 1.0  10-3 4.0  10-3 3.5  10-2 5.0  10-3 4.3  10-1

2002 NR 1.0  10-3 6.0  10-3 1.7  10-2 6.0  10-3 2.0  10-1

2003 NR 2.0  10-3 1.0  10-2 5.0  10-2 2.0  10-3 2.0  10-2

2004 NR 2.0  10-3 8.0  10-3 4.0  10-2 2.0  10-3 5.0  10-3

Palo Verde Unit 2(d)

2001 NR 1.6  10-2 6.1  10-2 2.4  10-1 None None 

2002 NR 1.8  10-2 5.3  10-2 3.7  10-1 None None 

2003 NR 9.3  10-3 3.1  10-2 4.8  10-1 None None 

2004 NR 1.0  10-3 5.0  10-4 1.7  10-1 None None 

2005 NR 2.9  10-3 2.0  10-3 2.2  10-1 None None 

(a) Years in which steam generators were replaced are presented in bold text. 

(b) Steam generator was replaced for Unit 1 in 2002 and for Unit 2 in 2003. The site reported doses from both units 

together. 

(c) NR = Not reported in the site’s effluent release report. 

(d) There were no liquid effluent releases beyond the site boundary. 

Sources: Sites’ annual effluent release reports 

 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-144 

some liquid effluents associated with decontamination, may be slightly greater than those found 

during the steam generator changeouts or recirculation piping replacements. 

Continued Operations—During normal operations after license renewal, small quantities of 

radioactivity (fission, corrosion, and activation products) will continue to be released to the 

environment in a manner similar to that occurring during present operations (see Section 3.9.1). 

The concentration of radioactive materials in soils and sediments increases in the environment 

at a rate that depends on the rate of release and the rate of removal. Removal can take place 

through radioactive decay or through chemical, biological, or physical processes. For a given 

rate of release, the concentrations of longer-lived radionuclides and, consequently, the dose 

rates attributable to them would continue to increase if license renewal was granted. 

Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977) provides guidance for calculating the dose for significant 

release pathways. To account for the buildup of radioactive materials, buildup factors are 

included in the calculations. Initially, most of the calculations for the construction and operating 

stage permits used 15 years as the approximate midpoint of a facility’s operating life. This value 

is now more often taken to be 20 years. The potential license renewal term is an additional 

20 years; thus, the effective midlife is 30 years. 

The accumulation of radioactive materials in the environment is of concern not only with regard 

to license renewal but also with regard to operation under current licenses. NRC reporting rules 

require that pathways that may arise as a result of unique conditions at a specific site be 

considered in licensees’ evaluations of radiation exposures. If an exposure pathway is likely to 

contribute significantly to total dose (10 percent or more to the total dose from all pathways), it 

must be routinely monitored and evaluated. Environmental monitoring programs are in place at 

all sites to provide a backup to the calculated doses based on effluent release measurements. 

Since these programs are ongoing for the duration of the license, locations where unique 

situations give rise to significant pathways that are not detailed in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 

are to be identified if and when they become significant. If such pathways result in doses at a 

plant exceeding the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, action is required. 

The radiation dose to the public from current operations results from gaseous effluent releases 

and from liquid effluent releases, as presented in Section 3.9.1.3. At present, for all operating 

nuclear plants, doses to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) are much less than the design 

objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 (Table 3.9-2). No aspect of future operation has 

been identified that would substantially alter this situation. 

Maximum individual doses are reported in annual effluent release reports, and if these doses 

exceed Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 design objectives, the NRC would pursue remedial 

action. Thus these issues are handled on a case-by-case basis. Many plants have gone 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-145 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

through license renewal, and no aging phenomenon that would increase public radiation doses 

has been identified. The operating reactors are not expected to reach regulatory dose limits 

more often in the period after license renewal than they do at present. For these reasons, dose 

impacts on MEIs in the public during future operation under license renewal are judged to be 

unchanged from those during present operations. The MEI dose ranges from 0.02 to 

15.3 mrem/yr (see Table 3.9-16). At these dose levels, the increase in fatal cancer risk (using 

ICRP risk coefficients) to the MEI ranges from 1  10-8 to 7.7  10-6 for 1 year of reactor 

operations. Although dose rates (mrem/yr) are not expected to change during license renewal, 

the cumulative dose (total mrem) would increase as a result of 20 more years of operations. If 

the reactor operates for 60 years, it is estimated that the increase in fatal cancer risk to the MEI 

would range from 6  10-7 to 4.6  10-4 (a 50 percent increase over the baseline of 40 years of 

operation). However, it is unlikely that the same person would be exposed to these doses for 

60 years of plant operations. 

One of the pathways considered in calculating the MEI doses is direct radiation from operating 

plants. Radiation fields are produced around nuclear plants as a result of radioactivity within the 

reactor and its associated components, low-level storage containers, and components such as 

steam generators that have been removed from the reactor (as described in Section 3.9). 

Direct radiation from sources within a light water reactor (LWR) plant is due primarily to 

nitrogen-16, a radionuclide produced in the reactor core by neutron activation of oxygen-16 from 

the water. Because the primary coolant of an LWR is contained in a heavily shielded area, dose 

rates in the vicinity of LWRs are generally undetectable and less than 1 mrem/yr at the site 

boundary. Some plants (mostly BWRs) do not have completely shielded secondary systems 

and may contribute some measurable offsite dose. However, these sources of direct radiation 

will be unaffected by license renewal. 

In addition to the regulations within 10 CFR 20.1101 that speak directly to required operation 

under ALARA principles, 10 CFR 50.36a imposes conditions on licensees in the form of 

technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors. These specifications are 

intended to keep releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during operations to 

ALARA levels. Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 provides numerical guidance on dose-design 

objectives and limiting conditions for the operation of LWRs to meet the ALARA requirements. 

These regulations will remain in effect during the period of license renewal (see 

Section 3.9.1.1). 

To date, more than 70 operating reactors at over 40 nuclear power plant sites have gone 

through license renewal since 1996. In all cases, the radiation dose to members of the public 

from routine operations was within NRC regulations. This information was used to support the 

conclusion that the radiation dose to the public will continue at current levels associated with 

normal operations and are expected to remain much lower than the applicable standards. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-146 

Offsite doses to the public attributable to refurbishment activities were examined for the MEI. 

Because the focus of the analysis is on annual dose, only the results based on the most likely 

major refurbishment action were examined (i.e., replacing steam generators in PWRs and 

primary recirculation piping in BWRs). For this action, doses to the public were found to be 

SMALL. To date, effluents and doses during periods of major refurbishments have not been 

seen to differ significantly from those during normal operations. Consequently, gaseous 

effluents and liquid discharges occurring during major refurbishment actions are not expected to 

result in maximum individual doses exceeding the design objectives of Appendix I to 

10 CFR Part 50 or the allowable EPA standards of 40 CFR Part 190 (Table 3.9-2). 

Radiation doses to members of the public from the current operations of nuclear power plants 

have been examined from a variety of perspectives, and the impacts were found to be well 

within design objectives and regulations in each instance. No effect of aging that would 

significantly affect the radioactive effluents has been identified. Public doses are expected to 

remain well within design objectives and regulations. The cumulative cancer risk to the MEI 

would increase by 50 percent because the plant would operate for 20 more years, but the risk 

would still be small when compared with the cancer risk from background radiation. 

Because there is no reason to expect effluents to increase in the period after license renewal, 

doses from continued operation are expected to be well within regulatory limits. No mitigation 

measures beyond those implemented during the current term license would be warranted, 

because current mitigation practices have kept public radiation doses well below regulatory 

standards and are expected to continue to do so. 

Public radiological exposure impacts during license renewal and refurbishment were considered 

to be SMALL for all plants and were designated as Category 1 issues in the 1996 GEIS. No 

new information has been identified in the plant-specific SEISs prepared to date, the literature, 

or effluent and monitoring reports prepared by operating plants that would alter that conclusion. 

On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of continued 

operations and refurbishment activities on public radiological exposure would be SMALL for all 

nuclear plants and remains a Category 1 issue. 

4.9.1.1.2 Chemical Hazards 

In nuclear power plants, chemical effects could result from discharges of chlorine or other 

biocides, small-volume discharges of sanitary and other liquid wastes, chemical spills, or heavy 

metals leached from cooling system piping and condenser tubing. Impacts of chemical 

discharges to human health are considered to be SMALL if the discharges of chemicals to water 

bodies are within effluent limitations designed to ensure protection of water quality, and if 

ongoing discharges have not resulted in adverse effects on aquatic biota. During the license 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-147 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

renewal term, human health impacts from chemicals are expected to be the same as those 

experienced during operations in the original license term (see Section 3.9.2 for more details). 

One environmental issue related to chemical hazards is reviewed here: human health impact 

from chemicals. This issue was not evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. 

 

Human Health Impact from Chemicals

The types of chemical hazards that exist at a nuclear power plant are discussed in 

Section 3.9.2. Plant workers may encounter hazardous chemicals when the chemistries of the 

primary and secondary coolant systems are being adjusted, biocides are being applied to 

address the fouling of cooling system components, equipment containing hazardous oils or 

other chemicals is being repaired or replaced, solvents are being used for cleaning, or other 

equipment is being repaired. Exposures to hazardous chemicals are minimized when plant 

workers follow good industrial hygiene practices. 

Reviews of the literature and operational monitoring reports and consultations with utilities and 

regulatory agencies that were done for the 1996 GEIS indicated that the effects of the discharge 

of chlorine and other biocides on water quality would be of SMALL significance for all plants. 

Small quantities of biocides are readily dissipated and/or chemically altered in the body of water 

receiving them, so significant cumulative impacts to water quality would not be expected. Major 

changes in the operation of the cooling system are not expected during the license renewal 

term, so no change in the effects of biocide discharges on the quality of the receiving water is 

anticipated. Major proposed changes in cooling system operations (e.g., those affecting the 

plant’s licensing basis and possibly triggering a license amendment) would require a separate 

NEPA review including an examination of human health effects. In addition, proposed changes 

in the use of cooling water treatment chemicals would require review by the plant’s NPDES 

permit-issuing authority and possible modification of the existing NPDES permit, including 

examination of the human health effects of the change. Effects of biocide discharges could be 

reduced by increasing the degree to which discharge water is treated, reducing the 

concentration of biocides, or treating only a portion of the plant cooling and service water 

systems at one time. Discharges of sanitary wastes are regulated by NPDES permit, and 

discharges that do not violate the permit limits are considered to be of SMALL significance. 

The effects of minor chemical discharges and spills at nuclear plants on water quality have been 

of SMALL significance and mitigated as needed. Significant cumulative impacts on water 

quality would not be expected because the small amounts of chemicals released by these minor 

discharges or spills are readily dissipated in the receiving water body. Spills and offspecification discharges occur so seldom that regulatory agencies have not expressed any 

concern about them with regard to operating nuclear power plants. While there may be 

additional management practices or discharge-control devices that could further reduce the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-148 

frequency of accidental spills and off-specification discharges, they are not warranted because 

impacts are already SMALL and occur at a low frequency. 

Heavy metals (e.g., copper, zinc, and chromium) may be leached from condenser tubing and 

other heat exchangers and discharged by power plants as small-volume waste streams or 

corrosion products. Although all are found in small quantities in natural waters (and many are 

essential micronutrients), concentrations in the power plant discharge are controlled in the 

NPDES permit because excessive concentrations of heavy metals can be toxic to aquatic 

organisms. 

Nuclear power plants may be required in some instances to submit annual reports on the 

environmental releases of listed toxic chemicals manufactured, processed, or otherwise used 

that are above identified threshold quantities depending on State regulations or other specific 

circumstances. The disposal of essentially all of the hazardous chemicals used at nuclear 

power plants is regulated by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or NPDES 

permits. The NRC requires nuclear power plants to operate in compliance with all of its permits, 

thereby minimizing adverse impacts to the environment and on workers and the public. It is 

anticipated that all plants will continue to operate in compliance with all applicable permits, and 

no mitigation measures beyond those implemented during the current term license would be 

warranted as a result of license renewal. 

On the basis of these considerations, the health impact from chemicals to workers and the 

public is considered SMALL for all nuclear plants. This is a Category 1 issue. 

4.9.1.1.3 Microbiological Hazards 

Some microorganisms associated with nuclear power plant cooling towers and thermal 

discharges can have deleterious impacts on the health of plant workers and the public. Certain 

microorganisms can benefit from thermal effluents. The potential for adverse health effects 

from microorganisms on nuclear power plant workers is an issue for plants that use cooling 

towers. Potential adverse health effects on the public from microorganisms in thermal effluents 

is an issue for nuclear plants that use cooling ponds, lakes, or canals, and that discharge to 

rivers. During the license renewal term, plant workers and members of the public would be 

exposed to microbiological hazards in the same way that they are exposed during operations in 

the original license term (see Section 3.9.3 for details). 

Two environmental issues related to microbiological hazards are reviewed here: 

(1) microbiological hazards to plant workers (issue was renamed from the 1996 GEIS) and 

(2) microbiological hazards to the public (plants with cooling ponds or canals or cooling towers 

that discharge to a river) (issue was renamed and modified from the 1996 GEIS to include all 

rivers). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-149 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Microbiological Hazards to Plant Workers 

 

The types of microbiological hazards that exist for nuclear power plant workers are discussed in 

Section 3.9.3. Pathogens of concern include Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Pseudomonas 

aeruginosa, thermophilic fungi, Legionella spp., and N. fowleri. These species are all 

associated with nuclear plants that use cooling towers as part of their cooling water system. 

Because of the presence of these microorganisms, workers at nuclear power plants are typically 

required to use respiratory protection when cleaning cooling towers and condensers. Prairie 

Island Nuclear Generating Plant, which had high concentrations of N. fowleri in the circulating 

water, successfully controlled the pathogen and protected workers through chlorination before 

its yearly downtime operation (NRC 1980). The NRC has concluded that microorganisms that 

live in high-radiation and extreme heat conditions typical of the spent fuel pool do not pose a 

risk to plant workers (NRC 1999a). 

No change in existing microbiological hazards is expected over the license renewal term. It is 

considered unlikely that any plants that have not already experienced occupational 

microbiological hazards would do so during the license renewal term or that hazards would 

increase over that period. It is anticipated that all plants will continue to employ proven 

industrial hygiene principles so that adverse occupational health effects associated with 

microorganisms will be of SMALL significance at all sites, and no mitigation measures beyond 

those implemented during the current term license would be warranted. Aside from continued 

application of accepted industrial hygiene procedures, no additional mitigation measures are 

expected to be warranted as a result of license renewal. This remains a Category 1 issue. 

Microbiological Hazards to the Public (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Canals or Cooling Towers 

That Discharge to a River) 

 

N. fowleri, which is the pathogenic strain of the free-living amoebae Naegleria spp., appears to 

be the most likely microorganism that may pose a public health hazard resulting from nuclear 

power plant operations. Increased populations of N. fowleri may have significant adverse 

impacts. On entry into the nasal passage of a susceptible individual, N. fowleri will penetrate 

the nasal mucosa. The ensuing infection results in a rapidly fatal form of encephalitis. 

Fortunately, humans in general are resistant to infection with N. fowleri. Hallenbeck and 

Brenniman (1989) have estimated individual annual risks for primary amebic 

meningoencephalitis caused by the free-living N. fowleri to swimmers in freshwater to be 

approximately 4  10-6. Exposure to Legionella spp. from power plant operations would not 

generally impact the public because concentrated aerosols of the bacteria would not traverse 

plant boundaries. The information available on microorganisms that may inhabit high-radiation, 

high-temperature environments (such as the spent fuel pool) indicates that they are very 

unlikely to significantly increase in number in the environment and that they would not have a 

deleterious effect on public health (NRC 1999a). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-150 

From the studies presented in Section 3.9.3, it is clear that heavily used bodies of freshwater 

merit special attention and also possibly routine monitoring for pathogenic Naegleria. Since 

Naegleria concentrations in freshwater can be enhanced by thermal effluents, nuclear power 

plants that use cooling lakes, canals, ponds, or rivers experiencing low-flow conditions may 

enhance the populations of naturally-occurring thermophilic organisms. There are currently 

23 reactor sites that fit this category. Data for 14 sites from this category that have gone 

through license renewal were reviewed to predict the level of thermophilic microbiological 

organism enhancement at any given site with current knowledge. For all 14 sites, no actual 

hazards to public health from enhancement of thermophilic microbiological organisms were 

identified, documented, or substantiated. However, without site-specific data, the same 

conclusion cannot be drawn for all reactor sites that would go through license renewal. 

Changes in microbial populations and in the public use of water bodies might occur after the 

operating license is issued and the application for license renewal is filed. Other factors could 

also change, including the average temperature of the water, which could result from climate 

change that affected water levels and air temperature. Finally, the long-term presence of a 

power plant might change the natural dynamics of harmful microorganisms within a body of 

water. Therefore, the magnitude of the potential public health impacts associated with thermal 

enhancement of thermophilic organisms could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, depending 

on plant-specific conditions. This is considered a Category 2 issue. 

4.9.1.1.4 Electromagnetic Fields 

Nuclear power plants use power-transmission systems that consist of switching stations or 

substations located on the plant site and transmission lines located primarily offsite that connect 

the power plant to the regional electric grid. Electric fields and magnetic fields, collectively 

referred to as EMF, are produced by operating transmission lines. During the license renewal 

term, plant workers and members of the public who live, work, or pass near an associated 

operating transmission line may be exposed to the EMF in the same way that they are exposed 

during the current license term (see Section 3.9.4 for more detail). One environmental issue 

related to EMFs is reviewed in this section: chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) 

(issue was renamed from the 1996 GEIS). The issue is further evaluated below by reviewing 

the relevant literature. 

It should be noted that the scope of the evaluation of transmission lines in this revised GEIS is 

reduced from that of the 1996 GEIS. For this revision, only those transmission lines currently 

needed to connect the nuclear power plants to the regional electric distribution grid are 

considered within scope (see Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.6.5 in this GEIS). Thus, the number and 

length of the transmission lines within the scope of license renewal environmental review are 

greatly reduced. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-151 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Ongoing Research on the Effect of Electromagnetic Fields

In 1990, the EPA’s Office of Health and Environmental Assessment reviewed epidemiology 

studies, chronic lifetime animal tests, and laboratory studies of biological phenomena related to 

carcinogenesis. The review indicated that some epidemiological studies found an association 

between EMF and certain types of cancers, but others did not find any association. It was 

concluded that the scientific issues concerning the relationship between EMF and adverse 

health effects are very complex and difficult to interpret (EPA 1990). Without an understanding 

of how these EMF fields are interacting with biological functions, the knowledge gained from 

scientific studies was of limited value both in evaluating the importance of the study results and 

in devising protection strategies for the public and for utility workers. 

A substantial body of evidence has been accumulated indicating that EMFs may influence 

biological function at exposure levels capable of producing relatively high current densities 

(10 to 100 mA/m2

) (IRPA/INIRC 1990). Such exposures have been suggested to induce 

chromosome aberrations, alter the distribution in molecular weights during protein synthesis, 

inhibit production of melatonin, alter calcium binding in brain tissue, influence ribonucleic acid 

(RNA) transcription, and produce a variety of other effects (OTA 1989). Questions concerning 

the potential carcinogenic effects of EMF field exposure have been raised as a result of 

suggestive epidemiological findings and some laboratory experiments. One accepted model on 

the development of cancer is the initiation-promotion paradigm (Easterly 1981). Most 

investigators conclude that EMFs are not likely to act as initiators because they have not been 

shown to cause genetic damage (Aldrich and Easterly 1987). EMF effects on RNA 

transcription, however, could imply increased reduction of oncogene products, and some 

investigators consider such data to be indicative of genetic effects (Goodman et al. 1987; 

Goodman and Henderson 1986, 1988). It has not been shown that EMF fields are cancer 

promoters, but the presence of some reported EMF biological effects reveals the need for 

further study of this issue (Byus et al. 1987). 

Section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486, codified at 42 U.S.C. 

13478) authorized the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public Information 

Dissemination Program. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), 

National Institutes of Health (NIH), and DOE were designated to direct and manage a program 

of research and analysis aimed at providing scientific evidence to clarify the potential for health 

risks from exposure to EMF (NIEHS 1999). 

Over the course of this program, DOE and NIEHS managed more than 100 cellular and animal 

studies, exposure assessment studies, and engineering studies. No additional epidemiology 

studies were conducted; however, analyses of the studies that had already been conducted 

were an important part of the assessments (NIEHS 2002). In 1998, NIEHS completed the 

review of a comprehensive body of scientific research on the potential health effects of EMF. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-152 

NIEHS organized several technical symposia and a working group meeting to review EMF 

research. The working group was made up of scientists representing a wide range of 

disciplines (including engineering, epidemiology, cellular biology, medicine, toxicology, statistics, 

and pathology) brought together to review and evaluate the RAPID research and other 

research. 

In June 1999, the NIEHS submitted the report, NIEHS Report on Health Effects from Exposure 

to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (i.e., extremely low frequency 

electromagnetic fields [ELF-EMFs]) to Congress. In part, the report (NIEHS 1999) concluded 

the following: 

The scientific evidence suggesting that ELF-EMF exposures pose any health risk 

is weak. The strongest evidence for health effects comes from associations 

observed in human populations with two forms of cancer: childhood leukemia 

and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in occupationally exposed adults.... In 

contrast, the mechanistic studies and the animal toxicology literature fail to 

demonstrate any consistent pattern across studies and the animal toxicology 

literature fail to demonstrate any consistent pattern across studies although some 

sporadic findings of biological effects have been reported. No indication of 

increased leukemia in animals has been observed.... Virtually all of the 

laboratory evidence in animals and humans and most of the mechanistic work 

done in cells fail to support a causal relationship between ELF-EMF at 

environmental levels and changes in biological function or disease status. The 

lack of consistent, positive findings in animal or mechanistic studies weakens the 

belief that this association is actually due to ELF-EMF, but it cannot completely 

discount the epidemiological findings. 

The NIEHS concluded that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because 

of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In the NIEHS opinion, 

this finding is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually 

everyone in the United States uses electricity and is therefore routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, 

passive regulatory action is warranted, such as a continued emphasis on educating both the 

public and the regulatory community on ways in which to reduce exposure. NIEHS suggested 

that the power industry continue its current practice of siting power lines to reduce exposure and 

continue to explore ways to reduce the creation of magnetic fields around transmission and 

distribution lines without creating new hazards. NIEHS also encourages the use of technologies 

that lower exposures from neighborhood distribution lines, provided they do not increase other 

risks, such as those from accidental electrocution or fire. NIEHS does not believe that other 

cancers or noncancer outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to warrant concern 

(NIEHS 1999). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-153 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

In the United Kingdom, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) established an 

independent Expert Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation (AGNIR) that reviewed scientific 

evidence relating possible adverse health effects to low-frequency EMFs (NRPB 2001, 2004). 

The earlier review (NRPB 2001) provided no firm evidence of a carcinogenic hazard to children 

or adults from exposure to normal levels of low-frequency EMFs, but made a number of 

recommendations for epidemiological studies and experimental work. The NRPB review in 

2004 (NRPB 2004) concluded that currently, the results of these studies on EMF and health do 

not warrant quantitative restrictions on exposure to EMF. However, such studies, together with 

people’s concerns, provide a basis for precautionary measures (NRPB 2004). 

The World Health Organization (WHO) published an environmental health criteria monograph 

(WHO 2007) that addresses the possible health effects of ELF-EMF exposure. It reviewed the 

scientific literature on biological effects to assess the health risk from ELF-EMF exposure. It 

concluded the following about childhood leukemia: 

Scientific evidence suggesting that everyday, chronic low-intensity (above 0.3 to 

0.4 μT) low-frequency magnetic field exposure poses a health risk is based on 

epidemiological studies demonstrating a consistent pattern of increased risk for 

childhood leukemia. Uncertainties in the hazard assessment include the role that 

control selection bias and exposure misclassification might have on the observed 

relationship between magnetic fields and childhood leukemia. In addition, 

virtually all of the laboratory evidence and the mechanistic evidence fail to 

support a relationship between low-level ELF magnetic fields and changes in 

biological function or disease status. Thus, on balance, the evidence is not 

strong enough to be considered causal, but sufficiently strong to remain a 

concern. 

The potential for transmission line EMF to cause adverse health impacts in humans has been 

reviewed by many scientific groups. The hazard is assessed by a standard scientific approach 

that considers data from epidemiologic, laboratory, and biophysical studies. A number of 

epidemiologic studies have reported a small degree of association between measures of EMF 

and several diseases such as childhood leukemia. Other studies have failed to find an 

association. A causal basis for the EMF associations is not supported by laboratory and 

biophysical evidence, and the actual basis remains unexplained. Nonetheless, in 2002, the 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 2002) designated EMF as a class 2B 

carcinogen (“possibly carcinogenic”), on the basis of “consistent statistical associations of 

high-level residential magnetic fields with a doubling of the risk of childhood leukemia.” The 

WHO (2007) monograph did not change the EMF classification on the basis of new human, 

animal, and in vitro studies published since the IARC (2002). In 2002, the California 

Department of Health Services issued a report (CADHS 2002) concluding that “EMFs can cause 

some degree of increased risk of childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s disease, 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-154 

and miscarriage.” Kheifets et al. (2005) assessed the potential susceptibility of children to 

EMFs and recommended additional research and the development of precautionary policies. 

The WHO (2007) monograph also reviewed literature that looked at a number of other diseases 

such as cancers in children and adults, depression, suicide, reproductive dysfunction, 

developmental disorders, immunological modifications, and neurological disease. On the basis 

of this review, it concluded the following: 

The scientific evidence supporting a linkage between ELF magnetic fields and 

any of these diseases is much weaker than for childhood leukemia and in some 

cases (for example, for cardiovascular disease or breast cancer) the evidence is 

sufficient to give confidence that magnetic fields do not cause the disease. 

Extensive investigations of animals exposed at much higher levels of magnetic fields 

(up to 5 mT) have not demonstrated adverse health effects (Boorman et al. 2000). The 

elevated levels of EMF exposure in occupational settings likewise do not show a consistent 

pattern of increased risk for acute myocardial infarction or chronic coronary heart disease 

(Sahl et al. 2002). Laboratory studies of cells and tissues do not support the hypothesis that 

EMF exposure at ambient levels is a significant risk factor for human disease (NIEHS 1999). 

The failure to observe biological effects from EMF exposure may be due to the fact that, 

mechanistically, effects of EMF on biology are very weak (Valberg et al. 1997) or the 

association between the epidemiological results on childhood leukemia and EMF be the result 

of chance or a confounding factor (Draper et al. 2005). 

Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)

An important question regarding regulations is whether transmission line exposures contribute 

significantly to total EMF exposures. In most cases, fields produced inside the home by 

appliances and electrical wiring are greater than the contributions from transmission line fields. 

Exceptions to this rule are individuals living next to a high-voltage transmission line ROW. Also 

relevant is the fact that exposures to transmission line fields are considered more continuous 

than those to appliance fields because transmission line fields permeate large areas (e.g., an 

entire home). Fields generated by appliances are generally more localized, resulting in 

intermittent exposures as individuals move around and as the appliances are turned on and off.

The earth’s atmosphere produces slowly varying electric fields that average less than a few 

hundred V/m, and the earth’s core produces a steady magnetic field in a range from 

about 0.3 to 0.6 G. Near appliances, the magnetic fields can be high, but they diminish sharply 

with distance. Table 4.9-4 shows the magnetic fields at different distances from household 

appliances (HCCP 2007). Typical house wiring and appliances contribute a 60-Hz magnetic 

field that can be up to about 3 mG (not in the vicinity of appliances). Some comparisons 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-155 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 4.9-4. Magnetic Fields at Different Distances from 

Household Appliances 

 Magnetic Fields (mG) at Different Distances 

Household Appliance 3 cm 30 cm 100 cm 

Microwave oven 7502,000 4080 38 

Fluorescent lamp 4004,000 520 0.13 

Electric cooking stove 602,000 440 0.11 

Television 25500 0.420 0.12 

Clothes washer 8400 230 0.12 

Source: HCCP 2007

(of induced currents) among transmission line exposures, domestic exposures, and exposures 

used in biological effects experiments can be made by using induced current density as an 

exposure metric. According to data provided in OTA (1989), field strengths on the ROW of a 

500-kV line induce body currents that are higher than those induced by domestic exposures 

produced by typical electrical appliances. A comparison with the results of biological effects 

experiments (OTA 1989) shows that while current densities in many biological effects 

experiments are higher than those typically induced by household exposures, some current 

densities are significantly lower. These comparisons are based, however, on average current 

densities predicted in humans, because EMF dosimetry has not advanced to the point of 

determining specific current densities in various tissues and organs. Moreover, researchers 

have not identified what field characteristics are important biologically. 

Conclusion on Electromagnetic Fields

A review of the biological and physical studies of 60-Hz EMFs did not find any consistent 

evidence that would link 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. Nonetheless, a wide range of 

biological responses have been reported to be affected by EMFs. 

Even if clear adverse effects were apparent in the epidemiology literature or with some 

biological assay, considerable additional work would be required to determine how and what to 

mitigate, because evidence suggests that some EMF biological effects do not follow the typical 

“more intensity is worse” relationship. Furthermore, there may be a subtle relationship between 

the intensity of the local geomagnetic field and the appearance of effects for some intensities of 

60-Hz fields. This complicating evidence points to the fact that, while much experimental and 

epidemiological evidence has been accrued, the pieces still do not fit together very well. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-156 

Because of inconclusive scientific evidence, the chronic health effects of EMF are considered 

uncertain, and currently, no generic impact level can be assigned. The NRC will continue to 

monitor the research initiatives—both those within the national EMF program and others 

internationally—to evaluate the potential carcinogenicity of EMFs as well as other progress in 

the EMF study disciplines. If the NRC finds that the appropriate Federal health agencies have 

reached a consensus on the potential human health effects from exposure to EMF, the NRC will 

revise the GEIS to include the new information and determine what to require of all future 

license renewal applicants. 

4.9.1.1.5 Other Hazards 

Two additional human health issues are addressed in this section: (1) physical occupational 

hazards (new issue not considered in the 1996 GEIS) and (2) electric shock hazards (issue was 

renamed from the 1996 GEIS). 

Nuclear power plants are industrial facilities that have many of the typical occupational hazards 

found at any other electric power generation utility. Workers at or around nuclear power plants 

would be involved in some electrical work, electric power line maintenance, repair work, and 

maintenance activities and exposed to some potentially hazardous physical conditions 

(e.g., excessive heat, cold, and pressure). The issue of physical occupational hazards is 

generic to all nuclear power plants. 

Transmission lines are needed to transfer energy from the nuclear power plant to consumers. 

The workers and general public at or around the nuclear power plants and along the 

transmission lines are exposed to the potential for acute electrical shock from these lines. The 

issue of electrical shock is generic to all nuclear power plants. As described in Sections 3.1.1 

and 3.1.6.5, in-scope transmission lines include only those lines that would not continue to 

operate if a plant’s license was not renewed. Using this criterion, in-scope transmission lines 

are those lines that connect the plant to the first substation of the regional electric grid. This 

substation is frequently, but not always, located on the plant property. 

During the license renewal term, human health impacts from physical occupational hazards and 

acute shock hazards would be the same as those from operations during the original license 

term (see Section 3.9.5 for more detail). 

Physical Occupational Hazards

The types of occupational hazards that exist at a nuclear power plant are discussed in 

Section 3.9.5. The issue of occupational hazards is evaluated by comparing the rate of fatal 

injuries and nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses in the utility sector with the rate in all 

industries combined. Occupational hazards can be minimized when workers adhere to safety 

standards and use appropriate personal protective equipment; however, fatalities and injuries 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-157 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

from accidents can still occur. Data for occupational injuries from the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) for 2005 (BLS 2005a,b,c) indicate that the rate of fatal injuries in the utility 

sector is less than the rate for many sectors (construction; transportation and warehousing; 

agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting; wholesale trade; and mining) and that the incidence 

rate for nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses is the least for electric power generation, 

followed by electric power transmission control and distribution (see Section 3.9.5). The fatality 

rate for electric power line installers and repairers can be estimated at 0.032 percent 

(BLS 2005a). It is expected that over the license renewal term, workers would continue to 

adhere to safety standards and use protective equipment, so adverse occupational impacts 

would be of SMALL significance at all sites, and no mitigation measures beyond those 

implemented during the current license term would be warranted. The impact of these hazards 

is a Category 1 issue. 

Electric Shock Hazards 

The greatest hazard from a transmission line is direct contact with the conductors. Tower 

designs preclude direct public access to the conductors. However, electrical contact can be 

made without physical contact between a grounded object and the conductor. Secondary shock 

currents are produced when humans make contact with (1) capacitively charged bodies, such 

as a vehicle parked near a transmission line, or (2) magnetically linked metallic structures, such 

as fences near transmission lines. A person who contacts such an object could receive a shock 

and experience a painful sensation at the point of contact. The intensity of the shock would 

depend on the EMF strength, size of the object, and how well the object and person were 

insulated from ground. 

Design criteria for nuclear power plants that limit hazards from steady-state currents are based 

on the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), adherence to which requires that utility 

companies design transmission lines so that the short-circuit current to ground produced from 

the largest anticipated vehicle or object is limited to less than 5 mA (IEEE 2007). With respect 

to shock safety issues and license renewal, three points must be made. First, in the licensing 

process for the earlier licensed nuclear plants, the issue of electrical shock safety was not 

addressed. Second, some plants that received operating licenses with a stated transmission 

line voltage may have chosen to upgrade the line voltage for reasons of efficiency, possibly 

without reanalysis of induction effects. Third, since the initial NEPA review for those utilities that 

evaluated potential shock situations under the provision of the NESC, land use may have 

changed, resulting in the need for a reevaluation of this issue. The electrical shock issue, which 

is generic to all types of electrical generating stations, including nuclear plants, is of SMALL 

significance for transmission lines that are operated in adherence with the NESC. Without a 

review of the conformance of each nuclear plant’s transmission lines, within this scope of 

review, with NESC criteria, it is not possible to determine the significance of the electrical shock 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-158 

potential generically; it could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The impact of this hazard 

remains a Category 2 issue. 

4.9.1.2 Environmental Consequences of Postulated Accidents 

 

Design-Basis Accidents and Severe Accidents 

 

Chapter 5 of the 1996 GEIS assessed the impacts of postulated accidents at nuclear power 

plants (NPPs) on the environment. The postulated accidents included design-basis accidents 

and severe accidents (e.g., those with core damage). The impacts considered included: 

• Dose and health effects of accidents (5.3.3.2 through 5.3.3.4); 

• Economic impacts of accidents (5.3.3.5); and 

• Impact of uncertainties on results (5.3.4). 

The estimated impacts were based upon the analysis of severe accidents at 28 NPPs,(c)

 as 

reported in the environmental impact statements (EISs) and/or final environmental statements 

(FESs) prepared for each of the 28 plants in support of their operating licenses. With few 

exceptions, the severe accident analyses were limited to consideration of reactor accidents 

caused by internal events. The 1996 GEIS addressed the impacts from external events 

qualitatively. The severe accident analysis for the 28 plants was extended to the remainder of 

plants whose EISs did not consider severe accidents (since such analysis was not required at 

the time the other plants’ EISs were prepared). The estimates of environmental impact 

contained in the 1996 GEIS used 95th percentile upper confidence bound (UCB) estimates 

whenever available. This provides conservatism to cover uncertainties, as described in 

Section 5.3.3.2.2 of the 1996 GEIS. The 1996 GEIS concluded that the probability-weighted 

consequences and impacts were SMALL compared to other risks to which the populations 

surrounding NPPs are routinely exposed. 

Appendix E of this document provides an update on postulated accident risk. Since the NRC’s 

understanding of accident risk has evolved since the issuance of the 1996 GEIS, Appendix E 

assesses more recent information on postulated accidents that might have had the potential to 

alter the conclusions in Chapter 5 of the 1996 GEIS. This update considers how these 

 

(c) The 28 sites are listed in Table 5.1 of the 1996 GEIS. There are a total of 44 units included in this list, 

but 4 of these units never operated (Grand Gulf 2, Harris 2, Perry 2, and Seabrook 2). For the 

purpose of this document, this list will be referred to as containing 28 NPPs, but when mean values 

are calculated for this subset of NPPs, the 40 units that operated are considered. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-159 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

developments would affect the conclusions in the original GEIS and provides comparative data 

where appropriate. 

The different sources of new information can be generally categorized by their effect of either 

decreasing, not affecting, or increasing the best-estimate environmental impacts associated with 

postulated severe accidents. Those areas where a decrease in best-estimate impacts would be 

expected are: 

• New internal events information (decreases by an order of magnitude), and 

• New source term information (significant decreases). 

Areas likely leading to either a small change or no change include: 

• Use of BEIR-VII risk coefficients. 

Lastly, those areas leading to an increase in best-estimate impacts would consist of: 

• Consideration of external events (comparable to internal event impacts), 

• Power uprates (small to moderate increase), 

• Higher fuel burnup (small to moderate increases), 

• Low power and reactor shutdown events (could be comparable to full-power event 

impacts), and 

• Spent fuel pool accidents (could be comparable to full-power event impacts). 

Given the difficulty in conducting a rigorous aggregation of these results with the differences 

in the information sources utilized, a fairly simple approach is taken. The latter group contains 

three areas where the increase could be comparable to the current risk and two areas where 

the increase could approach 30–40 percent. The net increase from these five areas would 

therefore be (in a simplistic sense) approximately 470 percent(d)

 (increase by a factor of 4.7). 

The reduction in risk due to newer internal event information would account for a decrease by a 

factor of 5 to 100. The net effect of an increase on the order of 500 percent and a decrease on 

the order of 500 percent to 10,000 percent would be lower estimated impacts (as compared to 

the 1996 GEIS assessment). 

 

(d) This approximation simply assumes that each comparable area results in an increase of 100 percent 

and the other two areas (uprates and burnup) each result in an increase of 35 percent. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-160 

Furthermore, even if one assumed that the net effect of the new information was no change in 

risk, the information provided throughout Appendix E demonstrates that the level of 

conservatism in the upper bound estimates utilized in the 1996 GEIS is much larger than the 

individual (or cumulative) deltas from the updated information. In particular, Section E.3.1 of 

Appendix E demonstrates that the 1996 GEIS values were a factor of 2 to 4 higher than the 

underlying EIS values. 

With respect to uncertainties, the 1996 GEIS contained an assessment of uncertainties in the 

information used to estimate the environmental impacts. Section 5.3.5 of the 1996 GEIS 

discusses the uncertainties and concludes that they could cause the impacts to vary anywhere 

from a factor of 10 to a factor of 1,000. This range of uncertainties bounds the uncertainties 

discussed in Section E.3.9 of Appendix E of this document, which ranged from a factor of 

3 to 10, as well as the uncertainties brought in by the other sources of new information. 

Given the discussion in Appendix E of this document, the staff concludes that the reduction in 

environmental impacts from the use of new information (since the 1996 GEIS analysis) 

outweighs any increases resulting from this same information. As a result, the findings in the 

1996 GEIS remain valid. Therefore, design-basis accidents remain a Category 1 issue, and 

although the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL for all plants, 

severe accidents remain a Category 2 issue to the extent that only alternatives to mitigate 

severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not previously considered such 

alternatives. 

In addition, it is reasonable based on the discussion in Appendix E that, in license renewal 

applications, the impacts from reactor accidents at full power (including internal and external 

events) should continue to be considered in assessing severe accident mitigation alternatives 

(SAMAs). The impacts of all other new information do not contribute sufficiently to the 

environmental impacts to warrant their inclusion in the SAMA analysis since the likelihood of 

finding cost-effective plant improvements is small. Alternatives to mitigate severe accidents still 

must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives; however, as 

discussed further in Appendix E, those plants that have already had a SAMA analysis 

considered by the NRC as part of an EIS, supplement to an EIS, or EA, need not perform an 

additional SAMA analysis for license renewal. Table 4.9-5 provides a summary of the 

conclusions discussed above. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-161 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 4.9-5. Summary of Issues Covered in Appendix E 

Topic (Section) Conclusions 

New Internal Events 

Information 

(Section E.3.1) 

New information on the risk and environmental impacts of severe accidents caused by 

internal events indicates that PWR and BWR core damage frequencies (CDFs) are 

generally comparable to or less than those forming the basis of the 1996 GEIS. In 

some cases, these differences are significant (approaching 1 order of magnitude). 

Comparison of population dose from newer assessments illustrates a reduction in 

impact by a factor of 5 to 100 when compared to older assessments, and an additional 

factor of 2 to 4 due to the conservatism built into the 1996 GEIS values. This would 

also mean that contamination of open bodies of water and economic impacts would, in 

most cases, be significantly less. Additionally, the likelihood of basemat melt-through 

accidents is less than that used in the analysis supporting the 1996 GEIS. 

Consideration of 

External Events 

(Section E.3.2) 

The 1996 GEIS did not quantitatively consider severe accidents initiated by external 

events in assessing environmental impacts. When the environmental impacts of 

external events are considered, they can be comparable to those from internal events; 

however, they are generally lower than the estimates used in the 1996 GEIS for internal 

events. This conclusion would also apply to the contamination of open bodies of water, 

groundwater and economic impacts. 

New Source Term 

Information 

(Section E.3.3) 

More recent source term information indicates that the timing from dominant severe 

accident sequences, as quantified in NUREG/CR-6295, is comparable to the analysis 

forming the basis of the 1996 GEIS. In most cases, the release frequencies and 

release fractions are significantly lower for the more recent estimate. Thus, the 

environmental impacts used as the basis for the 1996 GEIS are higher than the impacts 

that would be estimated using the more recent source term information. 

Power Uprates 

(Section E.3.4) 

Based on a comparison of the change in large early release frequency (LERF) for 

extended power uprates, a small to moderate increase in environmental impacts results 

from the increase in operating power level. 

Higher Fuel Burnup 

(Section E.3.5) 

Increased peak fuel burn-up from 42 to 75 GWd/MT for PWRs and 60 to 75 GWd/MT 

for BWRs is estimated to result in small to moderate increases in the environmental 

impacts in the event of a severe accident. 

Consideration of Low 

Power and Reactor 

Shutdown Events 

(Section E.3.6) 

The environmental impacts from accidents at low power and reactor shutdown 

conditions are generally comparable to those from accidents at full power when 

comparing the values in NUREG/CR-6143 and NUREG/CR-6144 to those in NUREG1150. Even so, the 1996 GEIS estimates of the environmental impact of severe 

accidents bound the potential impacts from accidents at low power and reactor 

shutdown. Finally, as cited above and discussed in SECY-97-168, industry initiatives 

taken during the early 1990s have also contributed to the improved safety of low power 

and reactor shutdown operation. 

Consideration of 

Spent Fuel Pool 

Accidents 

(Section E.3.7) 

The environmental impacts from accidents at spent fuel pools (SFPs) (as quantified in 

NUREG-1738) can be comparable to those from reactor accidents at full power (as 

estimated in NUREG-1150). Subsequent analyses performed and mitigative measures 

employed since 2001 have further lowered the risk of this class of accidents. In 

addition, the conservative estimates from NUREG-1738 are much less than the impacts 

from full-power reactor accidents that are estimated in the 1996 GEIS. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-162 

Table 4.9-5. (cont.) 

Topic (Section) Conclusions 

Use of BEIR-VII 

Risk Coefficient 

(Section E.3.8) 

Use of newer risk coefficients such as in BEIR VII is expected to have a small impact 

on the results presented in the 1996 GEIS. 

Uncertainties 

(Section E.3.9) 

The impact and magnitude of uncertainties, as estimated in the 1996 GEIS, bound the 

uncertainties introduced by the new information and considerations. 

SAMAs 

(Section E.4)

The current process and scope of SAMA analysis is sufficient for determining the need 

for additional mitigative measures. 

Summary/Conclusion 

(Section E.5)

Given the new and updated information, the reduction in estimated environmental 

impacts from the use of new internal event and source term information outweighs any 

increases from the consideration of external events, power uprates, higher fuel burnup, 

low power and reactor shutdown risk, and SFP risk. 

4.9.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

Construction—Impacts on workers are expected to be similar to those experienced during 

construction of any major industrial facility. Impacts from construction of combustion-based 

renewable energy facilities are expected to be the same as those for construction of fossil fuel 

facilities. Construction would increase traffic on local roads, which could affect the health of the 

general public. Human health impacts would be the same for all facilities whether located on 

greenfield sites, brownfield sites, or at an existing nuclear plant. Personal protective equipment, 

training, and engineered barriers would protect the workforce. 

Summaries of statistics maintained by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(Meyer and Pegula 2006) indicate that construction activities are responsible for a significant 

share of workplace accidents. In 2004, the construction industry accounted for 1 in 5 fatal 

workplace injuries and 1 in 10 nonfatal workplace injuries. With a workforce of 

10,272,000 workers in 2004, the private construction industry registered 1,234 total fatalities in 

the following categories: falls, 445 (36 percent); transportation incidents, 287 (23 percent) 

(highway 148, non-highway 45, worker struck by vehicle/mobile equipment, 78); contact with 

objects and equipment, 267 (18 percent) (struck by object, 150; caught in or crushed in 

collapsing materials 71); exposure to harmful substances and environments, 170 (14 percent); 

and contact with electric current, 122 (10 percent). Over that same period, of a total of 

401,000 nonfatal injuries and illnesses in the construction industry (nonfatal injuries that resulted 

in at least one day away from work) totaled 153,200 in the following categories: overexertion, 

30,460 (20 percent); struck by object, 27,950 (18 percent); fall to lower level, 20,950 

(14 percent); fall to same level, 12,700 (8 percent); and struck against object, 12,720 

(8 percent). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-163 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

4.9.2.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives 

Environmental Consequences of Normal Operating Conditions 

Operations—In 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Bureau of Labor Statistics 

revealed 134,400 individuals employed in the fossil fuel electric power generation industrial 

sector (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 221112) (DOL 2007a). 

For 2006 (DOL 2007b), DOL documented 17 total fatalities for all of the electric power 

generating industrial sector (NAICS Code 22111) and 5 fatalities for fossil fuel electric power 

generation. In 2006, the nonfatal injury and illness incident rate was 3.9 cases per 100 fulltime 

workers, slightly higher than the incident rate of 3.1 cases per 100 full-time workers for the 

entire electric power generation sector. Total reportable incidents occurred at a rate of 2.2 per 

100 full-time workers. Those incidents that resulted from lost time at work occurred at a rate of 

1.2 cases per 100 full-time workers. 

Human health risks are associated with the management and disposal of coal combustion 

waste. Human health risks may extend beyond the facility workforce to the public and are 

proximate to the coal combustion waste disposal facility. The character and the constituents of 

coal combustion waste depend on both the chemical composition of the source coal and the 

technology used to combust it. Generally, the primary sources of adverse consequences from 

coal combustion waste are the presence of leachable, toxic (and, in some cases, carcinogenic) 

heavy metals primarily contained in fly ash and bottom ash, especially arsenic, selenium, and 

mercury. With future implementation of regulations limiting mercury emissions, the amount of 

mercury present in coal combustion waste is expected to rise, and, depending on the particular 

chemical speciation, the amount of leachable mercury in coal combustion waste may also 

increase. Depending on the coal source, radionuclides may also be present in coal combustion 

waste. 

The EPA is considering regulations specific to disposal of coal combustion waste under the 

authority of Subtitle D of RCRA (EPA 2007). Preliminary (draft) risk assessments of historical 

disposal practices for coal combustion waste in landfills and surface water impoundments 

identified both direct and indirect (food chain contamination) pathways for human exposure. 

Overall, when all types of landfills and surface impoundments are evaluated in aggregate, the 

cancer risk criterion for arsenic (1  10-6) can be exceeded for both unlined units (5  10-4) and 

clay-lined units (2  10-4). Arsenic cancer risks are higher for unlined surface impoundments 

(9  10-3) and for clay-lined units (3  10-3). Composite (synthetic) liners, which have been used 

in the majority of the most recently constructed landfills and surface impoundments, greatly 

reduce infiltration of leachable constituents, so much so that risks at all percentiles fall below 

both the cancer and noncancer risk criteria for both landfills and surface impoundments. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-164 

Although future alternative power generating facilities are most likely to use offsite disposal of 

coal combustion waste, some short-term storage of coal combustion waste (either in open piles 

or in surface impoundments) is likely to take place onsite, thus establishing the potential for 

leaching of toxic constituents into the local environment. Mobility studies indicate that toxic 

constituents take hundreds to thousands of years to leach through the bottoms of landfills and 

less than 100 years to leach through the bottom surface impoundments. However, because 

each batch of coal combustion waste would likely remain in interim onsite storage for only a 

short period, the potential for release of toxic constituents into the environment is greatly 

reduced. Offsite disposal facilities would be designed and operated in a manner that minimizes 

impacts from leached constituents. 

Environmental Consequences of Accidents 

Operations—Accidents involving fossil fuel energy sources that affect the functionality of the 

boiler or the steam cycle would have the most significant impacts. Steam explosions and other 

mechanical failures have the potential for adverse consequences on the workforce, but are not 

likely to directly affect the surrounding public or natural resources. Failures of pollution control 

devices would have an immediate but short-term impact on the environment because of the 

resulting release of pollutants. However, operating permits would require immediate shutdown 

of combustion sources whose pollution control devices became inoperative and prohibit 

continued operation that bypasses the failed control device. However, pollution control device 

failures, as well as other accidents that are sufficiently severe so as to require the shutdown of 

operations, would result in indirect impacts on the public in the form of reduced available power 

and possible short-term brownouts or blackouts. Although power might be restored relatively 

quickly, longer-term impacts may include a temporary rise in the levelized cost of electricity. 

Overall, impacts on the environment from accidents at a fossil-fuel fired plant are expected to be 

short-lived and small. Longer-term impacts on socioeconomics could be anticipated both as a 

result of job loss and (temporary) higher costs of energy, but overall would be expected to be 

SMALL. 

4.9.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives 

Environmental Consequences of Normal Operating Conditions 

Operations—Operational human health impacts for a new nuclear plant would include radiation 

exposure to the public (at very low levels) and to the operational workforce; impacts from 

exposure to microbiological organisms; occupational safety risks; impacts from electromagnetic 

fields; and exposure to chemicals used onsite by the workers. Impacts on human health, in 

most cases, were determined to be SMALL in 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1, and 

although the table is specific to license renewal, similar human health impacts would be 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-165 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

expected from the operation of a new nuclear facility. Human health impacts would be the 

same for all facilities, whether located on greenfield sites, brownfield sites, or sites located at a 

previously existing nuclear plant, and are expected to be SMALL. 

Environmental Consequences of Accidents 

A detailed analysis of postulated accidents in currently operating reactors (affected by license 

renewal) is provided in Section 4.9.1.2. Although the analysis is specific to license renewal, the 

impacts are representative of the impacts expected for new reactors. New reactor designs 

incorporate additional safety features not found in currently operating reactors. As a result, it is 

expected that the risks associated with the new reactors would be comparable to or less than 

the risks associated with currently operating reactors. Before a license is granted, the 

application for a new reactor would undergo a detailed safety and environmental review to 

ensure that the plant, if constructed, would operate in accordance with all applicable NRC rules 

and regulations. 

4.9.2.3 Renewable Alternatives 

Operations—The operational impacts of alternative energy technologies on human health are 

presented in the following subsections.

Hydroelectric Energy Sources 

Impacts on workers include working near energized systems and high pressure water.

Geothermal 

Operating workers could be affected by exposure to toxic gases and other constituents present 

in geothermal fluids, energized systems, including high pressure and high temperature gases 

and fluids, and electromagnetic fields associated with the generation, conditioning, and 

transmission of electricity. Workers could be affected by exposure to toxic constituents, 

including boron, arsenic, radon, and mercury. 

Wind

Operational hazards for the workforce include working at heights, near rotating mechanical or 

energized equipment, and working in extreme weather. Additional hazards unique to offshore 

wind farms include navigating and working in heavy seas. Potential impacts to workers and the 

public include ice thrown from rotor blades and blades thrown from mechanical failure and 

disintegration. Potential impacts also include EMF exposure, aviation safety, electromagnetic 

interference, and exposure to low-frequency sound. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-166 

Biomass 

Human health risks to workers are expected to be similar to workers in a coal combustion 

facility. Work hazards include exposure to heat, gases, chemicals, high temperature liquids, 

and energized mechanical and electrical equipment. The potential exists for exposure to 

inhalable particulates and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) resulting from incomplete 

combustion of complex organic molecules. The public could be affected by fugitive dust and 

contaminated water. 

Municipal Solid Waste, Refuse-Derived Fuel, and Landfill Gas

Combustion of municipal solid waste and/or refuse-derived fuel may result in the release of 

constituents that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, PAHs, and chlorinated 

hydrocarbons. The workforce as well as nearby residents could be affected by the release of 

toxic constituents to the air. The workforce could also be affected by exposure to toxic wastes. 

Solar Thermal

Potential hazards to workforce include exposure to extremely hot heat transfer fluids or burned 

from misaligned mirrors and contact with energized system components. 

Solar Photovoltaic

Workers could be exposed to airborne toxic heavy metals (e.g., cadmium) and silicon if the 

photovoltaic cell loses integrity from a fire. Workers could also inhale silicon dust if the integrity 

of photovoltaic cells was compromised by an accident. 

Ocean Wave and Current 

Operation of wave- and current-energy capturing systems would not be expected to affect 

human health. Workers could be affected by possible exposure to energized systems, 

inclement weather conditions, and high sea states. Workers could be affected by work 

underwater inspecting and repairing cables and tethers. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-167 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

4.10 Environmental Justice 

4.10.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action—Continued 

Operations and Refurbishment Activities 

Impacts of nuclear plant operations and refurbishment on minority and low-income populations 

living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants were not addressed in the 1996 GEIS because 

guidance for implementing Executive Order 12898 was not available at the time. Environmental 

justice was listed in Table B-1 in Appendix B, Subpart A, of 10 CFR Part 51, but was not 

assigned an issue category or impact significance. The finding in Table B-1 stated that “the 

need for and the content of an analysis of environmental justice will be addressed in plantspecific reviews.” Therefore, impacts to “minority and low-income populations,” was evaluated 

as a new issue for this GEIS revision. 

The NRC addresses environmental justice matters for license renewal through (1) identifying 

the location of minority and low-income populations that the continued operation of the nuclear 

power plant may affect during the license renewal term, (2) determining whether there would be 

any potential human health or environmental effects to these populations and special pathway 

receptors, and (3) determining if any of the effects may be disproportionately high and adverse. 

Minority and Low-Income Populations 

The environmental justice impact analysis considers the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 

could result from continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities at a nuclear 

power plant. Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or

nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health 

effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or lowincome population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population 

or for another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects 

refer to impacts or risk of impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or lowincome community that are significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impact on the 

larger community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. 

Some of these potential effects have been identified in resource areas discussed in this section. 

For example, increased demand for rental housing during replacement power plant construction 

could disproportionately affect low-income populations. Minority and low-income populations 

are subsets of the general public residing around the site, and all are exposed to the same risks 

and hazards generated from operating a nuclear power plant. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-168 

Continued reactor operations and other activities associated with license renewal could have an 

impact on air, land, water, and ecological resources in the region around each nuclear power 

plant site, which might, create human health and environmental effects on the general 

population. Depending on the proximity of minority and low-income populations in relation to 

each nuclear plant, the environmental impacts of license renewal could have a disproportionate 

effect on these populations. 

There is considerable variation in the representation of minority and low-income populations 

within 50 mi (80 km) of each nuclear power plant site. Sites located in the southern and 

southwestern United States have large minority populations (e.g., Browns Ferry, Brunswick, 

Catawba, Farley, North Anna, Robinson, Summer, and Surry plants). Sites located close to 

metropolitan areas also have larger minority populations as well as larger low-income 

populations (e.g., Dresden, Ginna, Indian Point, and Pilgrim plants). 

The location and significance of environmental impacts may affect population groups that are 

particularly sensitive because of their resource dependencies or practices (e.g., subsistence 

agriculture, hunting, or fishing) that reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority and 

low-income populations. The analysis of special pathway receptors can be an important part of 

the identification of resource dependencies or practices. Special pathways take into account 

the levels of contaminants in native vegetation, crops, soils and sediments, surface water, fish, 

and game animals on or near the power plant sites in order to assess the risk of radiological 

exposure through subsistence consumption of fish, native vegetation, surface water, sediment, 

and local produce; the absorption of contaminants in sediments through the skin; and the 

inhalation of airborne particulates. All licensed nuclear plants have a comprehensive 

radiological environmental monitoring program to assess the impact of site operations on the 

environment. Samples are collected from the aquatic and terrestrial pathways applicable to 

these sites. Aquatic pathways include fish, surface water, and sediment; terrestrial pathways 

include airborne particulates, radioiodine, milk, food products, crops, and direct radiation. 

Concentrations of contaminants in native vegetation, crops, soil, sediment, surface water, fish, 

and game animals in areas surrounding nuclear power plants have generally been found to be 

quite low (at or near the threshold of detection) and seldom above background levels. 

Pathways associated with continued operations and other activities at nuclear plants associated 

with the license renewal might affect human populations were considered. Also considered was 

the extent to which minority and low-income populations in the area around these plants could 

be disproportionately affected, through resource dependencies and practices (e.g., subsistence 

agriculture, hunting, or fishing). In addition, plant-specific impacts that could affect minority and 

low-income populations were also identified at nuclear power plants. Although the overall 

impact of nuclear plants on the general population has usually been found to be small, because 

of these unique considerations, the additional examination of the nature and geographic extent 

of impacts and population demographics should be considered on a plant-specific basis.
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-169 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

While not binding upon independent regulatory agencies such as the NRC, Executive 

Order 12898 requires certain specified Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, 

“disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” The NRC’s “Policy 

Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing 

Actions” (69 FR 52040, August 24, 2004) requires a determination of whether human health and 

environmental effects of continued operations during the license renewal term and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal on minority populations and low-income 

populations would be disproportionately high and adverse. This determination will be made by 

the NRC in each plant-specific SEIS. On the basis of these considerations, the impact of 

continued operations and other activities on minority populations and low-income populations 

would depend on site-specific conditions and is therefore a Category 2 issue. 

4.10.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

Construction—Minority and low-income populations could be directly or indirectly affected by the 

construction of a new replacement power plant. The extent of effect experienced by these 

populations is difficult to determine since it would depend on the location of the power plant. 

For example, increased demand for rental housing during construction could disproportionately 

affect low-income populations. However, demand for rental housing could be mitigated if the 

plant is constructed near a metropolitan area. Replacement power plants would likely be sited 

at existing power plant or industrial brownfield sites, which are often located in or near lowincome and minority communities. Construction would also create employment opportunities for 

minority and low-income individuals. However, construction at a brownfield site could 

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of the 

proposed plant site. Minority and low-income populations may be disproportionately affected by 

air emissions and noise from construction and by increased truck and commuter traffic. 

Increased fossil fuel consumption may affect employment opportunities and environmental 

conditions in low-income regions that supply the fossil fuel. Power plants that rely on fossil fuels 

would likely be sited at brownfield sites situated near low-income and minority populations. 

Operation—Low-income populations that rely on subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife, 

living near power plants could be disproportionately affected. Minority and low-income 

populations may be disproportionately affected by air emissions and noise from facility operation 

and by increased truck and commuter traffic. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-170 

4.11 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention 

4.11.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action—Continued 

Operations and Refurbishment Activities 

The effects of license renewal (including operations and refurbishment that would occur during 

the license renewal term) on waste management is presented in this section. Baseline 

conditions at operating reactors are discussed in Section 3.11. License renewal is expected to 

result in a continuation of these conditions for an extended period commensurate with the 

license renewal term, usually 20 years. The annual quantities of waste generated during the 

license renewal term are not expected to change from the amount generated during the current 

licensed term. However, the accumulated quantity of waste material needing long-term storage 

or disposal is expected to be approximately 50 percent larger. 

The impacts associated with onsite waste management activities at nuclear plants are 

addressed in other parts of Chapter 4 under various resource discussions. These activities 

include waste collection, treatment, packaging, and loading onto conveyance vehicles for 

shipment offsite. These activities are considered to be part of the normal operations at the site. 

For example, the annual radioactive effluent release reports issued by the sites include a 

summary of radioactive effluent releases from all the facilities on the site, including the waste 

management and storage facilities. The same reports also provide data on volume and 

radioactivity content of solid radioactive waste shipped offsite for processing and disposal. 

Similarly, the radiological environmental monitoring program conducted at each site measures 

the direct radiation as well as environmental concentrations of all radionuclides originating at the 

site as well as background radiation. The impact from the transportation of wastes from the 

reactor to a third-party waste treatment center or directly to a disposal site is addressed 

generically in Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52 (see Section 4.12.1.1). 

The issues that are addressed in this section are 

• Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) storage and disposal (issue from the 1996 GEIS); 

• Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel (issue was renamed from the 1996 GEIS); 

• Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal (issue 

was renamed from the 1996 GEIS); 

• Mixed waste storage and disposal (issue from the 1996 GEIS); and 

• Nonradiological waste storage and disposal (issue was renamed from the 1996 GEIS). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-171 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

These are five of the nine issues evaluated in the 1996 GEIS (NRC 1996) in the chapter on the 

uranium fuel cycle and waste management. They relate to waste management at all nuclear 

fuel cycle facilities, including nuclear power plants. The other four issues, which pertain 

specifically to aspects of the uranium fuel cycle other than the nuclear power plants themselves, 

are addressed in Section 4.12.1.1. As discussed in Section 4.12.1.1, the other nuclear fuel 

cycle facilities include uranium mining and milling, uranium hexafluoride (UF6) production, 

isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, fuel reprocessing, and disposal facilities. 

4.11.1.1 Low-Level Waste Storage and Disposal 

Section 3.11.1.1 provides the quantities and characteristics of LLW that are normally generated 

at nuclear plants under routine operating conditions. As stated in the introduction to 

Section 4.11.1, these baseline conditions are expected to continue during the license renewal 

term. 

Prior to July 1, 2008, most of the LLW generated at reactor sites is shipped offsite for disposal 

either immediately after generation or after a brief storage period onsite (see Section 3.11.1.1). 

This trend is expected to continue. However, the Barnwell disposal facility in South Carolina 

ceased accepting waste from States that are not a part of the Atlantic compact as of July 2008. 

As a result, the only remaining disposal facility that is available to the nuclear power plant 

operators in those States is the EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah, which is licensed to 

accept only Class A LLW. Under these circumstances, the options available to the nuclear 

power plants in those States are to store their Class B and C (and Class A as appropriate) 

wastes onsite or offsite until a disposal facility becomes available. Such activities are conducted 

in accordance with NRC regulations and any applicable State or local requirements. One new 

facility is being developed by the Waste Control Specialists in Texas for the Texas compact, 

comprised of Texas and Vermont. That facility has been licensed by the State of Texas (an 

NRC agreement State) and is authorized to dispose of Class A, B, and C LLW (WCS 2009). 

The owners of the facility are in the process of developing rules governing the disposal of 

commercial LLW and other types of waste from waste generators in States other than Texas 

and Vermont. When this process is finalized, the facility could provide an outlet for disposal of 

LLW generated on those States that used to ship their waste to Barnwell prior to July 2008. 

The NRC believes that the comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low 

public doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts on the environment 

will remain SMALL during the term of a renewed license. The maximum additional onsite land 

that may be required for LLW storage during the term of a renewed license and associated 

impacts would be SMALL. Nonradiological impacts on air and water would be negligible. The 

radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of LLW from any 

individual plant at licensed sites are SMALL. In addition, the NRC concludes that there is 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-172 

reasonable assurance that sufficient LLW disposal capacity will be made available when 

needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning 

requirements. 

On the basis of the above considerations, the impact of LW storage and disposal during the 

renewal term is considered SMALL for all sites. As in the 1996 GEIS, this issue is considered to 

be and remains Category 1. 

In addition to being generated at the reactor sites, LLW is also generated from the rest of the 

uranium fuel cycle as part of the front-end operations during the mining and milling of uranium 

ores and during the steps leading up to the manufacture of new fuel. If the recycling option is 

made available and the decision is made to reprocess the spent fuel in the United States, the 

reprocessing operations would also generate LLW. The impacts associated with management 

of LLW from these other fuel cycle operations are addressed in Table S-3 in 10 CFR 51.51 

(see Section 4.12.1.1). 

4.11.1.2 Onsite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

The NRC first adopted the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule in 1984. The NRC amended 

the decision and rule in 1990, reviewed them in 1999, and amended them again in 2010 (49 FR 

34694 (August 31, 1984); 55 FR 38474 (September 18, 1990); 64 FR 68005 (December 6, 

1999); and 75 FR 81032 and 81037 (December 23, 2010)). The Waste Confidence Decision 

and Rule are codified in the NRC regulation 10 CFR 51.23. Under the Waste Confidence Rule 

and Decision, the NRC had determined that spent fuel can be stored onsite safely and with 

minimal environmental impact for at least 30 years beyond the current licensed operating life 

(which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of nuclear power plants. The 

Commission determined, in the 1996 GEIS, that onsite storage of spent fuel during the term of a 

renewed operating license is a Category 1 issue. Further, the Commission also concluded in 

the 1996 GEIS that continued storage of existing spent fuel and storage of spent fuel generated 

during the license renewal term can be accomplished safely and without significant 

environmental impacts, as radiation doses will be well within regulatory limits. Thus, the 

environmental impacts were classified as SMALL for this Category 1 issue. The following new 

discussion provides information regarding the potential impacts of onsite storage of spent 

nuclear fuel during the license renewal term. 

As discussed in Section 3.11.1.2, spent nuclear fuel is currently stored at reactor sites either in 

spent fuel pools or in ISFSIs. The storage of spent fuel in spent fuel pools was considered for 

each plant in the safety and environmental reviews at the construction permit and operating 

license stage. This onsite storage of spent fuel and high-level waste (HLW) is expected to 

continue into the foreseeable future. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-173 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Interim storage needs vary among plants, with older units likely to lose pool storage capacity 

sooner than newer ones. Given the uncertainties regarding the final disposition of spent fuel 

and high-level waste, it is expected that expanded spent fuel storage capacity will be needed at 

all nuclear power plants. 

As discussed above, current and potential environmental impacts from spent fuel storage onsite 

at the current reactor sites have been studied extensively, are well understood, and the 

environmental impacts during the license renewal term were found to be SMALL. No new 

information was found during the development of this GEIS revision that would alter that 

conclusion. 

For the time period after permanent reactor shutdown, the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule 

represented the Commission’s generic determination that spent nuclear fuel can continue to be 

stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for a period of time after the end of 

the licensed life for operation of a nuclear power plant (after the permanent shutdown of the 

power reactor and expiration of the plant’s operating license). This generic determination meant 

that the NRC did not need to consider the storage of spent nuclear fuel after the end of a 

reactor’s licensed life for operation in the NEPA documents that support its reactor and spentfuel storage license application reviews. 

On December 23, 2010, the Commission published a revision of the Waste Confidence 

Decision and Rule to reflect information gained from experience in the storage of spent nuclear 

fuel and the increased uncertainty in the siting and construction of a permanent geologic 

repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. In response to the 2010 

Waste Confidence Decision and Rule, the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and 

Vermont, along with several other parties, challenged the Commission’s NEPA analysis in the 

decision, which provided the regulatory basis for the rule. On June 8, 2012, the United States 

Court of Appeals, in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012), vacated the NRC’s 

Waste Confidence Decision and Rule, after finding that it did not comply with NEPA. 

The court concluded that the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule is a major federal action 

necessitating either an EIS or an environmental assessment that results in a “finding of no 

significant impact.” In vacating the 2010 decision and rule, the court identified three specific 

deficiencies in the analysis: 

1. As to the Commission’s conclusion that permanent disposal will be available “when 

necessary,” the court held that the Commission did not evaluate the environmental 

effects of failing to secure permanent disposal; 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-174 

2. As to the storage of spent fuel on-site at nuclear plants after the expiration of a plant’s 

operating license, the court concluded that the Commission failed to properly examine 

the risk of spent fuel pool leaks in a forward-looking fashion; and 

3. Also related to the post-license storage of spent fuel, the court concluded that the 

Commission failed to properly examine the consequences of spent fuel pool fires. 

In response to the court’s ruling, the Commission issued CLI-12-16 on August 7, 2012, in which 

the Commission determined that it would not issue licenses that rely upon the Waste 

Confidence Decision and Rule until the issues identified in the court’s decision are appropriately 

addressed by the Commission (NRC 2012). CLI-12-16 provided, however, that the decision not 

to issue licenses only applied to final license issuance; all licensing reviews and proceedings 

should continue to move forward. In SRM-COMSECY-12-0016, dated September 6, 2012, the 

Commission directed the NRC staff to proceed with a rulemaking that includes the development 

of a generic EIS to support a revised Waste Confidence Decision and Rule and to publish both 

the EIS and the revised decision and rule in the Federal Register within 24 months (by 

September 6, 2014). The Commission indicated that both the EIS and the revised Waste 

Confidence Decision and Rule should build on the information already documented in various 

NRC studies and reports, including the existing environmental assessment that the NRC 

developed as part of the 2010 Waste Confidence Decision and Rule. The Commission directed 

that any additional analyses should focus on the three deficiencies identified in the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision. The Commission also directed that the NRC staff provide ample opportunity for public 

comment on both the draft EIS and the proposed Waste Confidence Decision and Rule. 

In accordance with CLI-12-16, the NRC will not approve any site-specific license renewal 

applications until the deficiencies identified in the D.C. Circuit’s decision have been resolved. 

Two Table B-1 license renewal issues that rely, wholly or in part, upon the Waste Confidence 

Decision and Rule are the “onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” and “offsite radiological impacts 

of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal.” Both of these issues were classified as 

Category 1 in the 1996 GEIS; the draft revised GEIS that was published for comment in 2009 

continued the Category 1 classification for both of these issues. As part of the NRC’s response 

to the New York v. NRC decision, the NRC has revised these two issues accordingly. 

Specifically, the NRC has revised the Category 1 “Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” issue to 

narrow the period of onsite storage to the license renewal term. In the 1996 GEIS and in the 

2009 draft revised GEIS, the NRC relied upon the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule to 

make a generic finding that spent nuclear fuel could be stored safely onsite with no more than a 

small environmental impact for the term of the extended license (from approval of the license 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-175 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

renewal application to the expiration of the operating license) plus a 30 year period following the 

permanent shutdown of the power reactor and expiration of the operating license. 

The Waste Confidence Decision and Rule provided the basis for the 30 year period following 

the permanent shutdown of the reactor and expiration of the operating license. The 2010 Waste 

Confidence Decision and Rule extended this post-reactor shutdown onsite storage period from 

30 years to 60 years. Given the New York v. NRC decision, and pending the issuance of a 

generic EIS and revised Waste Confidence Decision and Rule (as directed by SRM-COMSECY12-0016), the period of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel following the permanent shutdown of 

the power reactor and expiration of the operating license is now excluded from this GEIS issue. 

This issue now only covers the onsite storage of spent fuel during the license renewal term. 

4.11.1.3 Offsite Radiological Impacts of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste 

Disposal 

As a result of the New York v. NRC decision, and pending the issuance of a generic EIS and 

revised Waste Confidence Decision and Rule (see the discussion in section 4.11.1.2 above), 

the NRC has revised the Category 1 issue, “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel 

and high-level waste disposal.” This issue pertained to the long-term disposal of spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level waste, including possible disposal in a deep geologic repository. Although 

the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule did not assess the impacts associated with disposal of 

spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in a repository, it did reflect the Commission’s 

confidence, at the time, in the technical feasibility of a repository and when that repository could 

have been expected to become available. Without the analysis in the Waste Confidence 

Decision, the NRC cannot assess how long the spent fuel will need to be stored onsite. 

Therefore, the NRC reclassifies this GEIS issue from a Category 1 issue with no assigned 

impact level to an uncategorized issue with an impact level of uncertain. 

Moreover, the ultimate disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a potential future geologic repository is a 

separate and independent licensing action that is outside the regulatory scope of license 

renewal. However, because of questions and concerns that have been raised regarding this 

issue during scoping for the revised GEIS, the following discussion provides relevant 

information with respect to developments pertaining to the consideration of an ultimate 

repository site for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. 

At the time the 1996 GEIS was issued, there were no established regulatory limits for offsite 

releases of radionuclides from the ultimate disposal of spent nuclear fuel and HLW, since a 

candidate repository site had not been established. It was assumed that for such a site, limits 

would eventually be developed along the lines of those given in the 1995 National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS) report, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-176 

On February 15, 2002, on the basis of a recommendation by the Secretary of Energy, the 

President recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the development of a repository for the 

geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and HLW. Congress approved this recommendation on 

July 9, 2002, in Joint Resolution 87, which designated Yucca Mountain as the repository for 

spent nuclear waste. On July 23, 2002, the President signed Joint Resolution 87 into law. 

Public Law 107-200, 116 Statutes at Large (Stat.) 735, 42 U.S.C. 10135 (note), designates 

Yucca Mountain as the site for the development of the repository for spent nuclear waste. 

Subsequently, the EPA developed Yucca-Mountain-specific repository release standards, which 

were also adopted by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 63. These standards: 

• Establish a dose limit of 15 millirem (0.15 mSv) per year for the first 10,000 years after 

disposal; 

• Establish a dose limit of 100 millirem (1.0 mSv) exposure per year between 10,000 years 

and 1 million years; 

• Require the Department of Energy (DOE) to consider the effects of climate change, 

earthquakes, volcanoes, and corrosion of the waste packages to safely contain the 

waste during the 1 million-year period; and 

• Consistent with the recommendations of the NAS by establishing a radiological 

protection standard for this facility at the time of peak dose up to 1 million years after 

disposal. 

On June 3, 2008, the DOE submitted a license application to the NRC, seeking authorization to 

construct a geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste at 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada. As part of the site characterization and recommendation process for 

the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the DOE was required by the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq. (NWPA), to prepare an EIS. In 

accordance with the NWPA (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)(4)), the NRC was required to adopt DOE’s EIS, 

to “the extent practicable,” as part of any possible NRC construction authorization decision. 

DOE submitted the following NEPA documents along with its application, which include 

analyses that address radiological impacts to workers and the public. 

• Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of 

Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, 

Nevada (FEIS) (February 2002) (DOE/EIS-0250F) (ML032690321) 

• Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the 

Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-177 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nye County, Nevada (Repository SEIS) (June 2008) (DOE/EIS-0250F-S1) 

(ML081750191) 

The NRC formally accepted for docketing DOE’s license application for Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada on September 8, 2008. In its acceptance, NRC staff also recommended that the 

Commission adopt, with further supplementation, the EIS and supplements prepared by DOE 

(73 FR 53284). With respect to radiological impacts, DOE’s FEIS and Repository SEIS indicate 

that the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste would be SMALL with exposures 

well below regulatory limits. However, on March 3, 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

filed a motion with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) seeking permission to 

withdraw its application for authorization to construct a high-level waste geological repository at 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Board denied that request on June 29, 2010, in LBP-10-11 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML101800299), whereuponthe parties involved in the preceding filed 

petitions asking the Commission to uphold or reverse this decision. 

On September 9, 2011, the Commission issued a Memorandum and Order, CLI-11-07, stating 

that it found itself evenly divided on whether to take the affirmative action of overturning or 

upholding the Board’s June 29, 2010, decision. Exercising its inherent supervisory authority, 

the Commission directed the Board to complete all necessary and appropriate case 

management activities by September 30, 2011. On September 30, 2011, the Board issued a 

Memorandum and Order suspending the proceeding. 

On October 1, 2010, the NRC staff initiated an orderly closure of its Yucca Mountain activities. 

As part of the orderly closure, the NRC staff prepared three technical evaluation reports 

documenting its work. 

The NRC’s non-sensitive Yucca Mountain-related documents are being preserved and made 

available to the public as part of the NRC staff’s activities to retain the accumulated knowledge 

and experience gained as a result of its Yucca Mountain-related activities. These documents 

can be viewed on the NRC’s public Web site, http://www.NRC.gov/waste/hlw-disposal.html. 

NRC decisions and recommendations concerning the ultimate disposition of spent nuclear fuel 

are ongoing and outside the scope of license renewal, and as such, of this GEIS. 

Separate from the regulatory actions taken by the NRC, in 2009 and early 2010, the president 

and his administration decided not to proceed with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste 

repository. Instead, on January 29, 2010, the Secretary of Energy announced the formation of a 

Blue Ribbon Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back 

end of the nuclear fuel cycle (DOE 2010). The Blue Ribbon Commission will provide advice and 

make recommendations on issues including alternatives for the storage, processing, and 

disposal of civilian and defense spent nuclear fuel and HLW. The Blue Ribbon Commission 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-178 

issued its recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on January 26, 2012 (www.brc.gov). 

The report contained eight key elements: 

1. A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities. 

2. A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program 

and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed. 

3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear 

waste management. 

4. Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities. 

5. Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities. 

6. Prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of spent nuclear fuel and 

high-level waste to consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such facilities 

become available. 

7. Support for continued U. S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and for workforce 

development. 

8. Active U. S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste management, 

non-proliferation, and security concerns. 

DOE will be the lead Federal agency responsible for developing a new national strategy for 

nuclear waste management; the NRC will play a supporting role in those areas associated with 

its regulatory review. 

4.11.1.4 Mixed Waste Storage and Disposal 

This issue addresses the storage and disposal of mixed waste generated at nuclear power 

plants and other uranium fuel-cycle facilities during the license renewal term. As discussed in 

Section 3.11.3, nuclear power plants generate small quantities of mixed waste. Other uranium 

fuel-cycle facilities are also expected to generate small quantities of mixed waste. Mixed waste 

is regulated both by the EPA or the authorized State agency under RCRA and by the NRC or 

the Agreement State agency under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA; Public Law 83-703). The 

waste is either treated onsite or sent offsite for treatment followed by disposal at a permitted 

landfill. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are in 

place at nuclear power plants ensure that the mixed waste is properly handled and stored and 

that doses to and exposure to toxic materials by the public and the environment are negligible at 

all plants. License renewal will not increase the small but continuing risk to human health and 

the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and nonradiological 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-179 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

environmental impacts from the long-term disposal of mixed waste at any individual plant at 

licensed sites are considered SMALL for all sites. The issue was considered a Category 1 issue 

in the 1996 GEIS, and no new information that would alter this conclusion has been identified. 

4.11.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Storage and Disposal 

This issue addresses the storage and disposal of nonradioactive waste generated at 

commercial nuclear power plants and during the rest of the uranium fuel cycle during the license 

renewal term. Nonradioactive waste consists of hazardous and nonhazardous waste. Storage 

and disposal of hazardous waste generated at nuclear plants is discussed in Section 3.11.2. As 

indicated in that section, nuclear plants generate small quantities of hazardous waste during 

operation and refurbishment. A special class of hazardous waste, known as universal waste, 

consisting of commonly used yet hazardous materials (batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing 

equipment, and lamps), is also generated. Similar types of hazardous wastes are also 

generated at other uranium fuel-cycle facilities. The management of hazardous wastes 

generated at all of these facilities, both onsite and offsite, is strictly regulated by the EPA or the 

responsible State agencies per the requirements of RCRA. 

As does any industrial facility, nuclear power plants and the rest of the uranium fuel-cycle 

facilities also generate nonradioactive nonhazardous waste (see Section 3.11.4). These wastes 

are managed by following good housekeeping practices and are generally disposed of in local 

landfills permitted under RCRA Subtitle D regulations. 

In the 1996 GEIS, the impacts associated with managing nonradioactive wastes at uranium fuel 

cycle facilities, including nuclear power plants, were found to be SMALL. It was indicated that 

no changes to nonradioactive waste generation would be anticipated for license renewal, and 

that systems and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal of 

the wastes at all plants. The issue was considered a Category 1 issue in the 1996 GEIS, and 

no new information that would alter this conclusion has been identified. 

4.11.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

Construction—Construction-related wastes include various fluids from the onsite maintenance 

of construction vehicles and equipment (e.g., used lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, glycol-based 

coolants, spent lead-acid storage batteries) and incidental chemical wastes from the 

maintenance of equipment and the application of corrosion-control protective coatings 

(e.g., solvents, paints, coatings), construction-related debris (e.g., lumber, stone, and brick), and 

packaging materials (primarily wood and paper). All materials and wastes would be 

accumulated onsite and disposed of or recycled through licensed offsite disposal and treatment 

facilities. Life-cycle management of chemicals and wastes generated during construction and 

pollution prevention initiatives (such as spill prevention plans) will serve to mitigate the impact of 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-180 

wastes. The impacts of waste management are expected to be the same for greenfield, 

brownfield, and existing nuclear power plant sites. 

Operations—Solid wastes would be generated throughout the period of plant operations. The 

character of wastes would depend on chemical constituents of the fuel, efficiency of 

combustion, and operational efficiencies of the various air pollution control devices. Wastes 

routinely associated with the maintenance of mechanical and electrical equipment include: 

used lubricating oils and hydraulic fluids, cleaning solvents, corrosion control paints and 

coatings, and dielectric fluids. 

4.11.2.1 Fossil Fuel Alternatives 

Operations—Solid wastes in the form of coal combustion waste (and, in some instances, flue 

gas desulfurization sludge and spent catalysts) would be generated during plant operations. 

The exact character of the coal combustion waste would depend on the chemical constituents of 

the coal, efficiency of the combustion device, and operational efficiencies of the various air 

pollution control devices. 

4.11.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives 

Operations—Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used 

to collect and treat radioactive materials during operations. Waste processing systems would 

be designed so that radioactive effluents released to the environment would meet the 

objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. The primary source of radioactive waste from a 

new nuclear facility is fission products that escape from the fuel rods into the reactor coolant. 

Coolant could also become contaminated from neutron activation of the primary cooling system. 

LLW disposal is assumed to occur at an offsite location, while spent fuel would be stored onsite 

either in spent fuel pool storage or dry cask storage. 

Nonradioactive effluent and wastes include cooling water and steam condensate blowdowns 

that contain various water-treatment chemicals or biocides, wastes from the onsite treatment of 

cooling water and steam cycle water, floor and equipment drain effluent, stormwater runoff, 

laboratory waste, trash, hazardous waste, effluent from the sanitary sewer system, 

miscellaneous gaseous emissions, and liquid and solid effluent. Wastes discharged to waters 

of the United States would be regulated by NPDES permits. All other wastes would be properly 

disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. Waste impacts for a 

nuclear plant are described in Section 4.11.1 and in 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1. 

Impacts are expected to be SMALL for all facilities, whether located on greenfield sites, 

brownfield sites, or at existing nuclear plant sites. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-181 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

4.11.2.3 Renewable Alternatives 

Operations—The operational impacts of alternative energy technologies on waste management 

are presented in the following subsections. 

Geothermal

Small amounts of industrial solid wastes associated with onsite maintenance of equipment and 

infrastructure would be generated, including: used oils, used glycol-based antifreeze, waste 

lead-acid storage batteries, spent cleaning solvents, and excess corrosion control coatings. 

Operational solid wastes could include precipitates (scale) resulting from cooling and 

depressurized hydrothermal fluids that must be periodically removed from equipment; some 

precipitates may include naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). 

Wind

Minimal amounts of wastes are generated from the maintenance of wind turbines; wastes 

consist mainly of spent lubricating and gear oils removed from equipment during routine 

preventive maintenance, small amounts of battery electrolyte from onsite back-up power 

systems, and minor amounts of solvents and coatings from ongoing corrosion control activities. 

Modern turbine designs allow for the easy removal of malfunctioning equipment for replacement 

and repair; consequently, wastes generated onsite would be limited to preventive maintenancerelated wastes. 

Biomass

Major operating wastes would include fly ash and bottom ash that results from the combustion 

of the carbonaceous fuels. Scrubbers for control of sulfur oxide emissions would not be 

expected to be needed for units combusting wood and energy crops that have little to no sulfur 

content. Temporary storage of operational solid wastes onsite could affect local ecological 

systems, especially surface waters. 

Municipal Solid Waste, Refuse-Derived Fuel, and Landfill Gas 

Small amounts of industrial solid wastes typically associated with maintenance of equipment 

and infrastructure would be generated, including used oils and lubricants, used glycol-based 

coolants, waste lead-acid batteries, spent cleaning solvents, and excess corrosion control 

wastes. Operating wastes also would include small amounts of sanitary wastewaters and 

sanitary solid wastes from support of the workforces. Toxic constituents in municipal solid 

waste or refuse-derived fuel could cause solid wastes from air pollution devices to become 

hazardous due to leachability of toxic constituents. Sanitary wastewater and well as 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-182 

wastewaters from industrial operations would be containerized and removed to offsite treatment; 

cooling water blowdown and steam cycle blowdown may be discharged to the land surface or to 

surface impoundments. Temporary storage of operational solid wastes on site could impact 

local ecological systems, especially surface waters. 

Solar Thermal

Spills and leaks of the heat transfer fluids could occur; affected soil would need to be removed 

and disposed of properly. Routine maintenance-related wastes would be expected. Spills or 

leaks from electrical components could create waste dielectric fluids (all assumed to be free of 

PCBs). 

Solar Photovoltaic

Proper precautions would have to be made for the disposal of solar cells, although recycling of 

materials would reduce impacts. 

Ocean Wave and Current

Wastes associated with facility operation would include small amounts of wastes related to 

facility maintenance, including waste lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, cleaning solvents, and 

protective corrosion-control paints and coatings. Wastes also include those associated with the 

application of antifouling agents to the underwater portions of components to control 

interference by marine organisms. Major repairs of electrical components could result in waste 

dielectric fluids (mineral oil). 

4.12 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

This section describes impacts that are considered common to all alternatives discussed in the 

GEIS including the proposed action (license renewal) and replacement power alternatives. The 

continued operation of a nuclear power plant and replacement fossil fueled power plants both 

involve the mining, processing, and the consumption of fuel, which results in comparative 

environmental impacts. Environmental impacts associated with power plant fuel cycles are 

presented in Section 4.12.1. The termination of operations and the decommissioning of a 

nuclear power plant and replacement fossil fueled power plants as well as renewable energy 

systems are presented in Section 4.12.2. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions from the 

nuclear lifecycle as well as replacement fossil fueled power plants and climate change impacts 

are presented in Section 4.12.3. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-183 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

4.12.1 Environmental Consequences of Fuel Cycles 

This section describes the environmental impacts associated with fuel cycles associated with 

the proposed action (license renewal) and replacement power alternatives. Most, if not all, 

replacement power alternatives, including the continued operation of the nuclear power plant 

during the license renewal term, employ a set of steps in the utilization of its fuel source. These 

steps can include, but are not limited to, extraction, transformation, transportation, and, 

combustion. Emissions generally occur at each stage of a fuel cycle. Also, some aspects of the 

fuel cycle (e.g., storage and disposal) described here are common to each alternative. 

4.12.1.1 Uranium Fuel Cycle 

In the United States, all currently operating commercial plants are light water reactors and use 

uranium for fuel. Therefore, in this section and in the rest of this GEIS, the term “uranium fuel 

cycle” is used interchangeably with “nuclear fuel cycle.” 

Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities 

The NRC evaluated the environmental impacts that would be associated with operating uranium 

fuel cycle facilities other than the reactors themselves in two NRC documents: WASH-1248 

(NRC 1974) and NUREG-0116 (NRC 1976). The types of facilities considered in these two 

documents include: 

• Uranium mining—facilities where the uranium ore is mined. 

• Uranium milling—facilities where the uranium ore is refined to produce uranium 

concentrates in the form of triuranium octaoxide (U3O8). 

• Uranium hexafluoride (UF6) production—facilities where the uranium concentrates are 

converted to UF6. 

• Isotopic enrichment—facilities where the isotopic ratio of the uranium-235 isotope in 

natural uranium is increased to meet the requirements of light water reactors. 

• Fuel fabrication—facilities where the enriched UF6 is converted to uranium dioxide (UO2) 

and made into sintered UO2 pellets. The pellets are subsequently encapsulated in fuel 

rods, and the rods are assembled into fuel assemblies ready to be inserted into the 

reactors. Two options were considered: (1) carrying out all steps involved in 

manufacturing the fuel assemblies at the same location and (2) carrying the steps out at 

two separate facilities (at one facility, UO2 is produced in powder form from the enriched 

UF6, and at the other facility, the fuel assemblies are manufactured). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-184 

• Reprocessing—facilities that disassemble the spent fuel assemblies, chop up the fuel 

rods into small sections, chemically dissolve the spent fuel out of sectioned fuel rod 

pieces, and chemically separate the spent fuel into reusable uranium, plutonium, and 

other radionuclides (primarily fission products and actinides). 

• Disposal—facilities where the radioactive wastes generated at all fuel cycle facilities 

including the reactors, are buried. Spent nuclear fuel that is removed from the reactors 

and not reprocessed was also assumed to be disposed of at a geologic repository. 

Environmental Impacts 

In addition to impacts occurring at the above facilities, the impacts associated with the 

transportation of radioactive materials among these facilities, including the transportation of 

wastes to disposal facilities, were evaluated. The results were summarized in a table and 

promulgated as Table S-3 in 10 CFR 51.51(b). Table S-3 is provided as Table 4.12-1 for ease 

of reference. 10 CFR 51.51(a) states: 

Every environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage of a lightwater-cooled nuclear power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4, 

1979, shall take Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as 

the basis for evaluating the contribution of the environmental effects of uranium 

mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, 

fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive 

materials and management of low level wastes and high level wastes related to 

uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear 

power reactor. Table S-3 shall be included in the environmental report and may 

be supplemented by a discussion of the environmental significance of the data 

set forth in the table as weighed in the analysis for the proposed facility. 

Specific categories of natural resource use included in Table S-3 relate to land use; water 

consumption and thermal effluents; radioactive releases; burial of transuranic waste, HLW, and 

LLW; and radiation doses from transportation and occupational exposures. The contributions in 

the table for reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are maximized for 

either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle); that is, the cycle that results in the 

greater impact is used. For each resource area, Table S-3 presents a result that has been 

integrated over the entire fuel cycle except the reactors. The only exception to this is that the 

waste quantities provided under the entry called “solids (buried onsite)” also includes wastes 

generated at the reactor. 

 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-185 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

The environmental impact values are expressed in terms normalized to show the potential 

impacts attributable to processing the fuel required for the operation of a 1,000-MWe nuclear 

power plant for one year at an 80 percent availability factor to produce about 800 MW-yr 

(0.8 GW-yr) of electricity. This is referred to as 1 reference reactor year (RRY). 

A detailed discussion of impacts associated with the production and processing of fuel needed 

for one reference reactor year operation of the model light water reactor was provided in the 

1996 GEIS (NRC 1996). Included in the discussion were the collective offsite radiological 

impacts that would be associated with radon-222 and technetium-99 releases to the 

environment during the fuel cycle operations, which Table S-3 does not address. The 

1996 GEIS also provided a discussion on the sensitivity of the impacts to recent changes in the 

fuel cycle (Section 6.2.3 in the 1996 GEIS). For example, when Table S-3 was originally 

prepared, the model reactor was assumed to be refueled once a year, and the fuel was 

assumed to remain in the reactor to a burnup level of 33,000 MWd/MTU. The 1996 GEIS 

discussed the effects of higher fuel burnups up to 62,000 MWd/MTU and the fact that most 

reactors now refuel once every 18 months or 24 months. The technological changes in the 

various fuel cycle operations (e.g., the in situ mining of uranium rather than the open pit mining 

assumed in WASH-1248, and the potential for using more efficient isotopic enrichment 

processes through the gaseous centrifuge rather than the energy-intensive gaseous diffusion 

process that was and is still being used in the United States) were also discussed. It was 

concluded that even though certain fuel cycle operations and fuel management practices have 

changed over the years, the assumptions and methodology used in preparing Table S-3 were 

conservative enough that the impacts described by the use of Table S-3 would still be bounding. 

The NRC believes that this conclusion still holds. 

One part of the fuel cycle that was not discussed either in the technical support documents for 

the original Table S-3 or in the 1996 GEIS was the disposition of the depleted UF6 tails 

generated during the enrichment process. Originally, these tails were intended to be used as a 

feedstock to make fuel for proposed fast breeder reactors. However, the United States 

abandoned the fast breeder reactor program in 1978. Before the creation of the United States 

Enrichment Corporation in 1993, DOE was the custodian of all the depleted UF6 generated in 

the United States at the three gaseous diffusion plants (in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Portsmouth, 

Ohio; and Paducah, Kentucky). DOE prepared several NEPA documents evaluating the 

impacts associated with the disposition of approximately 700,000 MT (1.54 billion lb) of depleted 

UF6 (DOE 1999, 2004a,b, 2007). DOE decided to convert the depleted UF6 back to U3O8 and 

dispose of it as LLW (DOE 2004c,d). The results of these analyses indicate that the operational 

impacts of the depleted UF6 management facilities would not be very different from the impacts 

estimated for other parts of the fuel cycle in Table S-3. In particular, the impacts of the depleted 

UF6 conversion facilities, where the depleted UF6 is converted to U3O8, would be similar to the 

impacts of the UF6 production facilities, where U3O8 is converted to UF6. If the depleted 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-186 

uranium oxide is disposed of as LLW, the conversion product corresponding to one reference 

reactor year would be in addition to the LLW quantities already listed in Table S-3. This value is 

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

(Normalized to model light water reactor annual fuel requirement 

[WASH-1248] or reference reactor year [NUREG-0116])(a) 

Environmental Considerations Total 

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement 

or Reference Reactor Year of Model 1,000 MWe 

Light Water Reactor 

Natural Resource Use 

Land (acres) 

 Temporarily committed(b) 100 

 Undisturbed area 79 

 Disturbed area 22 Equivalent to a 110 MWe coal-fired power plant. 

 Permanently committed 13 

 Overburden moved (millions of MT) 2.8 Equivalent to 95 MWe coal-fired power plant. 

Water (millions of gallons) 

 Discharged to air 160 Equal to 2 percent of model 1,000 MWe light water 

reactor with cooling tower. 

 Discharged to water bodies 11,090 

 Discharged to ground 127 

 Total 11,377 Less than 4 percent of model 1,000 MWe light water 

reactor with once-through cooling. 

Fossil Fuel 

 Electrical energy (thousands of MW-hour) 323 Less than 5 percent of model 1,000 MWe output. 

 Equivalent coal (thousands of MT) 118 Equivalent to the consumption of a 45 MWe coal-fired 

power plant. 

 Natural gas (millions of scf) 135 Less than 0.4 percent of model 1,000 MWe energy 

output. 

Effluents  Chemical (MT) 

Gases (including entrainment)(c)

 SOx 4,400 

 NOx

(d) 1,190 Equivalent to emissions from 45 MWe coal-fired plant for 

a year. 

 Hydrocarbons 14 

 CO 29.6 

 Particulates 1,154 

 Other gases 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-187 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 4.12-1. (cont.) 

Environmental Considerations Total 

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1,000 MWe 

Light Water Reactor 

 F 0.67 Principally from UF6 production, enrichment, and 

reprocessing. Concentration within range of State 

standards and below level that has effects on human 

health.

 HCl 0.014

Liquids 

 SO –

4 9.9 From enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing steps. 

Components that constitute a potential for adverse 

environmental effects are present in dilute concentrations 

and receive additional dilution by receiving bodies of water 

to levels below permissible standards. The constituents 

that require dilution and the flow of dilution water are NH3: 

600 cfs, NO3: 20 cfs, fluoride: 70 cfs. 

 NO –

3 25.8 

 Fluoride 12.9 

 Ca++ 5.4 

 C1 – 8.5 

 Na + 12.1 

 NH3 10.0 

 Fe 0.4 

 Tailings solutions (thousands of MT) 240 From mills only—no significant effluents to environment. 

Solids 91,000 Principally from mills—no significant effluents to 

environment. 

Effluents  Radiological (curies) 

Gases (including entrainment) 

 Rn-222 – Presently under reconsideration by the Commission. 

 Ra-226 0.02 

 Th-230 0.02 

 Uranium 0.034 

 Tritium (thousands) 18.1 

 C-14 24 

 Kr-85 (thousands) 400 

 Ru-106 0.14 Principally from fuel reprocessing plants. 

 I-129 1.3 

 I-131 0.83 

 Tc-99 – Presently under consideration by the Commission. 

 Fission products and transuranics 0.203 

Liquids 

 Uranium and progeny 2.1 Principally from milling—included tailings liquor and 

returned to ground—no effluents; therefore, no effect on 

the environment. 

 Ra-226 0.0034 From UF6 production. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-188 

Table 4.12-1. (cont.) 

Environmental Considerations Total 

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1,000 MWe 

Light Water Reactor 

 Th-230 0.0015 

 Th-234 0.01 From fuel fabrication plants—concentration 10 percent of 

10 CFR Part 20 for total processing 26 annual fuel 

requirements for model light water reactor. 

 Fission and activation products 5.9  10-6

Solids (buried onsite) 

 Other than high level (shallow) 11,300 9,100 Ci comes from low-level reactor wastes and 1,500 Ci 

comes from reactor decontamination and 

decommissioning—buried at land burial facilities. 600 Ci 

comes from mills—included in tailing returned to ground. 

Approximately 60 Ci comes from conversion and spent fuel 

storage. No significant effluent to the environment. 

 Transuranic and high level waste (deep) 1.1  107 Buried at Federal Repository. 

Effluents  Thermal (billions of Btu) 4,063 Less than 5 percent of model 1,000 MWe light water 

reactor. 

Transportation (person-rem) 

 Exposure of workers and general 

 public 

2.5 

 Occupational exposure 22.6 From reprocessing and waste management. 

(a) In some cases where no entry appears, it is clear from the background documents that the matter was addressed and that, in 

effect, the table should be read as if a specific zero entry had been made. However, there are other areas that are not 

addressed in the table. Table S-3 does not include health effects from the effluents described in the table, estimates of 

releases of radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle, or estimates of technetium-99 released from waste management or 

reprocessing activities. These issues may be the subject of litigation in the individual licensing proceedings. 

 Data supporting this table are given in the Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, WASH-1248, April 1974; the 

Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel Cycle,’ NUREG-0116 (Supp. 1 

to WASH–1248); the Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing 

and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248); and in the record of the 

final rulemaking pertaining to Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts from Spent Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste 

Management, Docket RM-50-3. The contributions from reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are 

maximized for either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle). The contribution from transportation excludes 

transportation of cold fuel to a reactor and of irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from a reactor, which are considered in 

Table S-4 of Section 51.20(g). The contributions from the other steps of the fuel cycle are given in columns AE of Table S-3A 

of WASH-1248. 

(b) The contributions to temporarily committed land from reprocessing are not prorated over 30 years, since the complete 

temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services one reactor for one year or 57 reactors for 30 years. 

(c) Estimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power generation. 

(d) 1.2 percent from natural gas use and process. 

Source: 10 CFR 51.51 

 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-189 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

estimated to be approximately 12 Ci (4.4  1011 Bq) (35 MT of uranium per RRY multiplied by 

0.34 Ci/MT of depleted uranium). 

Consideration of Environmental Justice 

As stated in NRC’s Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC 

Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), “An NRC EJ [environmental justice] analysis 

should be limited to the impacts associated with the proposed action (i.e., the communities in 

the vicinity of the proposed action). EJ-related issues differ from site to site and normally cannot 

be resolved generically. Consequently, EJ, as well as other socioeconomic issues, are normally 

considered in site-specific EISs. Thus, due to the site-specific nature of an EJ analysis, 

EJ-related issues are usually not considered during the preparation of a generic or 

programmatic EIS. EJ assessments would be performed as necessary in the underlying 

licensing action for each particular facility.” 

The environmental impacts of various individual operating uranium fuel cycle facilities are 

addressed in separate EISs prepared by NRC. These documents include analyses that 

address human health and environmental impacts to minority and low-income populations. 

Electronic copies of these EISs are available through the NRC’s public Web site under 

Publications Prepared by NRC Staff document collection of the NRC’s Electronic Reading 

Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/; and the NRC’s Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. 

Transportation Impacts 

 

The impacts associated with transporting fresh fuel to one 1,000 MWe model light water reactor 

and with transporting spent fuel and radioactive waste (LLW and mixed waste) from that light 

water reactor are provided in Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52. Similar to Table S-3, and as indicated 

in 10 CFR 51.52, every environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage of a 

commercial nuclear power plant must contain a statement concerning the transport of fuel and 

radioactive waste to and from the reactor. A similar statement is also required in license 

renewal applications. Table S-4 forms the basis of such a statement and is presented as 

Table 4.12-2. 

A discussion of the values included in Table S-4 and how they may change during the license 

renewal term was included in Section 6.3 of the 1996 GEIS. However, after the 1996 GEIS was 

issued and during the rulemaking process for codifying Table B-1 in 10 CFR Part 51, a number 

of comments were received from the public that raised some questions about the adequacy of 

Table S-4 for license renewal application reviews. As a result, the NRC reevaluated the 

transportation issues and the adequacy of Table S-4 for license renewal application reviews. In 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-190 

1999, the NRC issued an addendum to the 1996 GEIS (NRC 1999a) in which the agency 

evaluated the applicability of Table S-4 to future license renewal proceedings, given that the 

spent fuel is likely to be shipped to a single repository (as opposed to several destinations, as 

originally assumed in the preparation of Table S-4) and given that shipments of spent fuel are 

likely to involve more highly enriched fresh fuel (more than 4 percent as assumed in Table S-4) 

and higher-burnup spent fuel (higher than 33,000 MWd/MTU as assumed in Table S-4). In the 

addendum, the NRC evaluated the impacts of transporting the spent fuel from reactor sites to 

the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain and the impacts of shipping more highly enriched 

fresh fuel and higher-burnup spent fuel. On the basis of the evaluations, the NRC concluded 

that the values given in Table S-4 would still be bounding, as long as the (1) enrichment of the 

fresh fuel was 5 percent or less, (2) burnup of the spent fuel was 62,000 MWd/MTU or less, and 

 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-191 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

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

Nuclear Power Reactor(a)

Normal Conditions of Transport

 Environmental Impact 

Heat (per irradiated fuel cask in transit) 250,000 Btu/hr 

Weight (governed by Federal or State restrictions) 73,000 lb per truck; 100 tons per cask per rail car 

Traffic density: 

 Truck Less than 1 per day 

 Rail Less than 3 per month 

Exposed Population 

Estimated No. of 

Persons Exposed 

Range of Doses to 

Exposed Individuals(b)

(per reactor year) 

Cumulative Dose to 

Exposed Population 

(per reactor year)(c)

 

Transportation workers 200 0.01 to 300 millirem 4 person-rem 

General public: 

 Onlookers 1,100 0.003 to 1.3 millirem 3 person-rem 

 Along route 600,000 0.0001 to 0.06 millirem 

Accidents in Transport

 Environmental Risk 

Radiological effects Small(d)

Common (nonradiological) causes 1 fatal injury in 100 reactor years; 1 nonfatal injury in 

10 reactor years; $475 property damage per reactor 

year 

(a) Data supporting this table are given in the Commission’s Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive 

Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238, December 1972, and Supp. 1, NUREG-75/038, April 1975. 

(b) The Federal Radiation Council has recommended that the radiation doses from all sources of radiation other than 

natural background and medical exposures should be limited to 5,000 millirem per year for individuals as a result of 

occupational exposure and should be limited to 500 millirem per year for individuals in the general population. The 

dose to individuals due to average natural background radiation is about 130 millirem per year. 

(c) Man-rem is an expression for the summation of whole body doses to individuals in a group. Thus, if each member of a 

population group of 1,000 people received a dose of 0.001 rem (1 millirem), or if 2 people received a dose of 0.5 rem 

(500 millirem) each, the total man-rem dose in each case would be 1 man-rem. 

(d) Although the environmental risk of radiological effects stemming from transportation accidents is currently incapable of 

being numerically quantified, the risk remains small, regardless of whether it is being applied to a single reactor or a 

multireactor site. 

Source: 10 CFR 51.52 

 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-192 

(3) higher-burnup spent fuel (higher than 33,000 MWd/MTU) was cooled for at least 5 years 

before being shipped offsite. The conditions evaluated in Addendum 1 have not changed, and 

no new conditions have been introduced that would alter the conclusions in Addendum 1 

(NRC 1999a). A later study found that the impacts presented in Table S-4 would bound the 

potential environmental impacts that would be associated with transportation of spent nuclear 

fuel with up to 75,000 MWd/MTU burnup, provided that the fuel is cooled for at least 5 years 

before shipment (Ramsdell et al. 2001). Table S-4 as currently encoded in 10 CFR 51.52 is 

provided. 

Consideration of Environmental Justice 

 

The human health impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel are addressed in an addendum to 

the 1996 GEIS (NRC 1999a) in which the agency evaluated the applicability of Table S-4 to 

future license renewal proceedings given that the spent fuel is likely to be shipped to a single 

repository. As part of the site characterization and recommendation process for the proposed 

geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the DOE is required by the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act of 1982 to prepare an EIS. By law, the NRC is required to adopt DOE’s EIS, to “the 

extent practicable,” as part of any possible NRC construction authorization decision. As a 

result, DOE prepared and submitted to NRC the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive 

Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (Repository SEIS) DOE/EIS-0250F-S1) 

(DOE 2008). This document includes analyses that address human health and environmental 

impacts to minority and low-income populations. 

As noted in DOE’s Repository SEIS, shipments of spent nuclear fuel (as well as fresh fuel) 

would use the nation’s existing railroads and highways. DOE estimates that transportationrelated impacts to land use; air quality; hydrology; biological resources and soils; cultural 

resources; socioeconomics; noise and vibration; aesthetics; utilities, energy, and materials; and 

waste management would be SMALL. The small effect on the population as a whole would be 

likely for any segment of the population, including minority and low-income populations, as well 

as members of American Indian Tribes. 

DOE did not identify any potentially high and adverse impacts to members of the public from the 

transport of spent nuclear fuel. DOE determined that subsections of the population, including 

minority or low-income populations, would not receive disproportionate impacts, and no unique 

exposure pathways, sensitivities, or cultural practices that would expose minority or low-income 

populations to disproportionately high and adverse impacts were identified. DOE concluded 

that no disproportionately high and adverse impacts would result from the national 

transportation of spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain (DOE 2008). On September 8, 2008, 

NRC staff recommended that the Commission adopt, with supplementation, DOE’s Repository 

EIS and supplements (73 FR 53284). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-193 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

In light of the recent DOE decision to not proceed with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste 

repository and conduct a comprehensive reevaluation of policies for managing the spent fuel 

from the nation’s nuclear power plants (see Section 4.11.1.3), some or all of the evaluations 

DOE did for Yucca Mountain may have to be redone. 

Environmental Impact Issues of the Uranium Fuel Cycle

Nuclear fuel is needed for the operation of light water reactors during the license renewal term 

in the same way that it is needed during the current license period. Therefore, the factors that 

affect the data presented in Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52, respectively, do not 

change whether a light water reactor is operating under its original license or a renewed license. 

In the 1996 GEIS, there are nine issues that relate to uranium fuel cycle and waste 

management. Five of these issues that relate to waste management are addressed in 

Section 4.11.1. 

The remaining four impact issues include the following: 

• Offsite radiological impacts—individual impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel 

and high-level waste (issue was renamed from the 1996 GEIS); 

• Offsite radiological impacts—collective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel 

and high-level waste (issue was renamed from the 1996 GEIS); 

• Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle (issue was renamed from the 1996 

GEIS); and 

• Transportation (issue from the 1996 GEIS). 

Offsite Radiological Impacts—Individual Impacts from Other than the Disposal of Spent 

Fuel and High-Level Waste 

This issue addresses the radiological impacts on individuals who live near uranium fuel cycle 

facilities. The primary indicators of impact are the concentrations of radionuclides in the 

effluents from the fuel cycle facilities and the radiological doses received by an MEI on the site 

boundary or at some location away from the site boundary. As discussed in Section 3.9.1, an 

MEI can be exposed to radiation from radionuclides found in the effluents of nuclear fuel cycle 

facilities and from radiation “shine” from buildings, storage facilities, and storage tanks 

containing radioactive material. The basis for establishing the significance of individual effects 

is the comparison of the releases in the effluents and the MEI doses with the permissible levels 

in applicable regulations. The analyses performed by the NRC in the preparation of Table S-3 

and found in the 1996 GEIS indicate that as long as the facilities operate under a valid license 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-194 

issued by either the NRC or an agreement State, the individual effects will meet the applicable 

regulations. On the basis of these considerations, the NRC has concluded that the impacts on 

individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases during the license renewal term would 

remain at or below the NRC’s regulatory limits. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that offsite 

radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle (individual effects from sources other than the 

disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste) are SMALL. The efforts to keep the releases and 

doses at ALARA will continue to apply to fuel-cycle-related activities. This was considered a 

Category 1 issue in the 1996 GEIS. No new information has been identified that would alter this 

conclusion. 

Offsite Radiological Impacts—Collective Impacts from Other than the Disposal of Spent 

Fuel and High-Level Waste 

The focus of this issue is the collective radiological doses to and health effects on the general 

public resulting from uranium fuel cycle facilities over the license renewal term. The radiological 

doses received by the general public are calculated on the basis of releases from the facilities to 

the environment, as provided in Table S-3. These estimates were provided in the 1996 GEIS 

for the gaseous and liquid releases listed in Table S-3 as well as for radon-222 and technetium99 releases, which are not listed in Table S-3. The population dose commitments were 

normalized for each year of operation of the model 1,000-MWe LWR (RRY). 

On the basis of the analyses provided in the 1996 GEIS, the estimated involuntary 100-year 

dose commitment to the U.S. population resulting from the radioactive gaseous releases from 

uranium fuel cycle facilities (excluding the reactors and releases of Rn-222 and Tc-99) was 

estimated to be 400 person-rem (4 person-Sv) for 1 RRY. Similarly, the environmental dose 

commitment to the U.S. population from the liquid releases was estimated to be 200 person-rem 

(3 person-Sv) per RRY. As a result, the total estimated involuntary 100-year dose commitment 

to the U.S. population from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases listed in Table S-3 was 

given as 600 person-rem (6 person-Sv) per RRY (see Section 6.2.2 of NRC 1996). 

The 1996 GEIS also provided a detailed analysis of potential doses to the U.S. population from 

Rn-222 releases, which primarily occur during mining and milling operations and as emissions 

from mill tailings, and Tc-99 releases, which primarily occur during the enrichment process 

(Section 6.2.2 of NRC 1996). The U.S. population doses resulting from the Rn-222 releases 

and Tc-99 releases for 1 RRY are summarized in Table 4.12-3. The total population dose from 

all releases to the environment, including the Rn-222 and Tc-99 releases, is given as 

938.6 person-rem (9.386 person-Sv) per RRY. Because of an oversight in the 1996 GEIS, the 

sum of population doses was given as 740 person-rem, and the total dose over the 20-year 

renewal period was listed as 14,800 person-rem (148 person-Sv) (740 person-rem per RRY 

multiplied by 20 years). The correct values would be approximately 940 person-rem per RRY 

and 18,800 person-rem (188 person-Sv) for 20 years. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-195 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 4.12-3. Population Doses from Uranium Fuel Cycle 

Facilities Normalized to One Reference 

Reactor Year 

Source 

Collective Dose 

(person-rem)(a)

Gaseous releases 400 

Liquid releases 200 

Rn-222 releases from uranium mining and milling 140 

Rn-222 releases from unreclaimed open-pit mines 96 

Rn-222 releases from stabilized tailings piles 2.6 

Tc-99 releases from enrichment plants 100 

Total 938.6 

(a) To convert person-rem to person-Sv, multiply by 0.01. 

Source: modified from NRC 1996 

As discussed in the 1996 GEIS, the dose estimates given above were based on highly 

conservative assumptions (i.e., the doses are overestimated). In actuality, the doses received 

by most members of the public would be so small that they would be indistinguishable from the 

variations in natural background radiation. The 1996 GEIS further estimated the health effects 

on the general public in terms of cancer fatalities by multiplying the calculated doses by risk 

conversion factors obtained from the literature. The estimated health effect was stated as 

0.6 cancer fatality per RRY, or 12 cancer fatalities for each additional 20-year LWR operating 

term. The 1996 GEIS also stated that these estimates were highly uncertain and that much of 

the calculated doses, especially the contribution of radon releases from mines and tailing piles, 

consisted of tiny doses summed over large populations. It was stated that this practice may 

result in health effect estimates that may not be meaningful. 

There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses to the general public from fuel cycle 

facilities. All regulatory limits are based on individual doses. All fuel cycle facilities are 

designed and operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits. 

As discussed in the 1996 GEIS, despite the lack of definitive data, some judgment as to the 

regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to repeat 

the same judgment in every case. The Commission concludes that these impacts are 

acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, 

for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. 

Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the 

collective effects of the fuel cycle; this issue was considered Category 1. No new information 

has been identified that would alter this conclusion. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-196 

Nonradiological Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle 

This section addresses the nonradiological impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle 

facilities as they relate to license renewal. Data on the nonradiological impacts of the fuel cycle 

are provided in Table S-3. These data cover land use, water use, fossil fuel use, and chemical 

effluents. The significance of the environmental impacts associated with these data was 

evaluated in the 1996 GEIS on the basis of several relative comparisons. The land 

requirements were compared to those for a coal-fired power plant that could be built to replace 

the nuclear capacity if the operating license is not renewed. Water requirements for the 

uranium fuel cycle were compared to the annual requirements for a nuclear power plant. The 

amount of fossil fuel (coal and natural gas) consumed to produce electrical energy and process 

heat during the various phases of the uranium fuel cycle was compared to the amount of fossil 

fuel that would have been used if the electrical output from the nuclear plant were supplied by a 

coal-fired plant. Similarly, the gaseous effluents SO2, NO, hydrocarbons, CO, and PM released 

as a consequence of the coal-fired electrical energy used in the uranium fuel cycle were 

compared with equivalent quantities of the same effluents that would be released from a 

45-MWe coal-fired plant. It was noted that the impacts associated with uses of all of the above 

resources would be SMALL. Any impacts associated with nonradiological liquid releases from 

the fuel cycle facilities would also be SMALL. As a result, the aggregate nonradiological impact 

of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating license for a plant would be 

SMALL, and it was considered a Category 1 issue in the 1996 GEIS. No new information has 

been identified that would alter this conclusion. 

Transportation 

This section addresses the impacts associated with transportation of fuel and waste to and from 

one light water reactor during the license renewal term. Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52 forms the 

basis for analysis of these impacts in evaluating the applications for license renewal from 

owners of light water reactors. As discussed previously in this section, the applicability of 

Table S-4 for license renewal applications was extensively studied in the 1996 GEIS 

(NRC 1996) and its Addendum 1 (NRC 1999a). The impacts were found to be SMALL, and the 

findings were stated as follows: 

The impacts of transporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235 with 

average burnup for the peak rod to current levels approved by NRC up to 

62,000 MWd/MTU and the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste to 

a single repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada are found to be consistent 

with the impact values contained in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Summary Table S-4, 

“Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One 

Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor.” If fuel enrichment or burnup 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-197 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an assessment of the 

implications for the environmental impact values reported in 10 CFR 51.52. 

The issue was assigned to Category 1. No new information has been identified that would alter 

this conclusion. 

4.12.1.2 Replacement Power Alternative Fuel Cycles 

Fossil Fuel Energy Alternatives 

The environmental consequences of the fuel cycle for a fossil-fuel-fired plant result from the 

initial extraction of the fuel from its natural setting, fuel cleaning and processing, transport of the 

fuel to the facility, and management and ultimate disposal of solid wastes resulting from 

combustion of the fuel. 

The environmental impacts of coal mining vary with the location and type of mining technology 

employed, but generally includes: 

• Significant change in land uses, especially when surface mining is employed. 

• Degradation of visual resource values. 

• Air quality impacts, including release of criteria pollutants from vehicles and equipment, 

release of fugitive dust from ground disturbance and vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces, 

release of VOCs from the storage and dispensing of vehicle and equipment fuels and 

the use of solvents and coatings in maintenance activities, and release of coalbed 

methane into the atmosphere as coal seams are exposed and overburden removed. 

• Noise impacts from the operation of vehicles and equipment and the possible use of 

explosives. 

• Impacts on geology and soils due to land clearing, excavations, soil and overburden 

stockpiling (for strip mining operations), and mining. 

• Water resources impacts, including degradation of surface water quality due to 

increased sediment and runoff to surface water bodies, possible degradation of 

groundwater resources due to consumptive use and potential contamination (especially 

when shaft mining techniques are employed), as well as generation of wastewater from 

coal cleaning operations and other supporting industrial activities. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-198 

• Ecological impacts, including extensive loss of natural habitat, loss of native vegetative 

cover, disturbance of wildlife, possible introduction of invasive species, changes to 

surface water hydrology, and degradation of aquatic systems. 

• Impacts on historic and cultural resources within the mine footprint, as well as additional 

potential impacts resulting from auxiliary facilities and appurtenances (e.g., access 

roads, rail spurs). 

• Direct socioeconomic impacts from employment of the workforce and indirect impacts 

from increased employment in service and support industries. 

• Potential environmental justice impacts as a result of the presence of low-income or 

minority populations in the surrounding communities and/or within the workforce. 

• Potential health impacts on workers from exposure to airborne dust, gases such as 

methane, and exhaust from internal combustion engines on vehicles and mining 

machinery. 

• Generation of coal wastes and industrial wastes associated with the maintenance of 

vehicles and equipment; increased potential for spills of fuels from onsite fuel storage 

and dispensing.

New Nuclear Energy Alternatives 

Environmental impacts of the fuel cycle result from the initial extraction of the fuel from its 

natural setting, transport of the fuel to the facility, and management and ultimate disposal of 

solid wastes resulting from combustion of the fuel. For the fuel cycle associated with a nuclear 

power plant, these activities include uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium 

hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation 

of radioactive materials, and management of low-level wastes and high-level wastes 

(10 CFR Part 51). The NRC has summarized environmental data associated with the uranium 

fuel cycle in Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51. The analysis provides a basis for evaluating 

environmental effects of the fuel cycle for all nuclear power plants, regardless of site location. 

The information is based on a 1000-MW LWR with an 80 percent capacity factor. The impacts 

associated with the transportation of fuel and waste to and from a power reactor are 

summarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52. Detailed analysis of the uranium fuel cycle is also 

considered in Section 4.12.1.1. Although it is specific to the impacts of license renewal, it is 

applicable to the new nuclear plant alternative because the advanced reactor designs use the 

same type of fuel as existing operational designs. One difference may be that the new reactor 

may have a power rating of greater than 1,000 MWe, which may exceed the power rating of the 

existing reactor. In those cases, the impacts would be proportionally higher. However, all 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-199 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle, as discussed in Section 4.12.1.2, would still be 

SMALL. 

Renewable Energy Alternatives 

The term “fuel cycle” has varying degrees of relevance for renewable energy facilities. Clearly, 

the term has meaning for renewable energy technologies that rely on combustion of fuels such 

as biomass grown or harvested for the express purpose of power production. The term is 

somewhat more difficult to define for renewable technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal, 

and ocean wave and current. Those natural energy resources exist regardless of any effort to 

harvest them for electricity production. The common technological strategy for harvesting 

energy from such natural resources is to convert the kinetic or thermal energy inherent in that 

resource to mechanical energy or torque. The torque is then applied directly (e.g., as in the 

case of a wind turbine) or indirectly (e.g., for those facilities that utilize conventional steam 

cycles to drive turbines that drive generators) to produce electricity. However, because those 

renewable technologies capture very small fractions of the total kinetic or thermal energy 

contained in those resources, impacts from the presence or absence of the renewable energy 

technology are often indistinguishable. 

Environmental consequences of fuel cycles for biomass (e.g., energy crops, wood wastes, 

municipal solid waste, refuse-derived fuel, landfill gas) include the following: 

• Land use impacts from the growing and harvesting of the energy crops. 

• Reduced impacts on land from the avoidance of land disposal of anthropogenic biomass 

feedstocks such as municipal solid waste and refuse-derived fuel. 

• Visual impacts from the establishment of farm fields and forest areas and processing 

facilities for the growing, harvesting, and preparation of biomass feedstocks. 

• Air impacts from operation of vehicles and equipment used in the planting, cultivating, 

and harvesting of energy crops. 

• Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from landfills as a result of the capture and 

destruction by combustion of landfill gas for energy production. 

• Removal of greenhouse gases from the air (e.g., CO2) by growing crops. 

• Noise impacts from the operation of agriculture and silviculture equipment and transport 

vehicles in otherwise rural settings with low ambient noise levels. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-200 

• Soil impacts from the cultivation of fields and the potential for increased sediment in 

precipitation runoff. 

• Hydrologic impacts from irrigation of the energy crops; impacts on groundwater 

resources from water removal for agricultural or silvicultural purposes or industrial water 

uses associated with the preparation of biomass feedstocks. 

• Ecological impacts from the loss of habitat resulting from crop production; loss of 

hydrologic resources due to diversion for irrigation purposes; potential intrusion of 

invasive species on disturbed land surfaces, and potential contamination of adjacent 

habitat by pesticide and fertilizer runoff. 

• Ecological impacts from the alteration of habitat due to human presence and activities in 

agricultural and silvicultural areas. 

• Historic and cultural resource impacts from inadvertent destruction of resources in virgin 

fields that have not undergone appropriate efforts to survey, identify, and relocate 

cultural resources that may be present. 

• Human health impacts from the exposure of workers to pesticides and fertilizers used in 

growing biomass fuels; work around mechanical planting, cultivating, and harvesting 

equipment; work in weather extremes; and exposure to dangerous plants and wildlife. 

• Waste impacts in the form of residual wastes from the application of pesticides and 

fertilizers and wastes associated with the routine maintenance of equipment and 

vehicles used in crop production and transport (used lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, 

glycol-based coolants, and battery electrolytes from maintenance of equipment and 

vehicles with internal combustion engines). 

• Positive economic impacts from the creation of jobs in the agriculture, silviculture, and 

transportation sectors. 

4.12.2 Environmental Consequences of Terminating Power Plant Operations and 

Decommissioning 

This section describes the environmental impacts associated with the termination of operations 

and the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant and replacement power alternatives. All 

operating power plants will terminate operations and be decommissioned at some point after the 

end of their operating life or after a decision is made to cease operations. For the proposed 

action, license renewal would delay this eventuality for an additional 20 years beyond the 

current license period. The impacts of decommissioning nuclear plants were evaluated in the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-201 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities: 

Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, NUREG-0586 

(NRC 2002a). For replacement power alternatives, the environmental consequences from the 

termination of power plant operations and the decommissioning a fossil fuel energy facility or 

renewable energy systems would be similar. 

4.12.2.1 Termination of Operations and Decommissioning of Existing Nuclear Power 

Plants 

This section describes and discusses the environmental consequences of terminating nuclear 

power plant operations and decommissioning, but the only impacts attributable to the proposed 

action (license renewal) are the effects of an additional 20 years of operations on the impacts of 

decommissioning. The majority of the impacts associated with plant operations would cease 

with reactor shutdown; however, some impacts would remain unchanged, while others would 

continue at reduced or altered levels. Some new impacts might also result directly from 

terminating nuclear power plant operations. Ancillary systems that are dedicated solely to 

reactor operations would cease operations completely; however, impacts from their physical 

presence could continue if they were not removed coincident with reactor shutdown. For sites 

with more than one unit, the operation of any ancillary systems that supported the units that 

continued to operate would be reduced in proportion to the reduced demand on them but would 

not stop entirely. Impacts associated with the mere physical presence of dedicated systems 

that remained in place or shared ancillary systems that continued to operate would remain 

unchanged. 

Terminating nuclear power plant operations would result in the cessation of actions necessary 

to maintain the reactor, as well as a significant reduction in the workforce. NRC presumes that 

terminating nuclear power plant operations would not immediately lead to the dismantlement of 

the reactor or other infrastructure, much of which would still be in use to support other units 

onsite that continued to operate. Even for sites with just one unit, some facilities would remain 

in operation to ensure that the site was maintained in safe shutdown condition. Electrical 

generators might continue to operate as synchronous condensers to stabilize voltage on the 

bulk electricity grid to which the reactor was connected. 

Three decommissioning options were analyzed in the decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a) and 

are referenced in this section: DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB. In the DECON option, the 

equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are 

removed and safety buried in a low-level radioactive waste landfill or decontaminated to a level 

that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of 

operations. In the SAFSTOR option, the nuclear facility is placed and maintained in such 

condition that the nuclear facility can be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated to 

levels that permit release for restricted or unrestricted use. Finally, with the ENTOMB option, 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-202 

radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete. 

The entombment structure is appropriately maintained and continued surveillance is carried out 

until the radioactivity decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property. 

Land Use 

The termination of nuclear power plant operations would cause a reduction in the workforce at a 

nuclear plant, and the value placed on the facility for tax purposes would likely depreciate. The 

impact on taxing authorities that receive revenue from the nuclear power plant would depend on 

the percentage of revenue that they derived from the plant. Depending on the future need to 

replace electrical generating capacity, a replacement power plant could change the tax base 

and impact offsite land use. However, existing substations are expected to remain and be 

maintained after the termination of reactor operations to support the power grid. 

Temporary onsite land use changes during decommissioning are anticipated to be comparable 

to changes that occur during construction and operations and would not require additional land. 

The major activities that require land temporarily include the staging of equipment, 

accommodation of workers (e.g., parking, training, site security access, office space, changing 

facilities), and removal of large components. The locations of these areas would depend on the 

layout of the plant. Temporary changes in onsite land use would not change the fundamental 

use of the reactor site. 

There would be no difference in offsite land use impacts whether decommissioning occurred at 

the end of its current 40-year operating license or following a 20-year license renewal term. In 

either case, the impact of license renewal after terminating plant operations and 

decommissioning on onsite and offsite land use would be SMALL and generic at all nuclear 

plants. 

Visual Resources 

Terminating nuclear power plant operations would not change the visual appearance of the 

nuclear power plant. The most notable change, however, would be the elimination of the 

condensate plumes from cooling towers (under certain meteorological conditions). The 

appearance of the plant would change as structures are removed. 

Decommissioning may involve the demolition and dismantlement of one or more of the main 

buildings or structures at a nuclear power plant. A case study conducted for the 1996 GEIS 

found a limited number of situations in which the presence of nuclear power plants fostered 

perceptions of adverse impacts on visual resources. License renewal would delay 

decommissioning and prolong the visual impact. As discussed in the decommissioning GEIS 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-203 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

(NRC 2002a), the visual impact of the nuclear plant site may not improve following 

decommissioning because the site could remain in industrial use. 

Transmission lines and ROWs are expected to continue operating and to cause little or no 

additional impacts beyond those that have already occurred. A 20-year delay caused by license 

renewal would have no visual impact from continued transmission line operation. 

Visual resource impacts associated with terminating plant operations and decommissioning 

after a 20-year license renewal will not change as a consequence of the delay. The impact of 

license renewal on visual resources would be SMALL for all nuclear plants. 

Air Quality 

After the termination of operations, air emissions from the nuclear power plant would continue, 

but at greatly reduced levels. Air quality impacts would range from very small and would 

approach undetectable levels. Natural or mechanical draft cooling tower drift would be greatly 

reduced or would be eliminated. Air emissions from ancillary facility operations (e.g., boilers, 

emergency diesel generators) would continue until decommissioning. 

The NRC evaluated the following activities in the decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a) that 

could impact air quality: 

• Worker transportation to and from the site; 

• Demolition of buildings and structures, including new structures added during 

refurbishment; 

• Shipment of materials and debris to offsite locations; 

• Operation of concrete batch plants (e.g., ENTOMB decommissioning option); 

• Dismantling of systems and removing of equipment; and 

• Movement and open storage of material onsite. 

These activities typically occur over a period of years, from the time the facility ceases operation 

until the decommissioning is complete. The magnitude and the timing of the potential impacts 

of each decommissioning activity would vary from plant to plant. 

Building and major plant structure demolition and the operation of the batch plant during 

decommissioning would have the greatest impact on air quality. Fugitive dust would vary in the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-204 

size of the particles released. Depending on meteorological conditions, larger particles would 

settle to the ground near the demolition site. 

Demolition would generally be limited to a small number of short-duration events. Mitigation 

measures, such as synchronized scheduling and the application of water sprays or chemical 

dust suppressants, could minimize the amount of fugitive dust released from the site. 

The ENTOMB decommissioning option would require large amounts of concrete and aggregate. 

Unloading dry cement at the concrete batch plant and loading mixers or trucks would generate 

large amounts of dust. Depending on meteorological conditions, large particles of dust would 

settle out of the air quickly, and air quality impacts would be localized near the concrete batch 

plant. Dust control measures used at concrete batch plants include enclosed dumping and 

unloading areas and conveyors and filters and water sprays. 

The NRC concluded that the impact of decommissioning on air quality would be SMALL for all 

plants in the decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a). The impact on air quality after the license 

renewal term is not expected to be different from the impact that would have occurred without 

license renewal. 

Noise 

During decommissioning, noise would generally be far enough away from sensitive receptors 

outside the plant boundaries that the noise would be attenuated to nearly ambient levels and 

would be scarcely noticeable offsite (NRC 2002a). However, during the demolition of concrete, 

the noise levels offsite could be loud enough (60 to 65 dB at the nearest receptor site) that 

activities might need to be curtailed during early morning and evening hours. It is highly 

unlikely, on the basis of past decommissioning experience, that the offsite noise level from a 

plant during decommissioning would be sufficient to cause hearing loss. However, in one case, 

noise from decommissioning of a spent fuel pool’s cooling system was reported to be up 

to 107 dB near the source, but it dropped to 50 dB at distances less than 1 mi (1.6 km) away 

(NRC 2002a). Nearby residents complained about these noise levels; engineering changes 

were made to the fans that were causing the noise, and the issue was resolved. Noise 

abatement procedures could also be used during decommissioning in order to reduce noise. 

 

The NRC concluded that the noise impact of decommissioning would be SMALL for all plants in 

the decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a). The noise impact from terminating nuclear plant 

operations and decommissioning after the license renewal is not expected to be different from 

the impact that would have occurred without license renewal. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-205 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Geology and Soils 

Termination of nuclear plant operations is not expected to impact geology and soils. Heavy 

construction equipment would be engaged in demolition activities during decommissioning. 

These vehicles would primarily use paved surfaces, but would also cross open ground in some 

locations. This would create the possibility for soil erosion from areas formerly covered with 

lawns or natural grasses. The demolition and removal of buildings, foundation slabs, parking 

lots, and roads, would expose more soil to possible erosion. 

High slopes and surface runoff increase erosion potential. The soil distribution across a site 

may include some soils that are more susceptible to water or wind erosion. The loss of soil 

increases the turbidity in surface water draining off the site. 

Erosion problems could be mitigated by using BMPs during decommissioning. These include, 

but are not limited to, minimizing the amount of disturbed land; stockpiling topsoil before 

construction or regrading; replacing the topsoil and adding seed and mulch in disturbed areas 

as soon as possible after disturbance; using silt fences to reduce sediment loading to surface 

water; using check dams to minimize the erosive power of drainages or creeks; and installing 

proper culvert outlets to minimize erosion in creeks. 

Site geologic resources would not be affected by decommissioning. Geologic resources in the 

form of gravel or crushed stone might be needed to construct temporary roads that would be 

used by the heavy equipment involved in demolition. 

The impact from terminating plant operations and decommissioning on geology and soils after a 

license renewal is not expected to be significantly different from the impacts that would have 

occurred without license renewal. 

Water Resources—Surface Water and Groundwater 

After the termination of plant operations, water use would be dramatically reduced; however, 

water demands would continue for the service water system to support such activities as 

temperature control of the spent fuel pool and other miscellaneous industrial maintenance 

applications. Surface water or groundwater intake and consumptive use would be very low 

compared with use during the operational phase. Discharge of liquid wastes and biocides 

would also be proportionately reduced. 

 

Because the site workforce would be reduced, the volume of sanitary sewage effluent would be 

less than it had been during the operational period. Pumping rates for groundwater used for the 

potable water system after the termination of plant operations would also decrease because of 

the reduced workforce. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-206 

Impacts to site hydrology and water quality from soil erosion and storm events are expected to 

be unchanged from the operational period. Such erosion would be mitigated as part of general 

site maintenance during any phase in the power plant’s life cycle. 

The possibility of groundwater becoming contaminated through chemical spills or radionuclide 

release would be smaller after operations cease. 

Dewatering, if needed to maintain the stability of structure foundations, is expected to continue 

as it did during the operational phase. 

During decommissioning, the activities that have the potential to affect water use include: 

• Maintenance of the spent fuel pool, 

• Staffing changes (generally the staff size is decreased), 

• Cooling of cutting equipment during removal of the reactor vessel and internals, 

• High-pressure sprays of water on surfaces during decontamination, 

• Dust suppression during destruction of structures, and 

• The making of concrete for facility entombment. 

The activities identified in the decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a) that have the potential to 

affect water quality include: 

• Maintenance of the spent fuel pool, 

• Draining and flushing of the cooling systems and processing of the liquid, 

• High-pressure sprays of water on surfaces during decontamination, and 

• Management of water used in dust suppression during destruction of structures. 

At individual sites, the source of water for each of these uses may be surface water or 

groundwater. The decision on which source of water to use may ultimately be based on a 

combination of availability, infrastructure, permitting, and water quality and chemistry. 

Some of the activities listed above could affect surface water quality. These include the use of 

high-pressure sprays of water during decontamination, dust suppression, and equipment 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-207 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

cooling, and the discharge of various process waters. For decontamination, BMPs would need 

to be followed to manage the sprayed water. Both the decontamination water and the process 

waters would need to be discharged in accordance with NPDES permit requirements. 

The early stages of decommissioning and dismantling may involve a temporary, slight increase 

in the size of the overall workforce (NRC 2002a). The amount of sanitary system discharge 

would therefore increase slightly. Depending on when any onsite wastewater treatment plant, 

onsite septic system, or municipal sewage system connection would stop operating, temporary 

portable toilet facilities might be used for the decommissioning workforce. The number and 

capacity of such facilities would depend on the size of the workforce, which could vary during 

different phases of the decommissioning process. 

In the decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a), evaluations focused on water use and water 

quality. The following activities were identified as having the potential to affect surface water: 

• Cooling water systems, 

• Discharge from dewatering systems, and 

• Stormwater management and erosion control. 

Surface water would remain the largest source of water used during decommissioning; it would 

be used to cool the spent fuel. However, this usage, as well as makeup water requirements, 

would be significantly smaller than during reactor cooling at an operating power plant. Demand 

for spent fuel cooling water would decrease over time as the fuel aged. Other activities listed 

above would also require amounts of water that would be low compared to cooling and makeup 

water requirements. 

Dewatering systems would continue to discharge to surface water. The effect on surface water 

quality would be unchanged from the effect during the operational phase. 

Stormwater management and erosion control would continue to be maintained during 

decommissioning to reduce the potential for effects on surface water quality, especially turbidity. 

Soil erosion can be minimized through BMPs, as discussed in Section 4.4.1. Chemical spills 

during decommissioning also have the potential to affect surface water quality. However, BMPs 

for handling fuels and other chemicals used in the operational phase should continue to be in 

place. 

The natural variability in the climate, especially precipitation, has the potential to influence the 

availability of surface water. However, because it seems that there have not been any surface 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-208 

water availability problems at operating power plants with relatively higher water requirements 

for reactor cooling, severe drought is not expected to affect decommissioning. 

In the decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a), the NRC concluded that the impacts on water use 

and water quality from decommissioning would be SMALL for all plants. The effect of license 

renewal on the water quality impacts from decommissioning was considered a Category 1 issue 

in the 1996 GEIS. On the basis of a review of current information, these conclusions are 

considered valid for surface water. An additional 20 years of operation during the license 

renewal term would not change the magnitude of these impacts. 

The activities listed above include some that may affect groundwater quality through the 

infiltration of water used for various purposes (e.g., cooling of cutting equipment, 

decontamination spray, and dust suppression). Best management practices are expected to be 

employed as appropriate to collect and manage these waters. 

In the decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a), evaluations focused on water use and water 

quality. The following activities were identified as having the potential to affect groundwater: 

• Potable water from wells, 

• Dewatering systems, and 

• Leachate from rubble. 

Potable water would be required during decommissioning. The typical source for this supply is 

onsite groundwater, though surface water or an offsite municipal source of surface water or 

groundwater may be used at some sites. The early stages of decommissioning and dismantling 

may involve a temporary, slight increase in the size of the workforce, and a proportional 

increase in the need for potable water may occur (NRC 2002a). 

Dewatering is expected to continue as it does during the operational phase, without increased 

drawdown at nearby onsite or offsite wells. 

The NRC proposed that groundwater chemistry may change as rainwater infiltrates through 

rubble. The increased pH could promote the subsurface transport of radionuclides and metals. 

However, this effect is expected to occur only over a short distance as a function of the buffering 

capacity of soil (NRC 2002a). Offsite transport of groundwater contaminants is not expected. 

In the decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a), the NRC concluded that the impacts on water use 

and water quality from decommissioning would be SMALL for all plants. The effect of license 

renewal on the water quality impacts from decommissioning was considered a Category 1 issue 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-209 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

in the 1996 GEIS. On the basis of a review of current information, these conclusions are 

considered valid for groundwater. An additional 20 years of operation during the license 

renewal term would not change the magnitude of these impacts. 

Ecological Resources 

 

The termination of nuclear power plant operations would reduce some impacts and eliminate 

others. Impacts from systems that continue operating to support other units (i.e., where the 

license term for each unit does not end at the same time) on the plant site may continue to 

affect terrestrial or aquatic biota, but at a reduced level of impact. 

Impacting factors that would cease following reactor shutdown would include cooling tower drift, 

cooling system maintenance and effluent discharges, and atmospheric emissions of 

radionuclides. If there are other reactor units at the power plant and they continue to operate, 

these factors would be reduced, but not eliminated. A number of impacting factors would 

continue to affect terrestrial resources, however. Until removed during decommissioning, 

cooling towers and transmission lines would continue to be collision hazards for birds. 

Impacting factors on aquatic resources that are expected to stop or decrease after reactor 

shutdown include the withdrawal of water for cooling, discharge of heated cooling water, 

dredging activities, and onsite construction activities. Cooling demands of a reactor in cold 

shutdown will be greatly reduced, as will be the rate of water withdrawal to maintain appropriate 

water volumes and chemical quality in the cooling system. However, water withdrawal may not 

be completely eliminated unless or until fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor core. 

Also, water withdrawal rates will continue unchanged to support other units and facilities onsite 

that remain operational. Nevertheless, the impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms 

would substantially decrease after plant operations cease, and the potential for impacts on 

aquatic communities from these factors would be reduced. In general, the termination of 

entrainment and impingement would have positive effects on affected organisms. 

As identified in Section 4.6.1.2, the discharge of heated cooling water during operations has the 

potential to affect aquatic resources by altering the thermal regimes to which aquatic organisms 

are exposed, lowering the level of dissolved oxygen, and promoting gas supersaturation. 

Because the plant would discharge significantly smaller volumes of heated water after 

operations cease, the NRC anticipates that the plant’s influence on the thermal conditions in the 

receiving waters would be greatly reduced. 

During the years of plant operations, it is likely that an aquatic community that was acclimated to 

warmer temperatures and biocides would have developed within the mixing zone. Some 

aquatic organisms may have become established in the mixing zone because of the warmer 

environment, and these organisms likely would be adversely affected as the water temperature 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-210 

cooled and the original conditions were restored within the body of water. Organisms 

susceptible to cold shock could be affected, depending on the timing and rate of change in 

water temperatures. Such effects, which occur primarily during winter months, would occur only 

during the initial period after the plant ceases operations, and they could be minimized by 

initiating reactor shutdown during seasons when cold shock would be less likely to occur and by 

gradually reducing inputs of heated effluent to the system. As a consequence of the return to a 

more natural thermal regime, it is anticipated that the composition of the aquatic organisms in 

that area would return to a composition similar to that in the surrounding areas of the receiving 

waters. Recovery of an aquatic community to the normal background composition is a process 

of variable duration that depends on the mobility of the organisms, sources of colonists, rate of 

growth and maturation of the species, and other factors (Cairns 1990). Populations of some 

invasive species, such as the water hyacinth (Hydrilla verticillata) that proliferates at the North 

Anna plant in Virginia as a result of the elevated temperature of discharges, may decline as 

water temperatures in the receiving body of water fall. 

The impacts from the termination of nuclear power plant operations on a cooling pond depend 

largely on whether the pond continues to exist. For cooling ponds that are maintained during 

plant operation by pumping water from another water body, the ponds would likely revert to a 

terrestrial system after pumping stopped. Even if ponds are maintained by natural flow, water 

may no longer be impounded. Restoration of these previously impounded areas may be 

necessary to minimize adverse ecological impacts associated with the exposure of previously 

inundated substrates. If the ponds continued to exist, the nuclear plant’s thermal effects on 

them would cease. Cessation of the heated effluent would change the composition and 

dynamics of the pond community until it resembled that of other ponds in the region not used for 

cooling. 

Because there would no longer be a need to withdraw or discharge cooling water, it is also 

anticipated that dredging would no longer be needed in the vicinity of cooling water structures. 

Therefore, the potential for dredging to affect aquatic biota would also be eliminated, unless the 

cooling water system was still needed to cool other electrical generating systems. As described 

in Section 4.6.1.2, gas supersaturation has the potential to occur within the mixing zone of some 

power plants. Even though such effects have been reduced with mitigation measures, such as 

the use of diffusers in the discharge area, the potential for gas supersaturation and subsequent 

effects on biota as a result of plant operations would be eliminated or decrease from the 

potential under the proposed action. Activities that result in ground disturbance (e.g., new 

construction, maintenance of some areas) may also cease or decrease at power plants that are 

shut down as a consequence of the no-action alternative, but there would be some level of 

maintenance needed until the plant was decommissioned. This would result in a decrease or 

the cessation of potential effects on aquatic resources from the direct disturbance of aquatic 

habitats and the sedimentation that could occur as a result of ground disturbance in adjacent 

areas. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-211 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Because some structures may be left in place until decommissioning has been completed or 

longer, there is a potential for some effects on aquatic resources to continue regardless of 

whether or not the reactor at a plant is operating. For example, dams and associated reservoirs 

constructed to maintain supplies of water for operational needs may continue to prevent 

migration of anadromous fish unless the structures are removed. In addition, maintenance 

activities would continue along the transmission line ROWs regardless of whether the plant is 

operating or not. 

At coastal plants, the termination of nuclear plant operations could have a beneficial impact on 

the Federally listed loggerhead sea turtle (threatened), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas, 

threatened), leatherback sea turtle (endangered), hawksbill sea turtle (endangered), and 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (endangered), which have been impinged at several nuclear power 

plants (e.g., St. Lucie and Oyster Creek). Similarly, potential benefits to the Federally 

endangered West Indian manatee and pinnipeds, protected under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, could occur. For example, the West Indian manatee has been impinged at 

St. Lucie, and incidental takes of harbor seals, gray seals, harp seals, and hooded seals occur 

at the Seabrook plant. Elimination of high-temperature discharges at plants in Florida may 

reduce habitat suitability for the West Indian manatee, particularly during winter. However, the 

West Indian manatee occupies other habitats in Florida that do not have artificially elevated 

temperatures, and it uses a number of thermal discharges from fossil fuel plants along both 

coasts of Florida (Laist and Reynolds 2005). Potential impingement and entrainment losses of 

special status fish species could also decrease. Reactor shutdown could also decrease impacts 

on EFH, although only minimal adverse effects have been identified for the operating plants for 

which EFH assessments have been prepared (e.g., Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, and Oyster Creek 

plants). 

The NRC evaluated the potential impacts of decommissioning on ecological resources in the 

decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a). The conclusions of that evaluation are summarized here, 

but the focus of the present evaluation is on the incremental effects that would result from 

deferring decommissioning to a later date as a result of renewing the license for plant 

operations. In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC concluded that the ecological impacts of 

decommissioning activities would be the same with or without license renewal and was 

designated a Category 1 issue. 

The NRC (2002a) evaluated potential impacts on terrestrial ecological resources during the 

decommissioning process via both direct and indirect disturbance of native plant or animal 

communities in the vicinity of the plant site. In most cases, the impacting factors and the 

potential impacts from decommissioning activities are similar to impacts that could occur as a 

consequence of continued operations and refurbishment activities at operating facilities. Direct 

impacts of decommissioning on terrestrial ecological resources could result from activities such 

as the clearing of native vegetation or filling of a wetland. Indirect impacts could result from 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-212 

erosion, dust, or noise. In most cases, land disturbances during decommissioning would result 

in relatively short-term impacts, and the land would either recover naturally or would be 

landscaped appropriately for an alternative use after completion of decommissioning 

(NRC 2002a). The NRC determined that impacts on terrestrial resources from dust generation, 

noise, surface erosion and runoff, and migratory bird collisions associated with 

decommissioning would be minor and would continue only until decommissioning activities were 

completed (NRC 2002a). The effects of such impacts could be minimized by using standard 

best management practices. 

At most commercial nuclear facilities, there is a relatively distinct operational area where most 

or all site activities occur. This operational area usually includes all areas within the protected 

area fence; the intake, discharge, cooling, and other associated structures; and adjacent paved, 

graveled, and maintained landscaped areas. The operational area may include the entire area 

disturbed during facility construction, but it is often considerably smaller. In most cases, the 

amount of land required to support the decommissioning process is relatively small and is a 

small portion of the overall plant site. Usually, the areas disturbed or used to support 

decommissioning are within the operational areas of the site and are also within the protected 

area. Decommissioning activities conducted within the operational areas are not expected to 

have a detectable impact on important terrestrial resources (NRC 2002a). However, it is 

expected that some sites will require the reconstruction or installation of new transportation 

links, such as railroad spurs, road upgrades, or barge slips, for the completion of 

decommissioning. The NRC (2002a) concluded that for facilities at which the decommissioning 

activities would be limited to existing operational areas, the potential impacts on terrestrial 

ecology would be SMALL. It was further concluded that if habitat disturbance beyond the 

operational areas is anticipated, the impact on terrestrial resources could be SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE and would have to be determined through a site-specific analysis. 

In most cases, the impacting factors and the potential impacts on aquatic resources from 

decommissioning activities are similar in nature to impacts that could occur as a consequence 

of refurbishment activities for operating facilities. Direct impacts of decommissioning on aquatic 

resources could result from activities, such as removing shoreline or in-water structures (i.e., the 

intake or discharge facilities); dredging a stream, river, or ocean bottom; or depositing fill in a 

stream or bay. Indirect impacts could result from effects such as runoff and sedimentation from 

disturbed upland areas (NRC 2002a). During decommissioning, aquatic habitats at the plant 

site might also be disturbed in order to construct support facilities, such as a dock for barges or 

a bridge over a stream or some other body of water. In addition, aquatic environments away 

from the plant site could be disturbed during the upgrading or installation of new transportation 

systems (e.g., a new rail line to support the removal of large components) or during the 

installation or modification of transmission lines. In most cases, aquatic habitat disturbances 

from decommissioning would result in relatively short-term impacts on small areas, and either 

the affected aquatic habitats would recover naturally or the impacts could be mitigated 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-213 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

(NRC 2002a). Typically, these impacts would be temporary and would not detectably alter or 

destabilize important ecological attributes (NRC 2002a). 

If decommissioning did not include removal of shoreline or in-water structures and if all 

decommissioning activities were confined to the plant operational areas, impacts from 

decommissioning on aquatic resources would be expected to be minor and would result 

primarily from increased sediment from physical alterations of the site. In such cases, it is 

expected that the impact on aquatic resources would be nondetectable, nondestabilizing, and 

easily mitigated (NRC 2002a). Greater impacts on aquatic resources could occur if 

decommissioning entailed the removal of structures from the shoreline or in-water environment, 

removal of contaminated soil in or near an aquatic environment, or dredging and significant 

modification of barge loading facilities (NRC 2002a). 

Permits for discharge to the aquatic environment during operations are almost always for 

discharge amounts that are greater than planned or realized during decommissioning. In almost 

all cases examined, licensees expect to restrict activities to previously disturbed areas and 

operate within the limits of operational permits (NRC 2002a). The NRC (2002a) concluded that 

for facilities at which the decommissioning activities would be limited to existing operational 

areas, the potential impacts on aquatic resources would be SMALL. It further concluded that if 

habitat disturbance beyond the operational areas was anticipated, the impacts on aquatic 

resources could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE and would have to be determined through 

site-specific analysis. 

In most cases, the impacting factors and the potential impacts on threatened or endangered 

species (including other special status species or habitats) from decommissioning activities are 

similar in nature to impacts that could occur as a consequence of refurbishment activities for 

operating facilities. These species could be affected during the decommissioning process, 

either through direct effects or through disturbances of habitats on which the species rely for 

food or shelter. If a nuclear plant ceased operations for an extended period of time, the 

situation could allow the establishment of onsite populations of protected species that could be 

adversely affected by subsequent facility decommissioning at the end of the storage period 

(NRC 2002a). 

The greatest potential for impacts from decommissioning on protected species is associated 

with physical alteration or dismantlement of the facilities, landscape, or aquatic environment. 

The impacts of decommissioning could result from activities similar to those described for 

terrestrial and aquatic resources. The NRC (2002a) concluded that the potential impacts on 

threatened and endangered species may be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE and that the 

adverse impacts and associated significance of the impacts must be determined on a sitespecific basis. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-214 

The impacts of decommissioning on ecological resources depend primarily on the types of 

decommissioning activities that are conducted and whether those activities occur inside or 

outside the existing operational area. Although many of the activities that could affect ecological 

resources during decommissioning are the same as the activities that occur during the normal 

operation of a nuclear power plant, the length of time that operations have been ongoing will not 

change the level of impacts associated with decommissioning. Therefore, deferring 

decommissioning by renewing a plant’s license would have the same impacts on ecological 

resources, if any, as would occur as a result of starting decommissioning sooner. The impact 

from the termination of plant operations and decommissioning on ecological resources 

attributable to license renewal would be SMALL for all nuclear plants. 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

The termination of nuclear plant operations would not affect historic or cultural resources. 

The NRC conducted an analysis of the potential effects of decommissioning on historic and 

archaeological (cultural) resources and found that the potential onsite impacts at sites where the 

disturbance of lands would not go beyond the operational areas would be SMALL (NRC 2002a). 

The continued operation of a plant under a renewed license would not be expected to alter this 

conclusion. Similar activities are expected to continue before and after license renewal. The 

majority of impacts on historic and cultural resources would have occurred during the original 

construction of the plant. Continued use has the potential to affect these resources, as 

discussed in Section 4.7.1. There is nothing inherent in using a plant for a longer time that 

would increase or decrease the impact on these resources from decommissioning. Adherence 

to procedures that take into account the impact on historic and cultural resources would mitigate 

any additional impacts. 

Delaying decommissioning is not expected to have any effect on historic and cultural resources 

within a transmission line ROW. Impacts on historic and cultural resources would likely have 

occurred during initial construction. On the basis of these considerations, the effect of license 

renewal on the impacts from the termination of plant operations and decommissioning would be 

SMALL for all nuclear plant sites. 

Socioeconomics 

Terminating nuclear plant operations would have a noticeable impact on socioeconomic 

conditions in the region around the nuclear power plant. There would be immediate 

socioeconomic impacts from the loss of jobs (some, though not all, employees would begin to 

leave after power plant shutdown); and tax revenues generated by plant operations would also 

be reduced. Depending on the tax formula used to determine property tax payments, the 

amount of money paid to local taxing jurisdictions may be reduced. However, property tax 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-215 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

payments would continue. Demand for services and housing would likely decline. Indirect 

employment and income created as a result of nuclear power plant operations would also be 

reduced. 

 

Loss of employment at nuclear plants located in rural communities would likely mean workers 

and their families would leave in search of jobs elsewhere. The decrease in the demand for 

housing and the increase in available housing would depress rural housing market prices. 

Conversely, at nuclear power plants located in semi-urban areas, workers and their families 

may remain because of greater opportunities for new employment. 

 

The impacts from the loss or reduction of tax revenue due to the termination of plant operations 

on community and public education services could range from SMALL to LARGE. Nuclear 

power plants generally provide a significant amount of tax revenue to local communities and 

public school districts. The loss or reduction in tax revenues from the nuclear plant could mean 

the reduction and/or the elimination of some community and public educational services. Traffic 

congestion caused by commuting workers and truck deliveries during plant operations would 

also be reduced. License renewal would only delay the timing of these impacts. Therefore, the 

incremental effect of license renewal would be SMALL for all nuclear plants. See Appendix J to 

NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002a), for a discussion of the potential socioeconomic 

impacts of plant decommissioning. 

 

Human Health 

With the termination of plant operations, there would be a period between the time when a 

reactor stopped operating and when the decommissioning of the plant began that could range 

from months to years. During that period, the reactor would be placed in a cold shutdown 

condition and maintained. The fuel might be removed from the core and put in the spent fuel 

storage pool. Workers would continue to receive radiation exposure during work activities 

related to placing the reactor in shutdown status. Radioactive gaseous and liquid effluent 

releases to the environment would continue, although at a lower level, that would result in 

radiation exposure to the public. The regulatory requirements and dose limits during this period 

for workers and the public are the same as those for operating reactors (see Section 3.9.1.1). 

The radiological impacts on workers and members of the public during this time period would be 

less than those during current operations and those expected during decommissioning. 

Public exposure to EMFs would decrease after transmission lines were de-energized. Power 

would still be provided to the site, and workers might be exposed to EMFs during this period. It 

is expected that the impacts from EMFs during this period would be less than the impacts from 

current operations. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-216 

Because reactor shutdown would result in the cessation or reduction of cooling system 

operations, the public’s exposure to chemical and microbiological hazards associated with these 

operations would be reduced. The plant workers might be exposed to chemical, 

microbiological, and other hazards during this period, but the hazards would be SMALL and 

bounded by the hazards either during operations or decommissioning. 

The remainder of this section evaluates the effects of license renewal on the human health 

impacts from the termination of nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning. The 

issues considered here include the impacts from radiological exposure and risk, chemical 

hazards, microbiological hazards, physical occupational hazards, and electrical hazards. Work 

during decommissioning activities is generally done according to an environmental safety and 

health plan that serves as a guidebook for anticipating hazards and preventing any injury or 

harm. In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC considered the effect of license renewal on only the radiation 

dose impacts of decommissioning. 

The human health impacts from physical, chemical, and microbiological hazards during the 

termination of plant operations and decommissioning would be SMALL for all plants. The effect 

of license renewal on the impact from terminating plant operations and decommissioning on 

human health also would be SMALL at all plants. Doses to the public would be well below 

applicable regulatory standards, regardless of which decommissioning option was used. 

Collective occupational doses would increase no more than 0.1 person-rem, attributable to the 

buildup of long-lived radionuclides during the license renewal term, but the individual worker 

doses would be well below the existing dose limits. On the basis of these considerations, the 

NRC concludes that the effect of license renewal on the impact from decommissioning on 

human health would be SMALL for all nuclear plants. 

Radiological Exposure

During decommissioning activities, workers are exposed to radioactive materials that are 

present in the reactor and support facilities, and members of the public may be exposed to 

radioactive materials that are released to the environment. The regulatory requirements and 

dose limits during decommissioning are the same as those for operating reactors (see 

Section 3.9.1.1). Many activities during decommissioning are similar to the activities that occur 

during normal maintenance outages, such as decontamination of piping and surfaces; removal 

of piping, pumps, and valves; and removal of heat exchangers. Some of the activities, such as 

removal of the reactor vessel or demolition of facilities, are unique to decommissioning. The 

decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a) evaluated the potential radiological impacts of 

decommissioning activities for both PWRs and BWRs. Public and occupational radiation 

exposures from decommissioning activities were evaluated on the basis of information derived 

from recent decommissioning experience. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-217 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Radiation Exposures to Plant Workers 

Both the 1996 GEIS and the decommissioning GEIS provide estimated collective occupational 

radiation doses for decommissioning PWRs and BWRs for the three decommissioning options: 

DECON, ENTOMB, and SAFSTOR. The decommissioning GEIS also includes the estimated 

collective occupational radiation dose for plants that are currently in the decommissioning 

process. The DECON method had the highest dose, followed by ENTOMB and then 

SAFSTOR. According to the decommissioning GEIS, occupational doses to individual workers 

during decommissioning activities are estimated to average approximately 5 percent of the 

regulatory dose limits established in 10 CFR Part 20 and to be similar to, or lower than, the 

doses experienced by workers in operating facilities. 

A 20-year extension in operations would increase the occupational doses from long-lived 

radionuclides such as niobium-94, but these increases would not be significant for the DECON 

option because short-lived radionuclides (primarily cobalt-60) are the principal contributor to the 

occupational dose (NRC 1996). For the SAFSTOR option, an additional 20 years of operations 

would increase the amount of niobium-94 by 50 percent. The contribution of niobium-94 to the 

collective dose for this decommissioning option for 40 years of plant operation is less than 

0.2 person-rem; therefore, the increase in dose during decommissioning after 20 additional 

years of operations would be less than 0.1 person-rem. Total worker doses may increase, but 

individual worker doses would be well below the regulatory limits. The NRC concluded that the 

impact of an additional 20 years of plant operation on the radiological doses to workers would 

be of SMALL significance for all nuclear plants. 

Radiation Exposures to the Public 

According to the 1996 GEIS, the radiation dose to the public during decommissioning would 

result primarily from waste shipment for both PWRs and BWRs, and the dose would be almost 

exclusively attributable to the shipment of short-lived radionuclides, mainly cobalt-60. During 

decommissioning, the estimated increased risk of fatal cancer to an average member of the 

public would be much less than 1  10-6 (NRC 2002a). If a plant operated an additional 

20 years, only the quantities of long-lived radionuclides would increase, and only the dose 

caused by the long-lived radionuclides would increase. As discussed in the 1996 GEIS, the 

dose to the public from long-lived radionuclides after 40 years of plant operation is expected to 

be negligible, and the increase in quantities of long-lived radionuclides after an additional 

20 years would result in a negligible dose (less than 0.1 person-rem). Accordingly, the NRC 

concluded that the contribution of license renewal to radiological impacts to the public from 

decontamination would be of SMALL significance at all nuclear plants. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-218 

Chemical Hazards

Decommissioning involves many activities that expose workers to chemical hazards, including 

paints, asbestos, lead, polychlorobiphenyls, mercury, quartz, and other hazardous materials in 

building materials. During decommissioning, workers may also be exposed to fumes (that often 

include lead and arsenic) and smoke from flame cutting and welding. According to the 

decommissioning GEIS, with proper planning, workplace design, and engineering controls, 

supplemented by the use of personal protective equipment and administrative solutions, the 

impact of chemical hazards on workers would be of SMALL significance at all nuclear plants. 

A 20-year delay caused by license renewal would not change the projected human health 

impact from chemical hazards because (1) there would not be any more hazardous chemicals 

present, (2) the workers would still would have a proper work plan, and (3) all required controls 

would be in place. 

Microbiological Hazards

During decommissioning, workers may be exposed to molds and other biological organisms that 

grow in and on buildings. Proven industrial hygiene principles mitigate the risk of developing 

diseases from these organisms. According to the decommissioning GEIS, if a thorough 

inspection of the facility is conducted and proper cleansing and personal protective equipment 

are used when biological agents are identified, the impacts of biological agents on workers 

would be SMALL. A 20-year license renewal would not change the microbiological hazards 

associated with decommissioning at any nuclear plant because the workers would still be using 

proper cleansing and personal protective equipment when biological hazards were identified.

Electromagnetic Fields

Operating transmission lines produce an EMF. When a nuclear power plant ceases to operate, 

no electricity is transmitted. Therefore, the public’s exposure to EMF could decrease unless the 

power that was no longer being generated at the plant was replaced by new power generation. 

Power would still be provided to the site, and workers might be exposed to EMF during 

decommissioning. It is expected that the impacts during decommissioning would be bounded 

by the impacts from current operations. The EMF impact associated with decommissioning 

after a 20-year license renewal term would not differ from that without renewal. 

Other Hazards

The major sources of physical occupational hazards during decommissioning involve the 

operation and use of construction and transportation equipment. Workers may be exposed to 

extreme temperatures while working outdoors. They may operate cranes near power lines, dig 

near buried cables, and encounter electrical hazards. During demolition or dismantlement, the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-219 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

workers may use cutting torches, which can start fires. It is expected that all of the activities 

would be anticipated in advance, and that proper precautions would be taken to minimize any 

adverse impacts. A 20-year delay in decommissioning caused by license renewal would have 

no effect on the projected human health impact from other hazards, because the workers would 

have the proper work planning, workplace design, and controls in place. Moreover, the 

conditions would not be more hazardous after an additional 20 years.

Accidents during the Termination of Nuclear Plant Operations and Decommissioning 

The impacts of postulated accidents during the license renewal term are discussed in 

Section 4.9.1.2. The general characteristics, including the source terms, of postulated accidents 

are expected to be similar after reactor shutdown; therefore, the consequences would also be 

expected to be similar. Because of the enhanced aging management activities and extended 

life of certain systems, structures, and components, there may be small differences in the 

probabilities of occurrence of these accidents after reactor shutdown. These differences, 

however, are not expected to be significant, and the risks of accidents after reactor shutdown 

would be expected to be similar to or less than the risks discussed in Section 4.9.1.2 for the 

proposed action. 

The impacts associated with accidents that can occur during the decontamination and 

decommissioning of nuclear power plants were analyzed in the Decommissioning GEIS 

(NRC 2002a). The radiological impacts of accidents were discussed in Section 4.3.9 of the 

same document, and nonradiological impacts were discussed in Section 4.3.10. Radiological 

accidents that were considered in the analysis included both those that relate to onsite storage 

and handling of spent nuclear fuel and those that are unrelated to spent nuclear fuel. The nonfuel-related accidents centered on decontamination, dismantlement, and storage-type 

accidents. The accidents included fires, handling accidents, explosions (e.g., explosion of liquid 

propane gas tanks), and accidental releases of liquid radioactive wastes from storage tanks. 

Nonradiological accidents were considered under occupational issues and included physical, 

chemical, ergonomic, and biological hazards. The category of physical hazards included 

potential injuries or deaths resulting from the operation and use of construction and 

transportation equipment. Electrical hazards, including the potential for electrocution, were also 

considered. The potential exposure of workers to chemical and biological agents was 

considered under both normal operations and accidents. Ergonomic conditions were evaluated 

from the point of view of ergonomic stress such as discomfort and fatigue affecting the workers’ 

performance and safety. 

The NRC made the following conclusions regarding radiological accidents associated with 

decommissioning on the basis of the evaluations conducted for the decommissioning GEIS 

(NRC 2002a): 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-220 

The NRC has considered available information, including comments received on 

the draft of Supplement 1 of NUREG-0586, concerning the potential impacts of 

non-spent-fuel-related radiological accidents resulting from decommissioning. 

This information indicates that, with the mitigation procedures in place, the 

impacts of radiological accidents are neither detectable nor destabilizing. 

Therefore, the NRC makes the generic conclusion that the impacts of non-spentfuel-related radiological accidents are SMALL. The NRC has considered 

mitigation and concludes that no additional measures are likely to be sufficiently 

beneficial to be warranted. 

The NRC has considered available information, including comments received on 

the draft of Supplement 1 of NUREG-0586, on the potential impacts of spentfuel-related radiological accidents resulting from decommissioning. The NRC 

concludes that the impacts of spent fuel storage during the license renewal term 

are SMALL. The NRC concludes that additional mitigation measures are not 

likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 

The conclusion regarding the occupational issues, which included nonradiological accidents, 

was as follows: 

The NRC has considered available information, including comments received on 

the draft of Supplement 1 of NUREG-0586, on the potential impacts of 

decommissioning activities on occupational issues. This information indicates 

that the impacts on occupational issues are not detectable or destabilizing. 

Therefore, the NRC makes a generic conclusion that, for all plants, the potential 

impacts on occupational issues are SMALL. The NRC has considered mitigation 

measures and concludes that no additional mitigation measures are likely to be 

sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 

License renewal would merely delay when accidents associated with the termination of nuclear 

power plant operations and decommissioning could occur and would not significantly affect their 

probability or consequence. 

Environmental Justice 

Termination of power plant operations and the resulting loss of jobs, income, and tax revenue 

could have a disproportionate effect on minority and low-income populations. The loss of tax 

revenue, for example, could reduce the availability or eliminate some of the community services 

that low-income and minority populations may depend on. This situation could be offset with the 

construction and operation of replacement power generating facilities and the creation of other 

employment opportunities at or near the nuclear plant site. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-221 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Decontamination and decommissioning activities could affect air and water quality in the area 

around each nuclear plant site. This could cause health and other environmental impacts in 

minority and low-income populations, if present. Population groups with particular resource 

dependencies or practices (e.g., subsistence agriculture, hunting, fishing) could also be 

disproportionately affected. 

Environmental impacts associated with decommissioning activities at each nuclear plant and the 

extent to which minority and low-income populations could be affected, are discussed in the 

decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a). License renewal would only delay, but not alter the 

impact of decommissioning on minority and low-income populations around each nuclear plant. 

Waste Management and Pollution Prevention 

After termination of nuclear plant operations, there would be a period before the beginning of 

decommissioning when the reactor would be placed in a cold shutdown condition and 

maintained. The fuel might be removed from the core and put in the spent fuel storage pool. 

There might also be activities related to placing the reactor in shutdown status that could result 

in the generation of some waste. The types of waste generated during this period would be the 

same as the types of waste generated during operations and decommissioning. The quantities 

of waste generated would be smaller than the quantities generated during either operations or 

decommissioning. The impacts associated with the management of LLW, hazardous waste, 

mixed waste, and nonradioactive and nonhazardous waste during operations and 

decommissioning would be SMALL. These impacts would also be SMALL when the reactor 

was in shutdown status pending decommissioning. All pollution prevention and waste 

minimization measures instituted during operations would likely continue to be used to minimize 

releases to the environment and minimize the quantities of waste generated. As discussed in 

Section 4.11.1.2, the NRC has determined that spent nuclear fuel could be stored onsite safely 

and with a minimal environmental impact during the license renewal term and the NRC is 

working on a separate rulemaking and EIS for the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule to 

address the period after the cessation of reactor operations. 

The decommissioning process, by its very nature, generates wastes. The wastes generated are 

shipped offsite, where they are permanently disposed of, or stored onsite for a certain period or 

indefinitely. Under the three decommissioning options analyzed in the decommissioning GEIS 

(NRC 2002a), the DECON process would generate the most waste. In this process, the 

equipment, structures, and portions of the facility and site that contain radioactive contaminants 

are removed and decontaminated to a level that permits termination of the license after 

cessation of operations. In the SAFSTOR process or ENTOMB process, the materials are left 

onsite temporarily or permanently, respectively. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-222 

The impacts from decommissioning that result in the generation of wastes and their onsite 

management until they are loaded onto vehicles to be shipped offsite are addressed under other 

disciplines discussed in Section 4.12.2.1. This section addresses the impacts from transporting 

the wastes to disposal facilities and from their disposal. If there are interim locations offsite 

where wastes undergo treatment before being sent to a disposal facility, they are also discussed 

here. 

The types of wastes generated during decommissioning would include LLW, mixed waste, 

hazardous waste, and nonradioactive, nonhazardous waste (see Section 3.11 for waste type 

definitions). No spent fuel, HLW, or transuranic waste would be generated during 

decommissioning because spent fuel would have been removed from the reactor and stored in 

either the reactor’s spent fuel pool or in an ISFSI before the start of decommissioning. 

It is expected that most of the waste generated during decommissioning would be LLW and 

nonradioactive, nonhazardous waste. There would be small quantities of mixed waste (mostly 

paints, waste oils, solvents, and metals such as lead or cadmium) that would be managed per 

the requirements of RCRA for its hazardous component and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) for its 

radioactive component, as described in Section 3.11.3. The quantities of hazardous waste that 

would be generated would also be small and would mainly consist of paints, solvents, and 

batteries. Some of the materials used to decontaminate surfaces could also end up being 

classified as mixed waste. Both mixed wastes and hazardous wastes could be sent to an 

authorized waste treatment center for incineration or some other form of treatment before being 

sent to a disposal facility authorized to accept such waste. All of these activities would be 

conducted according to permits and requirements established under RCRA. The 

nonradioactive, nonhazardous waste, consisting mainly of rubble and debris, would be sent to a 

local landfill. 

The impacts associated with transporting equipment and materials (radiological and 

nonradiological) offsite during decommissioning are analyzed in Section 4.3.17 of the 

decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a). The materials transported offsite would include all 

wastes generated onsite. Radiological impacts would include exposure of transportation 

workers and the general public along the transportation routes. Nonradiological impacts would 

include increased traffic volume, additional wear and tear on roadways, and potential traffic 

accidents. It was concluded that the transportation impacts would not be destabilizing. 

Therefore, the NRC made the generic conclusion that for all plants, the potential transportation 

impacts would be SMALL. 

There might be small differences in the quantities and characteristics of the waste that would be 

generated during decommissioning after the license renewal term and the waste that would be 

generated after the original license period. If the plant license was not renewed, the reactor 

could be decommissioned at the end of the current license term, whereas if the license was 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-223 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

renewed, the decommissioning would take place approximately 20 years later. Additional waste 

might accumulate at the site, or the radioactivity of some components undergoing 

decommissioning might be slightly higher at the end of the license renewal term. For example, 

if there were any refurbishment activities during the license renewal term that resulted in 

equipment (e.g., steam generators) being taken out of service and subsequently stored onsite 

awaiting disposition during decommissioning, the amounts of certain types of waste (e.g., LLW) 

generated from decommissioning under the proposed action would be more than the amounts 

generated during the original license period. Because of the differences in timing, some of the 

materials in and around the core of the reactor might have slightly higher radioactivity under the 

proposed action as a result of a buildup in long-lived radionuclides. This situation would mainly 

affect the amount of greater-than-Class C LLW at the site. Assuming that the spent nuclear fuel 

continued to be stored onsite during the license renewal term, there would also be more spent 

fuel to manage. Similarly, if certain LLW classes (e.g., Class A, B, and C wastes) had to be 

stored onsite for long periods (for the reasons discussed in Section 4.11.1), the amounts of 

those wastes that would have to be addressed during decommissioning might be larger after the 

license renewal term. However, because all radioactive waste must be handled in accordance 

with NRC regulations, it is not expected that these differences would significantly alter the 

practices employed to manage the wastes or the impacts associated with managing the wastes 

generated during decommissioning. 

The decommissioning activities would be designed and implemented in ways to prevent 

pollution and minimize the amount of waste generated. All the methods mentioned in 

Section 3.11.5, including source reduction and recycling of materials either onsite or offsite, 

would be used. Under source reduction, the licensees would use decontaminating agents and 

technologies that would generate less waste, particularly mixed and hazardous waste. They 

would also implement procedures and practices that would be aimed at preventing or 

minimizing gaseous and liquid releases to the environment and the quantities of waste 

generated. 

The quantity of LLW that would be generated from the decommissioning of a model 1,000-MWe 

power plant is included in the quantities of LLW reported on in Section 4.12.1.1. The quantities 

of mixed waste and hazardous waste that would be generated from decommissioning of nuclear 

power plants would be relatively small and managed in a way that would protect human health 

and the environment to meet RCRA requirements. Clean wastes (wastes that are neither 

radioactive nor hazardous) would be disposed of at a local permitted landfill. The transportation 

of wastes from a model LWR is also reported on in Section 4.12.1.1. The offsite transportation 

of equipment and wastes from a power plant undergoing decommissioning was also analyzed in 

the decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002a), and the impact was found to be SMALL. On the 

basis of these considerations, the effect of license renewal would be SMALL for all plants. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-224 

4.12.2.2 Termination of Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning of Replacement 

Power Plants 

Fossil Energy Alternatives 

The environmental consequences from the termination of power plant operations and the 

decommissioning a fossil fuel energy facility are dependent on the decommissioning plan. It is 

reasonable to expect that decommissioning plans would include the following elements and 

requirements: 

• Removal of all unneeded structures and facilities to at least 3 ft (1 m) below grade 

(in order to provide an adequate root zone for site revegetation). 

• Removal of all coal, all coal combustion waste, and all flue gas desulfurization (FGD) 

sludge and/or byproducts. 

• Removal of water intake and discharge structures. 

• Dismantlement and/or removal of all ancillary facilities, including rail spurs, coal handling 

and preparation facilities, cooling towers, natural gas pipelines, onsite wastewater 

treatment facilities, and access roads. 

• Removal of all surface water intake and discharge structures. 

• Removal of all accumulated sludge, and closure and removal of all surface water 

impoundments. 

• Proper closure of all onsite groundwater wells. 

• An aggressive recycling program for removed equipment and dismantled building 

components; materials awaiting recycling would be stored at an offsite facility. 

• Minimal delay times for removed materials and equipment at temporary laydown areas. 

• Expeditious disposal of solid and hazardous wastes at approved facilities; as necessary, 

remediation of waste handling and storage areas. 

• Cleanup and remediation of all incidental spills and leaks. 

• Successful execution of an approved revegetation plan for the site. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-225 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

• Other actions as necessary to ensure restoration of the site to a condition equivalent in 

character and value to the greenfield or brownfield site on which the facility was first 

constructed. 

Assuming that decommissioning occurs according to a decommissioning plan as described 

above, environmental consequences (at either a greenfield site or a brownfield site) would 

include: 

• Short-term impacts on air quality and noise from the operation of vehicles and 

equipment used to deconstruct structures and facilities and the increased number of 

workforce vehicles traveling to and from the site; impacts include release of criteria 

pollutants and generation of fugitive dust and noise (including from the possible use of 

explosives to deconstruct buildings or structures); impacts would be similar to, but of 

shorter duration than, those experienced during facility construction. 

• Short-term impacts on land use and visual resources due to increased human activities 

on the site and establishment of temporary holding areas for dismantled components 

and other deconstruction debris (some of which may be at offsite locations—e.g., at rail 

headers). 

• Short-term increase in local traffic as a result of increases in workforce personnel onsite 

and truck and rail traffic bringing deconstruction equipment to the site and transporting 

dismantled structures, removed equipment, and deconstruction debris. 

• Long-term reestablishment of vegetation and wildlife communities. 

• Restoration of visual values through removal of manmade structures and restoration of 

native vegetative and wildlife communities. 

• Short-term increase in local economic activity with the increased dismantlement 

workforce and other related functions such as transportation, followed by a longer-term 

downturn of local economy due to loss of jobs of operational personnel. 

• Reestablishment of original land use opportunities. 

• Elimination of health and safety impacts on operating personnel and the general public 

from routine operation of the facility and as a result of accidents involving the facility; 

short-term increase in health and safety risk to decommissioning workforce due to 

complex and concentrated industrial activities, and short-term increase in risk of 

transportation-related accidents, due to increased traffic densities throughout 

decommissioning. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-226 

New Nuclear Alternatives 

According to 10 CFR Part 52, decommissioning impacts for a nuclear power plant include all 

activities related to the safe removal of the facility or site from service and the reduction of 

residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property under restricted conditions or 

unrestricted use and termination of a license. The decommissioning process and the activities 

occurring during decommissioning would be similar to those associated with current reactors, 

(see Sections 2.1.3 and 4.12.2.1). 

Environmental consequences would also be similar to those discussed in Section 4.12.2.1 and 

would include: 

• Temporary impacts on land use and visual resources, including the construction of 

temporary buildings and parking lots and the addition or expansion of laydown areas. 

(Many plants have existing, previously disturbed areas available for these temporary 

land use activities.) 

• Reduced (small) water use and water quality impacts as water consumption decreases 

significantly after cessation of operations. Dewatering and water used for spent fuel 

cooling would continue until spent fuel was removed from the site. Surface water runoff 

or release of substances would be possible but should not have a detectable effect on 

the environment. 

• Temporary increases in local traffic that would result from the additional workforce 

onsite; truck and rail traffic bringing deconstruction equipment to the site; and the 

transport of dismantled structures, removed equipment, and waste from the site. 

• Long-term reestablishment of vegetation and wildlife communities. 

• Short-term improvements in the local economy because of the increased workforce for 

decommissioning activities, followed by a long-term downturn of the local economy 

because of the loss of jobs of operational personnel. 

• Potential (regulated) radiological doses to the public and decommissioning workforce at 

the facility from activities such as removal of the reactor vessel and demolition of 

facilities. 

• Increased but temporary occupational safety and health risk to the workforce due to 

complex and concentrated industrial activities. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-227 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Renewable Alternatives 

The termination of power plant operations and the decommissioning of renewable energy 

systems would be similar to the impacts discussed in the previous sections. Decommissioning 

would follow a decommissioning plan and would involve not only removal of facility components 

and operational wastes and residues, but also reclamation of the land to its original state. 

Decommissioning scenarios are expected to involve the following actions: 

• Removal of all unneeded structures and facilities to at least 3 ft (1 m) below grade 

(to provide an unencumbered root zone for site revegetation). 

• Removal of all unspent biomass fuel and all solid wastes from combustion and facility 

maintenance. 

• Removal of water intake and discharge structures (if present to support combustion 

facilities and steam cycles). 

• Dismantlement and/or removal of all ancillary facilities, including rail spurs, biomass (and 

coal) fuel handling and preparation facilities, cooling towers, natural gas pipelines, onsite 

wastewater treatment facilities, and access roads. 

• Removal of all surface water intake and discharge structures. 

• Removal of all accumulated sludge, and closure and removal of all surface water 

impoundments. 

• Proper closure of all onsite groundwater wells. 

• Aggressive recycling program for removed equipment and dismantled building 

components; materials awaiting recycling would be stored at an offsite facility. 

• Minimal delay times for removed materials and equipment at temporary laydown areas. 

• Expeditious disposal of solid and hazardous wastes at approved facilities; remediation 

as necessary of waste handling and storage areas. 

• Cleanup and remediation of all incidental spills and leaks. 

• Successful execution of an approved revegetation plan for the site. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-228 

• Offsite ancillary facilities (access roads, utilities, pipelines, electrical transmission towers) 

would be removed unless it is determined that they can serve other purposes; buried 

utilities and pipelines could be abandoned in place if their removal would result in 

significant disruption to ecosystems. 

• Other actions as necessary to ensure restoration of the site to a condition equivalent in 

character and value to the greenfield or brownfield site on which the facility was first 

constructed. 

Termination of operations and decommissioning of offshore facilities could involve the following 

unique actions and strategies, depending on location: 

• Wind turbine tower foundations and communication and power cables buried in the 

seafloor could be allowed to remain to avoid the disruption that would result from their 

removal. 

• Underwater structures could be allowed to remain in place to serve as artificial fish 

habitats. 

• Structures that served as electrical service platforms could be allowed to remain in place 

to serve as artificial reefs. 

The termination of operations and the decommissioning of hydroelectric facilities could follow 

unique paths. For large store-and-release facilities, eliminating the dam and reservoir and 

restoring the river to its natural flow could have dramatic consequences to both upstream and 

downstream ecosystems. Especially where store-and-release dams serve purposes other than 

power generation (e.g., flood control and irrigation), complete elimination of the structures and 

reservoir and restoration of original river conditions could be at cross purposes. While turbines, 

generators, and other equipment associated with power production could be removed, the dam 

and reservoir would be expected to remain largely intact, as would fish ladders and passages. 

Penstocks and other devices that control the release of water from the reservoir are expected to 

remain functional. A reduced workforce would also remain to operate the dam for flood control 

and irrigation purposes. Impacts on upstream land uses would remain generally unaltered from 

the impacts during the dam’s operating period. 

Smaller scale, run-of-the-river dams (so called low-impact hydro facilities(e)

) that have limited 

impact on upstream water levels and downstream water flow rates would likely be completely 

dismantled and removed during decommissioning. 

 

(e) Low-impact hydro facilities are considered to have a power capacity of less than 30 MW. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-229 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

4.12.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 

 

The following sections discuss greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the nuclear lifecycle, 

replacement power alternatives, and climate change impacts. 

 

4.12.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

 

This section discusses GHG emissions from the nuclear lifecycle and compares these 

emissions to those from fossil and other renewable energy sources. The nuclear lifecycle 

consists of the uranium fuel cycle phases, as discussed in Section 4.12.1.1, and nuclear power 

plant construction, operation, and decommissioning. 

 

Existing Studies 

 

The relative volumes of GHGs emitted by nuclear and other electricity generating methods have 

been widely studied. However, estimates and projections of the carbon footprint of the nuclear 

lifecycle vary depending on the type of study done. Additionally, considerable debate also 

exists among researchers on the relative effects of nuclear and other forms of electricity 

generation on GHG emissions. Existing studies on GHG emissions from nuclear power plants 

generally take two different forms: 

 

(1) Qualitative discussions of the potential to use nuclear power to reduce GHG emissions 

and mitigate global warming. 

(2) Technical analyses and quantitative estimates of the actual amount of GHGs generated 

by the uranium fuel cycle or entire nuclear lifecycle and comparisons to the operational 

or lifecycle emissions from other energy generation alternatives. 

Qualitative Studies 

 

The qualitative studies consist primarily of broad, large-scale public policy or investment 

evaluations of whether an expansion of nuclear power is likely to be a technically, economically, 

or politically workable means of achieving global GHG reductions. Studies found by the staff 

during the subsequent literature search include the following: 

• Evaluations to determine if investments in nuclear power in developing countries should 

be accepted as a flexibility mechanism to assist industrialized nations in achieving their 

GHG reduction goals under the Kyoto Protocols (IAEA 2000; NEA and OECD 2002; 

Schneider 2000). Ultimately, the parties to the Kyoto Protocol did not approve nuclear 

power as a component under the Clean Development Mechanism due to safety and 

waste disposal concerns (NEA and OECD 2002). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-230 

• Analyses developed to assist governments, including the United States Government, in 

making long-term investment and public policy decisions in nuclear power 

(Hagen et al. 2001; Keepin 1988; MIT 2003). 

 

Although the qualitative studies sometimes reference and critique the existing quantitative 

estimates of GHGs produced by the nuclear fuel cycle or lifecycle, their conclusions generally 

rely heavily on discussions of other aspects of nuclear policy decisions and investment such as 

safety, cost, waste generation, and political acceptability. Therefore, these studies are typically 

not directly applicable to an evaluation of GHG emissions associated with the proposed license 

renewal for a given nuclear power plant. 

 

Quantitative Studies 

 

A large number of technical studies, including calculations and estimates of the amount of 

lifecycle GHGs emitted by nuclear and other power generation options, are available in the 

literature and were useful to the staff’s efforts in addressing relative GHG emission levels. 

Examples of these studies include—but are not limited to—Mortimer (1990), Andseta et al. 

(1998), Spadaro et al. (2000), Fritsche (2006), Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology 

(POST) (2006), AEA Technology (AEA) (2006), Weisser (2006), and Fthenakis and Kim (2007). 

In addition, Sovacool (2008) provides a review and synthesis of studies in existence through 

2008. The Sovacool (2008) synthesis ultimately uses only 19 of the 103 studies initially 

considered; the remaining 84 were excluded because they were more than 10 years old, not 

publicly available, available only in a language other than English, or they presented 

methodological challenges by relying on inaccessible data, provided overall GHG estimates 

without allocating relative GHG impacts to different parts of the nuclear lifecycle, or they were 

otherwise not methodologically explicit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) has issued a special report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change 

Mitigation (IPCC 2011). This report provides an assessment of previously published literature 

on lifecycle GHG emissions from various electricity generation technologies (nuclear, fossil fuel, 

and renewable energy sources). The IPCC report only included in its synthesis published 

literature that met the screening criteria for quality and relevance. Of the 2,165 references 

collected, 296 passed the screening criteria; for the nuclear lifecycle, 125 out of 249 references 

reviewed passed the screening criteria. 

 

Comparing these studies and others like them is difficult because the assumptions and 

components of the lifecycles the authors evaluate vary widely. Examples of areas in which 

differing assumptions make comparing the studies difficult include the following: 

 

• Energy sources that may be used to mine uranium deposits in the future 

 

• Reprocessing or disposal of spent nuclear fuel 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-231 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

• Current and potential future processes to enrich uranium and the energy sources that 

will power them 

 

• Estimated grades and quantities of recoverable uranium resources 

 

• Estimated grades and quantities of recoverable fossil fuel resources 

• Estimated GHG emissions other than carbon dioxide including the conversion to carbon 

dioxide equivalents per unit of electric energy produced 

• Performance of future fossil fuel power systems 

• Projected capacity factors for alternative means of generation 

• Current and potential future reactor technologies. 

 

Studies may vary with respect to whether all or parts of a power plant’s lifecycle are analyzed. 

That is, a full lifecycle analysis will typically address plant construction, operations, resource 

extraction (for fuel and construction materials), and decommissioning, whereas a partial lifecycle 

analysis primarily focuses on operational differences. In addition, as Sovacool (2008) noted, 

studies vary greatly in terms of age, data availability, and in the disclosure of the study methods 

used. 

 

In the case of license renewal, a GHG analysis for the portion of the plant’s lifecycle attributable 

to license renewal (operation for an additional 20 years) would not involve GHG emissions 

associated with construction because construction activities have already been completed at the 

time of relicensing. In addition, the proposed action of license renewal would also not involve 

additional GHG emissions associated with facility decommissioning because decommissioning 

must occur whether the facility is relicensed or not. However, in many studies, the specific 

contribution of GHG emissions from construction, decommissioning, or other portions of a 

plant’s lifecycle cannot be clearly separated from one another. In such cases, an analysis of 

GHG emissions would overestimate the GHG emissions attributed to a specific portion of a 

plant’s lifecycle. As Sovacool (2008) noted, many of the available analyses provide markedly 

lower GHG emissions per unit of plant output, if one assumes that a power plant operates for a 

longer period of time. Nonetheless, available studies supply some meaningful information with 

respect to the relative magnitude of the emissions among nuclear power plants as compared to 

other forms of electric generation as discussed in the following sections. 

 

In Tables 4.12-4, 4.12-5, and 4.12-6, the NRC presents the results of the above-mentioned 

quantitative studies to supply a weight-of-evidence evaluation of the relative GHG emissions 

that may result from the proposed license renewal as compared to the potential alternative use 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-232 

of coal-fired, natural gas-fired, and renewable generation. Most studies from Mortimer (1990) 

onward (through Sovacool 2008) indicate that uranium ore grades and uranium enrichment 

processes are leading determinants in the ultimate GHG emissions attributable to nuclear power 

generation. These studies show that the relatively lower order of magnitude of lifecycle GHG 

emissions from nuclear power, when compared to fossil-fueled alternatives (especially natural 

gas), could potentially disappear if available uranium ore grades drop sufficiently while 

enrichment processes continued to rely on the same technologies. 

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

Source GHG Emission Results 

Mortimer (1990) Nuclear—230,000 tons CO2/year 

Coal—5,912,000 tons CO2/year 

Note: Future GHG emissions from nuclear to increase because of declining ore 

grade. 

Andseta et al. (1998) Nuclear energy produces 1.4 percent of the GHG emissions compared to coal. 

Note: Future reprocessing and use of nuclear-generated electrical power in the 

mining and enrichment steps are likely to change the projections of earlier authors, 

such as Mortimer (1990). 

Spadaro et al. (2000) Nuclear—2.5 to 5.7 g Ceq/kWh(a)

Coal—264 to 357 g Ceq/kWh 

Fritsche (2006) (values 

estimated from graph in 

Figure 4) 

Nuclear—33 g Ceq/kWh 

Coal—950 g Ceq/kWh 

POST (2006) (nuclear 

calculations from 

AEA 2006) 

Nuclear—5 g Ceq/kWh 

Coal—>1,000 g Ceq/kWh 

Note: Decrease of uranium ore grade to 0.03 percent would raise nuclear to 

6.8 g Ceq/kWh. Future improved technology and carbon capture and storage could 

reduce coal-fired GHG emissions by 90 percent. 

Weisser (2006) 

(compilation of results 

from other studies) 

Nuclear—2.8 to 24 g Ceq/kWh 

Coal—950 to 1,250 g Ceq/kWh 

Sovacool (2008) 

(compilation of results 

from other studies) 

IPCC (2011) 

(compilation of results 

from other studies) 

Nuclear—1.4 to 288 g Ceq/kWh (average: 66 g Ceq/kWh) 

Coal —960 to 1,050 g Ceq/kWh 

(coal adopted from Gagnon et al. 2002) 

Nuclear—1 to 220 g Ceq/kWh (median: 16 g Ceq/kWh) 

Coal—675 to 1689 g Ceq/kWh (median: 1001 g Ceq/kWh) 

(a) g Ceq/kWh = grams of carbon equivalent per kilowatt-hour

 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-233 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Coal 

 

Considering that coal fuels the largest share of electricity generation in the United States and 

that its burning results in the largest emissions of GHGs for any of the likely alternatives to 

nuclear power generation, many available quantitative studies focused on comparisons of the 

relative GHG emissions of nuclear to coal-fired generation. The quantitative estimates of 

lifecycle GHG emissions associated with nuclear power, as compared to an equivalent coalfired plant, are presented in Table 4.12-4. The staff relied on current available information for its 

independent analysis. Although Table 4.12-4 does not include all existing studies, it gives an 

illustrative range of estimates developed by various sources. 

Table 4.12-5. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Natural Gas 

Source GHG Emission Results 

Spadaro et al. (2000) Nuclear—2.5 to 5.7 g Ceq/kWh(a) 

Natural Gas—120 to 188 g Ceq/kWh 

Fritsche (2006) (values 

estimated from graph in 

Figure 4) 

Nuclear—33 g Ceq/kWh 

Cogeneration Combined Cycle Natural Gas—150 g Ceq/kWh 

POST (2006) (nuclear 

calculations from 

AEA 2006) 

Nuclear—5 g Ceq/kWh 

Natural Gas—500 g Ceq/kWh 

Note: Decrease of uranium ore grade to 0.03 percent would raise nuclear to 

6.8 g Ceq/kWh. Future improved technology and carbon capture and storage could 

reduce natural gas GHG emissions by 90 percent. 

Weisser (2006) 

(compilation of results 

from other studies) 

Nuclear—2.8 to 24 g Ceq/kWh 

Natural Gas—440 to 780 g Ceq/kWh 

Sovacool (2008) 

(compilation of results 

from other studies) 

IPCC (2011) 

(compilation of results 

from other studies) 

Nuclear—1.36 to 288 g Ceq/kWh (average: 66 g Ceq/kWh) 

Natural Gas—443 g Ceq/kWh 

(natural gas adopted from Gagnon et al 2002) 

Nuclear—1 to 220 g Ceq/kWh (median: 16 g Ceq/kWh) 

Natural gas—290 to 930 Ceq/kWh (median: 469 g Ceq/kWh) 

(a) g Ceq/kWh = grams of carbon equivalent per kilowatt-hour

 

 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-234 

Table 4.12-6. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Renewable Energy Sources 

Source GHG Emission Results 

Mortimer (1990) Nuclear—230,000 tons CO2/year 

Hydropower—78,000 tons CO2/year 

Wind power—54,000 tons CO2/year

Tidal power—52,500 tons CO2/year 

Note: Future GHG emissions from nuclear to increase because of declining ore grade. 

Spadaro et al. (2000) Nuclear—2.5 to 5.7 g Ceq/kWh(a) 

Solar PV(b)—27.3 to 76.4 g Ceq/kWh 

Hydroelectric—1.1 to 64.6 g Ceq/kWh 

Biomass—8.4 to 16.6 g Ceq/kWh 

Wind—2.5 to 13.1 g Ceq/kWh 

Fritsche (2006) 

(values estimated 

from graph in 

Figure 4 of study) 

Nuclear—33 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—125 g Ceq/kWh 

Hydroelectric—50 g Ceq/kWh 

Wind—20 g Ceq/kWh 

POST (2006) 

(nuclear calculations 

from AEA 2006) 

Nuclear—5 g Ceq/kWh 

Biomass—25 to 93 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—35 to 58 g Ceq/kWh 

Wave/Tidal—25 to 50 g Ceq/kWh 

Hydroelectric—5 to 30 g Ceq/kWh 

Wind—4.64 to 5.25 g Ceq/kWh 

Note: Decrease of uranium ore grade to 0.03 percent would raise nuclear to 6.8 g Ceq/kWh. 

Weisser (2006) 

(compilation of 

results from other 

studies) 

Nuclear—2.8 to 24 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—43 to 73 g Ceq/kWh 

Hydroelectric—1 to 34 g Ceq/kWh 

Biomass—35 to 99 g Ceq/kWh 

Wind—8 to 30 g Ceq/kWh 

Fthenakis and Kim 

(2007) 

Nuclear—16 to 55 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—17 to 49 g Ceq/kWh 

Sovacool (2008) 

(compilation of 

results from other 

studies) 

Nuclear—1.36 to 288 g Ceq/kWh (average: 66 g Ceq/kWh) 

Wind—9 to10 g Ceq/kWh 

Hydroelectric (small, distributed) —10 to13 g Ceq/kWh 

Biogas digester—11 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar Thermal—13 g Ceq/kWh 

Biomass—14 to 35 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—32 g Ceq/kWh 

Geothermal (hot, dry rock)—38 g Ceq/kWh 

(Note: Solar PV value adopted from Fthenakis et al. 2008; all other renewable-generation 

values adopted from Pehnt 2006) 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-235 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table 4.12-6. (cont.)

Source GHG Emission Results 

IPCC (2011) 

(compilation of 

results from other 

studies) 

Nuclear—1 to 220 g Ceq/kWh (median: 16 g Ceq/kWh) 

Wind—2 to 81 g Ceq/kWh (median: 12 g Ceq/kWh) 

Hydropower—0 to 43 g Ceq/kWh (median: 4 g Ceq/kWh) 

Biopower(c)—[-]633 to 360 g Ceq/kWh (median: 18 g Ceq/kWh) 

Solar PV—5 to 217 g Ceq/kWh (median: 46 g Ceq/kWh) 

Solar CSP(d)—7 to 89 g Ceq/kWh (median: 22 g Ceq/kWh) 

Geothermal—6 to 79 g Ceq/kWh (median: 45 g Ceq/kWh) 

Ocean Energy—2 to 23 g Ceq/kWh (median: 8 g Ceq/kWh) 

(a) g Ceq/kWh = grams of carbon equivalent per kilowatt-hour 

(b) Solar PV = solar photovoltaic 

(c) Negative values for biopower refer to avoided emissions. Negative values are based on assumptions of avoided emissions 

by using wastes and residues from landfill disposals to produce electricity that are credited to the lifecycle of biopower (i.e., 

biomass is diverted from landfills and emissions that would normally be produced at the landfill are avoided). Avoided 

emissions are those that may be misplaced in time and location but which do totally remove GHGs from the atmosphere. 

(d) CSP = concentrating solar power. 

Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Natural Gas 

 

The quantitative estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the nuclear power, as 

compared to an equivalent natural gas-fired plant, are presented in Table 4.12-5. The staff 

relied on current available information for its independent analysis. The staff notes that 

Table 4.12-5 does not include all existing studies. Table 4.12-5, however, gives an illustrative 

range of estimates developed by various sources. 

Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Renewable Energy 

Sources 

 

The quantitative estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the nuclear power, as 

compared to equivalent renewable energy sources, are presented in Table 4.12-6. Calculation 

of GHG emissions associated with these sources is more difficult than the calculations for 

nuclear energy and fossil fuels because of the large variation in efficiencies and capacity factors 

due to their different technologies, sources, and locations. For example, the efficiencies of solar 

and wind energy are highly dependent on the wind or solar resource in a particular location. 

Similarly, the range of GHG emissions estimates for hydropower varies greatly depending on 

the type of dam or reservoir involved (if used at all). Additionally, for biopower, the biomass 

source (energy crops, agricultural and livestock waste, etc.) and broad range of bioenergy 

technologies (direct combustion, biomass integrated gasification combined cycle, co-firing with 

coal) impact lifecycle GHG emissions estimates. For instance, emissions can be avoided if 

agricultural waste, that would typically decompose and emit GHGs, is used as the biomass 

source to produce electricity. However, biomass power plant operation, construction, and 

transportation still emit GHGs. On the other hand, if energy crops are used, GHGs are emitted 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-236 

from the manufacturing or harvesting of biomass, transportation, construction, and operation of 

the plant. Therefore, lifecycle GHG emissions estimates for these energy sources have a 

greater range of variability than the estimates for nuclear and fossil fuel sources. Table 4.12-6 

gives an illustrative range of estimates developed by various sources. 

Conclusions: Relative Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

 

The sampling of data presented in Tables 4.12-4, 4.12-5, and 4.12-6 demonstrates the wide 

distribution of lifecycle GHG emission estimates of various electricity generation technologies 

and the challenges of any attempt to determine the specific amount of GHG emissions 

attributable to nuclear energy production sources, as different assumptions and calculation 

methods will yield differing results. The differences and complexities in these assumptions and 

analyses will further increase when they are used to project future GHG emissions. 

Nevertheless, several conclusions can be drawn from the information presented. 

 

First, the various studies show a general consensus that nuclear power generation has lower 

lifecycle GHG emissions than electrical generation based on fossil fuel. The studies also give 

estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions from renewable energy sources based on current and 

available technology. The range of these estimates is wide, but the general conclusion is that 

current lifecycle GHG emissions from nuclear power generation are of the same order of 

magnitude as from the surveyed renewable energy sources. 

 

Second, the studies show no consensus on future relative GHG emissions from nuclear power 

and other sources of electricity. There is substantial disagreement among the various authors 

about the GHG emissions associated with declining uranium ore concentrations, future uranium 

enrichment methods, and other factors, including changes in technology. Similar disagreement 

exists about future GHG emissions associated with coal and natural gas for electricity 

generation. Even the most conservative studies conclude that nuclear power generation 

currently produces fewer lifecycle GHG emissions than sources based on fossil fuel and is 

expected to continue to do so in the near future. The primary difference among the authors is 

the projected cross-over date (the time at which GHG emissions from the nuclear lifecycle 

exceed those of sources based on fossil fuel) or whether cross-over will actually occur. 

 

Considering the current estimates and future uncertainties, it appears that GHG emissions 

associated with nuclear power plant relicensing actions are likely to be lower than those 

associated with energy sources based on fossil fuel. This conclusion is based on the following 

rationale: 

 

• As shown in Tables 4.12-4 and 4.12-5, the current estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions 

from nuclear power generation are below those for energy sources based on fossil fuel. 

 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-237 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

• License renewal will involve continued GHG emissions due to uranium mining, 

processing, and enrichment but will not result in increased GHG emissions associated 

with plant construction or decommissioning (as the plant will have to be decommissioned 

at some point whether the license is renewed or not). 

 

• Few studies predict that nuclear lifecycle emissions will exceed those of fossil fuels 

within a time frame that includes periods of extended operation. Several studies suggest 

that future extraction and enrichment methods, the potential for higher grade uranium 

resource discovery, and technology improvements could extend this time frame. 

 

With respect to the comparison of GHG emissions among nuclear power plant license renewal 

and renewable energy sources, it appears likely that there will be future technology 

improvements and changes in the type of energy used for mining, processing, manufacturing, 

and constructing facilities of all types. Currently, lifecyle GHG emissions associated with 

nuclear power and renewable energy sources are within the same order of magnitude. 

Because nuclear fuel production is the most significant contributor to possible future increases 

in GHG emissions from nuclear power—and because most renewable energy sources lack a 

fuel component—it is likely that GHG emissions from renewable energy sources would be lower 

than those associated with nuclear power plant license renewal at some point during the period 

of extended operation. 

 

4.12.3.2 Climate Change Impacts 

 

This section briefly describes the environmental impacts that could occur from changes in global 

and regional climate conditions due to GHG emissions. Each subsection generically describes 

potential long-term impacts and provides examples of the resource changes that could occur 

due to climate change. 

Land Use 

 

Sea level rise could result in the loss of coastal lands, as well as the possible loss of man-made 

infrastructure as a result of inundation, flooding during storm events, or storm-triggered erosion. 

This could necessitate more-frequent infrastructure redesign and replacement or relocation 

away from potential hazards. As noted by the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP) (2009), the projected rapid rate and large amount of climate change over the next 

century will challenge the ability of society and natural systems to adapt. For example, it is 

difficult and expensive to alter or replace infrastructure designed to last for decades (such as 

buildings, bridges, roads, airports, reservoirs, and ports) in response to continuous and/or 

abrupt climate change. Sea-level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at 

increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the Pacific 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-238 

Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in 

coastal areas are also likely to be adversely affected. 

 

Air Quality and Meteorology 

 

The EPA annually publishes the official United States inventory of GHG emissions that identifies 

and quantifies the primary man-made sources and sinks of GHGs. The EPA estimates that 

energy-related activities in the United States account for more than three-quarters of humangenerated GHG emissions, mostly in the form of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil 

fuels. More than half of the energy-related emissions come from major stationary sources like 

power plants, and approximately one-third comes from transportation. Industrial processes 

(production of cement, steel, and aluminum), agriculture, forestry, other land use, and waste 

management are also important sources of GHG emissions in the United States (EPA 2011). 

 

Section 4.12.3.1 presents a discussion of the relative GHG emissions from nuclear power and 

other electricity generation options. The impacts of GHG emissions do not vary with the 

locations of the emissions sources, so the same impacts would result from the operation of 

those power plants regardless of where they are located. The USGCRP indicates that as much 

as 87 percent of GHG emissions are the result of generating electricity and heat using carbonbased fuels (USGCRP 2009). 

 

With regard to the impact of GHG emissions, the USGCRP concludes in part that climaterelated changes have already been observed globally and across the United States. 

Specifically, it notes the following changes: increases in air and water temperatures, reduced 

frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and 

reductions in snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. Longer ice-free periods on lakes 

and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere 

have also been observed. These climate-related changes are expected to continue while new 

ones develop. Likely future changes for the United States and surrounding coastal waters 

include more-intense hurricanes with related increases in wind, rain, and storm surges (but not 

necessarily an increase in the number of these storms that make landfall), as well as drier 

conditions in such areas as the Southwest (USGCRP 2009). Climate model simulations 

presented by the U.S. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration indicate a greater rate of 

warming (average temperature increase) over the entire continental United States for the 21st

century than the 20th century observed rates, an increase in the number of days with a 

maximum temperature greater than 95 ̊F (35°C) in the Southwest and Southeast regions, a 

decrease in the number of days with minimum temperatures less than 10 ̊F (–12°C) in the 

Rocky Mountains and Northern regions, and an increase in the number of days with little or no 

precipitation (less than 0.04 in. [0.1 mm]) for Western and Southern regions by mid-century for a 

high-emissions scenario (continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions through the end of 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-239 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

the century) (NOAA 2013). Observed changes in meteorological and climatological indicators 

specific to the continental United States are further discussed in Section 3.3.1 of this GEIS. 

 

Water Resources 

 

Climate change will affect water availability in every region of the United States, but the nature 

of the potential impacts varies. Drought-—related to reduced precipitation, increased 

evaporation, and increased water loss from plants in response to higher temperatures—is an 

important issue in many regions, especially in the West. Floods, as well as water quality 

problems, are likely to be amplified by climate change in most regions. Declines in mountain 

snowpack are important in the West and Alaska where snowpack provides vital natural water 

storage. In some regions, reductions in water supply due to decreases in precipitation and/or 

reduced snowmelt will increase competition for water among various sectors, including energy 

production (USGCRP 2009). 

 

More specifically, the USGCRP projects a high likelihood that water shortages will limit power 

plant electricity production in some regions. USGCRP projects water constraints on electricity 

production by 2025 in Arizona, Utah, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, California, 

Oregon, and Washington State. Additional parts of the United States could face similar 

constraints as a result of drought, growing populations, and increasing demand for water for 

various uses during some or all seasons. 

Finally, the issue related to water resources is not only one of water availability, but also of 

water temperature. Warmer water and higher air temperatures reduce the efficiency of thermal 

power plant cooling technologies. In addition, discharge-permit conditions may limit operations 

for some power plants as water temperatures rise (this has already occurred at some power 

plants during peak summer heat). In the aggregate, these changes may reduce the available 

power generating capacity during the summer, when demand is typically high. A relatively small 

change in available generating capacity could have significant implications for the total national 

electric power supply. An average reduction of 1 percent in electricity generated by thermal 

power plants nationwide would mean a loss of 25 billion kilowatt-hours per year—equivalent to 

the amount of electricity consumed by 2 million Americans. Such a power loss would need to 

be replaced or otherwise offset through improvements in energy efficiency (USGCRP 2009). 

Terrestrial Resources 

 

Climate change could affect terrestrial resources. Sea level rise could result in the loss of 

coastal marsh and cause saltwater intrusion into coastal forests (USGCRP 2009), thus 

eliminating habitat for wildlife. Global climate change could also cause shifts in species’ ranges 

and migratory corridors, as well as changes in ecological processes (NRC 2011). 

 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-240 

Climate change is already having effects on terrestrial animal and plant species throughout the 

United States. Some of the most obvious changes are related to the timing of the seasons, 

including when plants bud in spring and when birds and other animals migrate. Spring now 

arrives an average of 10 days to two weeks earlier than it did 20 years ago, and the growing 

season is lengthening over much of the continental United States. The ranges of many species 

in the United States have shifted northward in latitude and upward in elevation. As an example, 

the ranges of many butterfly species have expanded northward, contracted at their southern 

edges, and shifted to higher elevations as warming has continued. Also, horticultural hardiness 

zones (each zone represents a 10°F (5.6°C) change in minimum temperature) in the Midwest 

are likely to shift one-half to one full zone about every 30 years. Impacts on forests are likely to 

be mixed, with limited, positive effects of higher carbon dioxide levels potentially negated by the 

negative effects of decreased water supply (in the West) and more-frequent severe weather 

events like storms and droughts throughout the United States. On a broader scale, some 

common forests types are projected to expand, such as oak-hickory; others are projected to 

contract, such as maple-beech-birch. Still others, such as spruce-fir, are likely to disappear 

from the United States altogether (USGCRP 2009). 

 

The potential for animals to shift their ranges to keep pace with the changing climate may be 

inhibited by major urban areas and by natural barriers like the Great Lakes. Insect pests that 

have historically been controlled by cold winters will more easily survive milder winters and may 

produce larger populations in areas that are already within their ranges. Further, increased 

temperatures, decreased rainfall, and more-severe droughts could also lead to the drying of 

lakes, ponds, and wetlands and the loss of riparian species (USGCRP 2009). 

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that if a warming of 3.5 to 5.5°F 

(1.9 to 3°C) occurs, 20 to 30 percent of species that have been studied would be located in 

climate zones that are outside of their current ranges and would, therefore, likely be at risk of 

extinction. This high percentage is partly a result of pre-existing stresses, including habitat loss 

and continued overharvesting of some species (USGCRP 2009). 

Aquatic Resources 

 

The potential effects of climate change, whether from natural cycles or related man-made 

activities, could result in a variety of changes that would affect inland and coastal aquatic 

resources. 

 

Water temperatures in lakes, streams, and rivers have been increasing across most of the 

United States and will continue to do so as air temperatures increase. According to USGCRP 

(2009), in some lakes for example, “this will lead to an earlier and longer period in summer 

during which mixing of the relatively warm surface lake water with the colder water below is 

reduced. In such cases, this stratification can cut off oxygen from bottom layers, increasing the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-241 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

risk of oxygen-poor or oxygen-free ‘dead zones’ that kill fish and other living things.” In lakes 

with contaminated sediment, warmer water and low-oxygen conditions can more readily 

mobilize mercury and other persistent pollutants. In cases where increasing quantities of 

contaminants are taken up in the aquatic food chain, there will be additional potential for health 

hazards for species, including humans, that eat fish from the lakes. “Populations of coldwater 

fish, such as brook trout, lake trout, and whitefish, are expected to decline dramatically, while 

populations of coolwater fish such as muskellunge, and warmwater species such as smallmouth 

bass and bluegill, will take their places” (USGCRP 2009). Overall, large declines in trout 

populations are projected to occur around the United States “Over half of the wild trout 

populations are likely to disappear from the southern Appalachian Mountains because of the 

effects of rising stream temperatures. Losses of western trout populations may exceed 

60 percent in certain regions” (USGCRP 2009). Aquatic ecosystem disruptions are likely to be 

compounded by invasions of non-native species that tend to thrive under a wide range of 

environmental conditions. 

 

The environmental factors of significance that could affect estuarine systems include sea level 

rise, temperature increases, salinity changes, and wind and water circulation changes (Kennedy 

1990). Changes in sea level could result in effects to nearshore communities, including the 

reduction or redistribution of submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation, changes in marsh 

communities, and influences to other wetland areas adjacent to nearshore systems. Sea level 

rise may outpace the ability of estuarine systems to migrate, and thus some habitats may be 

lost altogether. Water temperature changes could affect spawning patterns and success, and 

may influence the distribution of important species (e.g., cold water species may move 

northward while the ranges of warm water species expand). Changes in salinity could also 

influence the spawning and distribution of important species and the range of invasive species. 

Fundamental changes in precipitation could influence water circulation, salinity and mixing 

patterns, and change the nature of sediment and nutrient inputs to the system. This could result 

in changes to primary production and influence the estuarine food web. Some fisheries and 

aquaculture enterprises might benefit from climate change while others might suffer 

(Kennedy 1990). However, climate change could increase the frequency of red tide blooms, 

with adverse impacts to many fish species (USFWS and NMFS 2009). 

 

In marine ecosystems, climate change may trigger effects similar to those in estuarine 

ecosystems. Effects may additionally include adverse impacts to corals, clams, shrimp, and 

other organisms with calcium carbonate shells or skeletons due to increased acidity (a sideeffect that occurs when increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations diffuse into the 

oceans); coral bleaching and increases in the rate of disease in corals; and more-frequent 

die-offs of sponges, seagrasses, and other organisms could occur as sea temperatures 

increase (Florida Oceans and Coastal Council 2009). 

 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-242 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

 

Sea level rise and changes in meteorological conditions due to climate change could result in 

the loss of historic and cultural resources due to short-term flooding, erosion, or long-term 

inundation. Due to the differences in timing and rate of climate and sea-level changes, it is 

possible that some resources could be lost before they could be documented or otherwise 

studied. 

 

Socioeconomics 

 

Changes in climate conditions could have an impact on the availability of jobs in certain 

industries. For example, the USGCRP noted that tourism and recreation are major job creators 

in some regions, bringing billions of dollars to regional economies. Across the nation, fishing, 

hunting, skiing, snowmobiling, diving, beach-going, and other outdoor activities make important 

economic contributions and are also a part of tradition. A changing climate would mean 

reduced opportunities for some activities in some locations and expanded opportunities for 

others. Hunting and fishing opportunities will change as animals’ habitats shift and as 

relationships among species are disrupted by their different responses to climate change. 

Water-dependent recreation in areas projected to get drier, such as the Southwest, and beach 

recreation in coastal areas (which are expected to see rising sea levels) will suffer. Some 

regions will see an expansion of the season for warm weather recreation such as hiking and 

bicycle riding, while other areas will see a decline in—or elimination of—cold-weather recreation 

(USGCRP 2009). 

 

Human Health 

 

Increasing temperatures due to changes in climate conditions could have an impact on human 

health. The ranges of disease-carrying insects and animals may expand. At the same time, 

hotter weather may increase the incidence of health-threatening air pollution events 

(USGCRP 2009). This is in addition to the risk to life and property resulting from sea-level rise, 

intense precipitation events, flooding, erosion, and storm surge. Unusually intense storm events 

can also overload drainage systems and water treatment facilities, increasing the risk of 

waterborne diseases (USGCRP 2009). 

 

Environmental Justice 

 

Changes in climate conditions could disproportionately affect minority and low-income 

populations. The USGCRP (2009) indicates that “infants and children, pregnant women, the 

elderly, people with chronic medical conditions, outdoor workers, and people living in poverty 

are especially at risk from a variety of climate-related health effects.” Examples of these effects 

include increased heat stress, air pollution, extreme weather events, and diseases carried by 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-243 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Definition of Cumulative Impact 

The impact on the environment that results 

from the incremental impact of an action 

when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of what agency (Federal or 

non-Federal) or person undertakes such 

other actions. 

food, water, and insects. The greatest health burdens related to climate change are likely to fall 

on the poor, especially those lacking adequate shelter and access to other resources such as 

air conditioning. Elderly people, who are more likely to be poor, are also more likely to have 

debilitating chronic diseases or limited mobility. In addition, the elderly have a reduced ability to 

regulate their own body temperature or sense when they are too hot. According to the 

USGCRP (2009), they “are at greater risk of heart failure, which is further exacerbated when 

cardiac demand increases in order to cool the body during a heat wave.” The USGCRP study 

also found that people taking medications, such as diuretics for high blood pressure, have a 

higher risk of dehydration. 

 

Cumulative Impacts 

 

The USGCRP found that climate change will combine with other social, economic, and 

environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone (USGCRP 

2009). In addition, the cumulative impacts of climate change will be further examined in each 

site-specific SEIS. 

4.13 Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Cumulative impact is defined by the 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 cumulative impact 

analysis is to identify potentially significant impacts to improve decisions and move toward more 

sustainable development (CEQ 1997; EPA 1999). 

The analysis of cumulative impacts focuses on 

resources that could be affected by the 

incremental impacts from continued operations 

and refurbishment of the nuclear power plant 

associated with license renewal. The CEQ 

discusses the assessment of cumulative effects 

in detail in its report entitled, Considering 

Cumulative Effects Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997). On the 

basis of the guidance provided in the CEQ 

report, a cumulative impact analysis would consider the following: 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-244 

• 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 resource area and the distances over 

which an impact may be experienced (e.g., the evaluation of impacts on air quality may 

have a greater regional extent than that of impacts on historic and cultural resources). 

• The time frame for the analysis. The time frame incorporates the sum of the effects of 

license renewal in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions since impacts may accumulate or develop over time. The time frame for future 

actions is the 20-year license renewal term after the end of the original license term. 

Past and present actions include all actions up to and including the time of the license 

renewal application. Future actions are those that are “reasonably foreseeable”; that is, 

they are ongoing (and will continue into the future), are funded for future implementation, 

or are included in firm, near-term plans. Past and present actions are generally 

accounted for in the baseline assessment presented in the affected environment 

sections for each resource area in Chapter 3 of this GEIS. The direct and indirect 

impact analyses present in Chapter 4 address the incremental impacts of license 

renewal. These analyses are carried forward to the cumulative impact analysis, which 

expands the analysis to consider other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. 

• The potential effects of each past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future action. 

Both the license renewal and other actions (related and nonrelated, including trends 

such as global climate change) will generate effects that could contribute to cumulative 

impacts. The impacts of activities associated with the proposed action (license renewal) 

are discussed for each resource area in this chapter. In cases where the contributions 

of activities to an impacting factor are uncertain or not well known, a qualitative 

evaluation is made. 

For some resource areas (e.g., water and aquatic resources), the contributions of ongoing 

actions within a region to 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. 

The following sections describe the environmental resource areas that could be affected by 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that, combined with the effects of the 

proposed license renewal action, could result in cumulative impacts. For the most part, 

environmental conditions in the vicinity of nuclear power plants are not expected to change 

during the license renewal term much beyond what is currently being experienced. Cumulative 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-245 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

impacts are considered a Category 2 issue requiring a plant-specific analysis as part of the 

license renewal environmental review. 

4.13.1 Air Quality 

Regional air quality conditions could deteriorate from the cumulative effects of emissions 

associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable urban, industrial, commercial, 

agricultural, and transportation development. These activities give rise to dust, exhaust, and 

evaporative emissions that degrade air quality. The magnitude of cumulative impacts would 

depend on the location of the nuclear power plant and the number, type, and intensity of 

development within the airshed and its location relative to air quality nonattainment areas. 

4.13.2 Noise 

Noise levels in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant could increase from planned activities 

associated with urban, industrial, and commercial development. The magnitude of cumulative 

impacts would depend on a nuclear plant’s proximity to other noise sources. 

4.13.3 Geology and Soils 

Cumulative impacts on geologic resources relate to issues concerning access to mineral or 

energy resources, destruction of unique geologic features, and mass movement induced by 

construction activities. These impacts typically result from land disturbance activities 

(e.g., earthmoving, blasting, grading, and excavation) associated with urban development, 

industrial and commercial development, water projects, and transportation development. 

Existing land uses may also affect the access to mineral or energy resources. Impacts on soil 

resources relate to increases in the potential for soil erosion, which also occurs as a result of 

land disturbance activities. Vegetation clearing and grading can increase the potential for soil 

erosion in the absence of soil erosion protection measures. The magnitude of cumulative 

impacts would depend on the nature and location of the actions and whether appropriate 

mitigation measures are implemented to reduce the impacts. 

4.13.4 Surface Water Resources 

Cumulative impacts on surface water resources relate to issues concerning water use and 

quality. Impacts typically result from activities (e.g., water withdrawal, effluent discharges, 

accidental spills and releases) associated with urban development, industrial and commercial 

development, agricultural development, water projects (e.g., dredging), and grazing. Shortduration construction projects (e.g., road construction) can also result in surface water impacts if 

they increase soil erosion, which, in turn, increases sediment loading to nearby surface water 

bodies. The magnitude of cumulative impacts would depend on the nature and location of the 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-246 

actions relative to surface water bodies, the number of actions (facilities or projects), and 

whether facilities comply with regulating agency requirements (e.g., permitted discharge limits). 

Perhaps the most important source of surface water impacts is the withdrawal of water for plant 

cooling systems (both once-through and closed-cycle). These impacts relate to water use 

conflicts with other users. Although once-through systems return most of their withdrawn water 

(minus evaporative losses of less than 3 percent), surface water withdrawals for closed-cycle 

cooling systems can have significant impacts. This is because consumptive losses are much 

higher (up to 60 percent), resulting in the return of less water (see Section 4.5). These impacts 

may be greater during times of drought, especially when temperatures are high. 

4.13.5 Groundwater Resources 

Cumulative impacts on groundwater resources relate to issues concerning water use and 

quality. Impacts typically result from the water demands associated with urban, industrial and 

commercial, and agricultural development. Short-duration construction projects could also 

result in groundwater impacts over time (e.g., from spills), unless BMPs (e.g., spill prevention 

and control plans and spill containment measures) are employed. The magnitude of cumulative 

impacts would depend on the number of actions (facilities or projects) that withdraw water from 

the aquifer, the overall demand on the aquifer, the hydrogeologic characteristics of the aquifer, 

and whether facilities follow BMPs to protect groundwater resources from degradation and 

overpumping. 

4.13.6 Ecological Resources 

Cumulative impacts on terrestrial habitats and wildlife include habitat loss and degradation, 

disturbance and displacement, injury and mortality, and obstruction of movement. Impacting 

factors include exposure to elevated noise levels and contaminants, altered surface water and 

groundwater quality and flow patterns, and hazards associated with direct contact with physical 

structures (e.g., bird collisions with buildings and other structures). Adverse impacts typically 

result from activities (e.g., construction) associated with urban sprawl, industrial and commercial 

development, agricultural development, transportation development, water projects, and 

regional tourism and recreation. Migratory species may be affected by activities carried out in 

locations remote from the nuclear plant sites. Plant communities (including floodplain and 

wetland communities) also may be affected by activities (e.g., clearing and grading) associated 

with these actions, creating conditions that favor the encroachment of invasive species. The 

magnitude of cumulative impacts resulting from all actions taking place within the region in 

which a power plant is located would depend on the nature and location of the actions relative to 

important wildlife habitats and plant communities, the number (and density) of actions, and the 

extent to which these actions (facilities or projects) employ mitigation measures to minimize 

such impacts. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-247 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Three scales of cumulative impacts on aquatic resources can be identified: (1) cumulative 

impacts due to the various impacts from an individual power plant (e.g., entrainment, 

impingement, thermal discharges, and chemical discharges), (2) cumulative impacts due to 

closely sited power plants, and (3) cumulative impacts due to multiple activities that affect the 

water body (e.g., dams, agriculture, urban, and industrial development) (York et al. 2005). 

Cumulative impacts on aquatic habitats and species include the (1) loss and degradation of 

habitat; (2) species disturbance, displacement, injury, and mortality; (3) obstruction of 

movement; and (4) the introduction and spread of invasive species. These impacts result from 

activities (e.g., increased water use and discharges to natural water bodies, increased and 

contaminated runoff) associated with urban sprawl; industrial, commercial, agricultural, and 

transportation development; water projects; and regional tourism and recreation. The 

magnitude of cumulative impacts would depend on the nature and location of the actions 

relative to important water bodies, the number (and density) of actions, and the extent to which 

these actions (facilities or projects) employ mitigation measures to minimize such impacts. 

4.13.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

Cumulative impacts on historic and cultural resources relate to the damage or destruction of 

historic and cultural resources (i.e., archaeological sites, historic structures, and traditional 

cultural properties, or their context). These impacts typically result from land disturbance 

(e.g., earthmoving, blasting, grading, and excavation) or maintenance activities associated with 

urban, industrial and commercial, agricultural, and transportation development (e.g., vegetation 

clearing). Such activities may directly damage or destroy cultural artifacts or increase the 

potential for their exposure by accelerating erosion, leaving them vulnerable to theft and 

vandalism. The magnitude of cumulative impacts would depend on the nature and location of 

the actions and whether appropriate mitigation measures (in consultation with the SHPO) are 

implemented. 

4.13.8 Socioeconomics 

Employment and income are generated by the construction and operation of new industries, 

including the construction of new nuclear power plants, which can have a significant cumulative 

socioeconomic effect. Income generated by wages, salaries, and the increased demand for 

services creates additional demand for goods, public services, and housing. Employment in 

new industries increases the size of the population and the demand for public services, housing, 

and transportation. The magnitude of cumulative impacts would depend on the location of the 

existing nuclear power plant subject to license renewal and the number, type, and intensity of 

industrial development within the region of impact. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-248 

4.13.9 Human Health 

Cumulative human health impacts relate to public exposure to radiological, chemical, and 

microbiological hazards and the potentially chronic effects of EMF exposure. Public exposures 

may occur as a result of environmental accumulations of harmful constituents released from 

various facilities associated with urban development, agriculture, and industrial and commercial 

development. The cumulative impacts of EMF exposure, while uncertain, would relate to 

activities (e.g., transmission lines and substations) associated with urban, industrial, and 

commercial development. 

The magnitude of cumulative impacts would depend on the nature and location of the actions, 

the number of actions (facilities or projects), the level of the public’s exposure, and whether 

facilities comply with regulating agency requirements (e.g., permitted discharge limits). 

4.13.10 Environmental Justice 

Cumulative impacts can result when impacts on various individual resources (air, land, water, 

and ecology) combine to produce human health and environmental impacts that could be 

cumulatively high and adverse. Whether these impacts are disproportionately high and adverse 

to minority and low-income populations depends on the unique characteristics of these 

populations residing in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant. Potentially adverse human health 

and environmental impacts from activities associated with industrial, commercial, agricultural, 

and transportation development can affect the resources on which these populations depend 

(e.g., fish, game animals, and native vegetation). 

4.13.11 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention 

Radioactive Waste—There are facilities other than the commercial nuclear power reactors and 

other uranium fuel cycle facilities that generate radioactive waste. Depending on the locations 

of these facilities and the locations of treatment and disposal facilities, there could be cumulative 

impacts resulting from the cumulative effects of transportation, treatment, and disposal 

activities. However, some nuclear power plants are likely to be the only significant generators of 

radioactive waste within the region. As a result, the cumulative impacts from radioactive waste 

management and pollution prevention would be similar to the impact from the overall 

incremental contribution of license renewal, as discussed in Sections 4.11.1 and 4.12.1.1. 

Other Wastes—Waste-generating facilities must comply with Federal and State regulations in 

terms of storage, treatment, and disposal. In addition, facilities must employ procedures that 

ensure the proper handling and storage of wastes and monitoring for releases. 

 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-249 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

4.13.12 Global Climate Change 

 

Global climate change is a global problem resulting from emissions of GHGs both within and 

beyond the region in which a power plant is located. Changes in climate over the license 

renewal term have the potential to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on air and water 

resources, ecological resources, and human health as a consequence of changes in 

precipitation, temperature, frequency and severity of storms, sea level, floods, and droughts. 

Climate change observations and future climate scenarios are documented in reports developed 

by the U.S. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 2013) and Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007). The direction and nature of these changes are 

predicted to vary widely across the country and the regions in which operating nuclear power 

plants exist. Such effects are documented in the U.S. Global Change Research Program state 

of knowledge report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (USGCRP 2009). 

4.14 Resource Commitments Associated with the Proposed 

Action 

This section addresses the resources that would be committed under the proposed action. In 

particular, it describes unavoidable adverse environmental impacts (Section 4.14.1), the 

relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity (Section 4.14.2), and the irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of resources (Section 4.14.3) that would be associated with the proposed action 

(license renewal). Potential unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and irreversible and 

irretrievable resource commitments that would be associated with alternatives to the proposed 

action are also discussed. 

4.14.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are impacts that would occur after implementation 

of all feasible mitigation measures. Continued nuclear power plant operations and the 

implementation of any of the replacement power alternatives considered in this GEIS would 

result in some unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 

The impacts of continued nuclear power plant operations that are anticipated to occur are 

discussed for each resource area in Sections 4.1 through 4.11. Some of these impacts cannot 

be avoided because they are inherently associated with nuclear power plant operations and 

cannot be fully mitigated. Minor unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality would occur due to 

emission and release of various chemical and radiological constituents into the environment 

from plant operations. Nonradiological emissions are expected to comply with EPA emissions 

standards, though the alternative of operating a fossil-fueled power plant in some areas may 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-250 

worsen existing air quality attainment issues. Routine chemical and radiological emissions 

would not exceed the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Other 

unavoidable adverse impacts (depending on the plant) include the impact on land use and 

visual resources, some minor noise effects, surface water and groundwater use, thermal 

effluents emitted to the environment from the power conversion equipment, and entrainment 

and impingement of aquatic organisms in the cooling water system. 

During nuclear power plant operations, workers and members of the public would face 

unavoidable exposure to radiation and hazardous and toxic chemicals, but releases would be 

controlled and the resulting exposures would not exceed any standards or regulatory limits. 

Workers would be exposed to radiation and chemicals associated with routine plant operations 

and the handling of nuclear fuel and waste material. Workers would have a higher risk of 

exposure than members of the public, but doses would be administratively controlled and would 

not exceed any standards or administrative control limits. Construction and operation of 

alternative replacement power energy generating facilities would also result in unavoidable 

exposure to hazardous and toxic chemicals to workers and the general public. 

Also unavoidable would be the generation of spent nuclear fuel and waste material, including 

LLW, hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste. Hazardous and nonhazardous wastes would 

also be generated at non-nuclear power generating facilities. Wastes generated during plant 

operations would be collected, stored, and shipped for suitable treatment, recycling, or disposal 

in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations. Due to the costs of handling these 

materials, power plant operators would be expected to conduct all activities and optimize all 

operations in a way that generates the smallest amount of waste practical. Although pollution 

prevention and waste minimization efforts are intended to prevent emissions to the environment 

and prevent and/or minimize the quantities of waste generated, some waste and emissions 

cannot be entirely eliminated due to current technology. 

Many of these unavoidable impacts are being mitigated by incorporating safety features and/or 

applying operational procedures at the plants and are monitored by the plant owners and State 

agencies. Thermal, entrainment, and impingement impacts at plants with once-through cooling 

water systems are unavoidable. However, these impacts could be reduced by modifying the 

once-through cooling system or by converting to a closed-cycle cooling system. Although 

closed-cycle cooling water systems can reduce thermal, entrainment, and impingement impacts, 

they increase water consumption (through cooling tower evaporation), fogging, icing, and salt 

drift. 

Nuclear power plants being considered for license renewal already exist and have been 

operating for decades. The environmental impacts considered for license renewal are those 

associated with continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment. Replacement 

power and other alternatives to license renewal generally involve major construction impacts. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-251 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Therefore, unavoidable adverse impacts of a replacement power alternative could be greater 

than those associated with the continued operation of an existing nuclear power plant. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts would vary among the nuclear power plants, and the scale of the 

impact would depend on the specific characteristics of each power plant and its interaction with 

the environment. These unavoidable adverse impacts are evaluated in plant-specific SEISs. 

4.14.2 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term 

Productivity 

The operation of power generating facilities would result in short-term uses of the environment 

as described earlier in this Chapter. “Short term” is the period of time during which continued 

power generating activities would take place. 

Power plant operations would necessitate short-term use of the environment and commitments 

of resources and would also commit certain resources (e.g., land and energy) indefinitely or 

permanently. Certain short-term resource commitments would be substantially greater under 

most energy alternatives, including license renewal, than under the no-action alternative due to 

the continued generation of electrical power as well as continued use of generating sites and 

associated infrastructure. During operations, all energy alternatives would entail similar 

relationships between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity. 

Short-term use of the environment can affect long-term productivity of the ecosystem if that use 

alters the ability of the ecosystem to reestablish an equilibrium that is comparable to that of its 

original condition. An initial commitment regarding the trade-off between short-term use and 

long-term productivity at a nuclear power plant was made when the power plant was first 

constructed decades ago. Renewal of the operating license and the continued operation of the 

nuclear power plant would not alter any existing effects on long-term productivity, but they might 

postpone the availability of the power plant site for other uses. The no-action alternative would 

lead to a cessation of operations and shutdown of the power plant (an eventuality regardless of 

whether or not a license is renewed). 

Air emissions from power plant operations would introduce small amounts of radiological and 

nonradiological constituents to the region around the plant site. Over time, these emissions 

could result in increased concentrations and exposure but are not expected to impact air quality 

or radiation exposure to the extent that public health and long-term productivity of the 

environment would be impaired. 

Continued employment, expenditures, and tax revenues generated during power plant 

operations would directly benefit local, regional, and State economies over the short term. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-252 

Local governments investing project-generated tax revenues into infrastructure and other 

required services could enhance economic productivity over the long term. 

The management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, LLW, hazardous waste, and 

nonhazardous waste would require an increase in energy and would consume space at 

treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. Regardless of the location, the use of land to meet 

waste disposal needs would reduce the long-term productivity of the land. 

Power plant facilities would be committed to electricity production over the short term. After 

decommissioning these facilities and restoring the power plant site, the land would become 

available for other productive uses. 

The nature of the relationship between short-term use of the environment and long-term 

productivity would vary among plants and would depend on the specific characteristics of each 

plant and its interaction with the environment. This relationship is evaluated in plant-specific 

SEISs. 

4.14.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources for electrical power generation would 

include the commitment of land, water, energy, raw materials, and other natural and manmade 

resources required for power plant operations during the license renewal term and any 

refurbishment activities that might be carried out that would not otherwise have taken place if 

the operating licenses had not been renewed. This section describes the irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources that have been identified in this GEIS. A commitment of 

resources is irreversible when primary or secondary impacts limit the future options for a 

resource. An irretrievable commitment refers to the use or consumption of resources neither 

renewable nor recoverable for future use. In general, the commitment of capital, energy, labor, 

and material resources would also be irreversible. 

Resources include materials and equipment required for nuclear power plant maintenance and 

operation, energy and water needed to run the plants, the nuclear fuel used by the reactors to 

generate electricity, and the land required to permanently dispose of the radioactive and 

nonradioactive wastes. Some of these resources could be retrieved and reused at the end of 

the license renewal term. For example, some reactor equipment can be used at other reactors 

or can be decontaminated and released for recycling or restricted or unrestricted use by others. 

However, some of the equipment and irradiated components that might be replaced during the 

license renewal term might not be reused or recycled and therefore need to be permanently 

disposed of. In addition, the fossil fuels used by power plants would be permanently lost. Most 

of the water used by power plants relying on once-through cooling is returned to the surface 

water bodies that supply the cooling water. The relatively small portion of the water that 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-253 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

evaporates to the air would be lost to the local water bodies and the region but would be 

returned to the environment as part of the hydrologic cycle, potentially within another watershed. 

For closed-cycle cooling systems, a much larger percent of the water used for cooling would be 

lost to evaporation, but that, too, would be returned as part of the hydrologic cycle. 

The most significant irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources related to nuclear 

power plant operations during the license renewal term would be the nuclear fuel used to 

generate electricity and the land used to dispose and store wastes, including spent nuclear fuel 

generated during the license renewal term. The treatment, storage, and disposal of LLW, 

hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste would require the irretrievable commitment of 

energy and fuel and could result in the irreversible commitment of space in disposal facilities. 

Some of the land used for the disposal of LLW may be available for other uses in a few hundred 

years because of the nearly complete decay of short-lived radionuclides in LLW, but most of the 

land used for the disposal of some mixed or hazardous wastes could be permanently lost to 

other users. 

The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources would not be the same for all nuclear 

power plants and would depend on the specific characteristics of the power plant and its 

resource needs. This commitment is evaluated in plant-specific SEISs. 

The implementation of any of the replacement power alternatives would entail the irreversible 

and irretrievable commitment of energy, water, chemicals, and, in some cases, fossil fuels. 

These resources would be committed over the entire life cycle of the power plant from 

construction, operation, and decommissioning, and would essentially be unrecoverable. 

Energy expended would be in the form of fuel for equipment, vehicles, and power plant 

operations and electricity for power plant construction and facility operations. Electricity and 

fuels would be purchased from offsite commercial sources. Water would be obtained from 

existing water supply systems. These resources are generally available, and the amounts 

required are not expected to deplete available supplies or exceed available system capacities. 

The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of material resources are the materials that 

cannot be recovered or recycled, materials that are rendered radioactive and/or cannot be 

decontaminated, and materials consumed or reduced to unrecoverable forms of waste. 

However, none of the resources used by these alternative replacement power generating 

facilities is in short supply, and, for the most part, readily available. 

 

Various materials and chemicals, including acids and caustics, would be required to support 

operations activities. These materials would be derived from commercial vendors, and their 

consumption is not expected to affect local, regional, or national supplies. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-254 

4.15 References 

7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, “Farmland 

Protection Policy Act.” 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits; 

Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

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

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 63, “Disposal of HighLevel Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” 

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site 

Criteria.” 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 

“Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.” 

40 CFR Part 93. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 93, 

“Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans.” 

40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 125, “Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” 

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-255 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

40 CFR Part 401. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 401, “General Provisions.” 

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

Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

 

58 FR 63214. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Rule for Determining Conformity of 

General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans. November 30, 1993. 

 

67 FR 61. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking of Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Power Plant Operations. January 2, 2002. 

 

68 FR 53696. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Effects of Communication Towers 

on Migratory Birds. 2003. 

 

69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

31 Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions: Final Policy 

Statement. August 24, 2004. 

 

73 FR 53284. Department of Energy; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of a License 

Application for Authority To Construct a Geologic Repository at a Geologic Repository 

Operations Area at Yucca Mountain, Nev. September 15, 2008. 

 

75 FR 17254, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Revisions to the General Conformity 

Regulations; Final Rule. April 5, 2010. 

Able, K.P. 1973. “The Changing Seasons.” American Birds 27:1923. 

AEA Technology (AEA). 2006. “Carbon Footprint of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Briefing Note.” 

Prepared for British Energy. March. 

Ahier, B.A., and B.L. Tracy. 1995. “Radionuclides in the Great Lake Basin.” Environmental 

Health Perspectives 103:89101. 

Aldrich, T.E., and C.E. Easterly. 1987. “Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health.” 

Environmental Health Perspectives 75:159–171. 

Algers, B., and J. Hultgren. 1987. “Effects of Long-Term Exposure to a 400-kV, 50-Hz 

Transmission Line on Estrous and Fertility in Cows.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 5:21–36. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-256 

Allen, E., D. Bucaneg, N. Davis, J. Diamond, M. Layton, J. Klein, N. Nelson, M. Trask, 

D. Vidaver, and R. York. 2004. Resource, Reliability and Environmental Concerns of Aging 

Power Plant Operations and Retirements. Draft Staff White Paper 100-04-005D. California 

Energy Commission, Sacramento, California. August. Available URL: http://www.energy.ca. 

gov/2004_policy_update/documents/2004-08-26_workshop/2004-08-04_100-04-005D.pdf 

(Accessed December 14, 2007). 

Alverson, W.S., D.M. Waller, and S.L. Solheim. 1988. “Forests to Deer: Edge Effects in 

Northern Wisconsin.” Conservation Biology 2:348358. 

Amstutz, H.E., and D.B. Miller. 1980. “A Study of Farm Animals near 765-kV Transmission 

Lines.” Bovine Practitioner 15:51–62. 

Andseta, S., M.J. Thompson, J.P. Jarrell, and D.R. Pendergast. 1998. “CANDU Reactors and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Canadian Nuclear Association, 11th Pacific Basin Nuclear 

Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada, May 1998. Available URL: http://www.computare.org/ 

Support%20documents/Publications/Life%20Cycle.htm (Accessed June 19, 2011). 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 USC 2011 et seq. 

Bamber, R.N., and R.M.H. Seaby. 2004. “The Effects of Power Station Entrainment Passage 

on Three Species of Marine Planktonic Crustacean, Acartia tonsa (Copepoda), Crangon

crangon (Decapoda) and Homarus gammarus (Decapoda).” Marine Environmental Research

57:281–294. 

Bankoske, J.W., et al. 1976. “The Effects of High-Voltage Electric Fields on the Growth and 

Development of Plants and Animals.” Pp. 112–23 in Proceedings of the First National 

Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, January 6–8, 1976. 

R.E. Tillman (ed.), Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Miss. 

Banks, R.C. 1979. Human Related Mortality of Birds in the United States. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report 215, pp. 116. 

Barkley, S.W., and C. Perrin. 1971. “The Effects of the Lake Catherine Steam Electric Plant 

Effluent on the Distribution of Fishes in the Receiving Embayment.” Pp. 384–92 in Proceedings 

of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish 

Commissioners, Columbia, S.C. 

Beitinger, T.L., W.A. Bennett, and R.W. McCauley. 2000. “Temperature Tolerances of North 

American Freshwater Fishes Exposed to Dynamic Changes in Temperature.” Environmental 

Biology of Fishes 58:237–275. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-257 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Bell, J.N.B., M.J. Minski, and H.A. Grogan. 1988. “Plant Uptake of Radionuclides.” Soil Use 

and Management 4(3):7684. 

Beresford, N.A., S.M. Wright, C.L. Barnett, M.D. Wood, S. Gaschak, A. Arkhipov, 

T.G. Sazykina, and B.J. Howard. 2005. “Predicting Radionuclide Transfer to Wild Animals: An 

Application of a Proposed Environmental Assessment Framework to the Chernobyl Exclusion 

Zone.” Radiation and Environmental Biophysics 44:161168. 

Bevanger, K. 1988. “Biological and Conservation Aspects of Bird Mortality Caused by 

Electricity Power Lines: A Review.” Biological Conservation 86:6776. 

Blaylock, B.G., M.L. Frank, and B.R. O’Neal. 1993. Methodology for Estimating Radiation Dose 

Rates to Freshwater Biota Exposed to Radionuclides in the Environment. ES/ER/TM-78. Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory, Tenn. September. 

Bindokas, V.P., et al. 1988. “Mechanisms of Biological Effects Observed in Honey Bees 

(Apis mellifera, L.) Hived under Extra-High-Voltage Transmission Lines: Implications Derived 

from Bee Exposure to Simulated Intense Electric Fields and Shocks.” Bioelectromagnetics

9(3):285–301. 

Blue, R. 1996. “Documentation of Raptor Nests on Electric Utility Facilities Through a Mail 

Survey.” Pp. 8795 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro (eds.). Raptors in Human 

Landscapes: Adaptations to Built and Cultivated Environments. Academic Press, Inc., 

San Diego, Calif. 

Bodensteiner, L.R., and W.M. Lewis. 1992. “Role of Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and 

Backwaters in the Winter Survival of Freshwater Drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) in the 

Mississippi River.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:173–184. 

Bodensteiner, L.R., and W.M. Lewis. 1994. “Downstream Drift of Fishes in the Upper 

Mississippi River during Winter.” Journal of Freshwater Ecology 9(1):45–56. 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 2000. Transmission System Vegetation Management 

Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0285. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Portland, Ore. May. 

Boorman, G.A., C.N. Rafferty, J.M. Ward, and R.C. Sills. 2000. “Leukemia and Lymphoma 

Incidence in Rodents Exposed to Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields.” Radiation Research 

153:627–636. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-258 

Bracken, T.C., and A.L. Gabriel. 1981. Lyons Ozone Instrumentation Program and Data 

Analysis. Laboratory Report No. EL-81-3, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Ore. 

Bramble, W.C., R.H. Yahner, and W.R. Byrnes. 1999. “Effect of Herbicide Maintenance of an 

Electric Transmission Line Right-of-Way on Butterfly Populations.” Journal of Arboriculture

25:302–310. 

Brown, J., S.R. Jones, R. Saxén, H. Thørring, and J. Vives I Batlle. 2004. “Radiation Doses to 

Aquatic Organisms from Natural Radionuclides.” Journal of Radiological Protection

24:A63A77. 

Byus, C.V., S.E. Pieper, and W.R. Adey. 1987. “The Effects of Low-Energy 60-Hz 

Environmental Electromagnetic Field upon the Growth-Related Enzyme Ornithine 

Decarboxylase.” Carcinogenesis 8:1385–1389. 

Cada, G.F., et al. 1981. Effects of Sublethal Entrainment Stresses on the Vulnerability of 

Juvenile Bluegill Sunfish to Predation. ORNL/TM-7801. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak 

Ridge, Tenn. 

Cahill, D.F., J.F. Wright, J.H. Godbold, J.M. Ward, J.W. Laskey, and E.A. Tompkins. 1975. 

“Neoplastic and Life-Span Effects of Chronic Exposure to Tritium. 1. Effects on Adult Rats 

Exposed During Pregnancy.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 55:371374. 

Cairns, J., Jr. 1990. “Lack of Theoretical Basis for Predicting Rate and Pathways of Recovery.” 

Environmental Management 14:517–526. 

California Department of Health Services (CADHS). 2002. An Evaluation of the Possible Risks 

from Electric and Magnetic Field (EMF) from Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical 

Occupations and Appliances. California EMF Program. Available URL: www.dhs.ca.gov/ehib/ 

emf/RiskEvaluation/riskeval.html (Accessed September 19, 2007). 

Canfield, J.E. 1988. Impact Mitigation and Monitoring of the BPA 500-kV Garrison-Taft 

Transmission Line—Effects on Elk Security and Hunter Opportunity: Final Report Prepared for 

Bonneville Power Administration. DOE/BP-1136. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks, Helena, Mont. 

Carpenter, E.J., B.B. Peck, and S.J. Anderson. 1974. “Survival of Copepods Passing through a 

Nuclear Power Station on Northeastern Long Island Sound, USA.” Marine Biology 24:49–55. 

Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. 42 USC 7401 et seq. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-259 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

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

Constellation Energy Group (CEG). 2003. Annual Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and the Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Installation. Lusby, Md. 

Constellation Energy Group (CEG). 2004. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 2004 

Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Docket Nos. 50-220, 50-410, Lycoming, 

N.Y. 

Consumers Energy Company and Nuclear Management Company, LLC. 2001. Palisades 

Nuclear Plant Biological Assessment of the 1999 Cooling Water Flow Increase at the Palisades 

Plant, near South Haven, Michigan. Consumers Energy Company, Jackson, Michigan, and 

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Covert, Michigan. May. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. January. 

Coutant, C.C. 1981. A Critical Review of Aquatic Ecological Effects of Power Plant Cooling. 

U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Health and Environmental Research, Washington, D.C. 

Coutant, C.C. 1987. “Thermal Preference: When Does an Asset Become a Liability?” 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 18(3):161–72. 

Crawford, R.L., and R.T. Engstrom. 2001. “Characteristics of Avian Mortality at a North Florida 

Television Tower: A 29-Year Study.” Journal of Field Ornithology 72:380388. 

Crooks, K.R. 2002. “Relative Sensitivities of Mammalian Carnivores to Habitat Fragmentation.” 

Conservation Biology 16:488–502. 

Crooks, K.R., and M.E. Soulé. 1999. “Mesopredator Release and Avifaunal Extinctions in a 

Fragmented System.” Nature 400:563–566. 

Diaz, R.J. 1994. “Response of Tidal Freshwater Macrobenthos to Sediment Disturbance.” 

Hydrobiologia 278:201212. 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut (DNC). 2004. Millstone Power Station Units 1, 2, and 3 2004 

Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-336, 50-423, 

Waterford, Conn. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-260 

Draper, G., T. Vincent, M.E. Kroll, and J. Swanson. 2005. “Childhood Cancer in Relation to 

Distance from High Voltage Power Lines in England and Wales: A Case-Control Study.” 

BMJ, Vol. 330. June 4. Available URL: http://bmj.com.cgi/content/full/330/7503/1290 

(Accessed September 2007). 

Easterly, C.E. 1981. “Cancer Link to Magnetic Fields: A Hypothesis.” American Journal of 

Epidemiology 114(2):169–173. 

Eisler, R. 1994. Radiation Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Syntopic Review. 

Biological Report 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, 

D.C. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). 16 USC 15311544. 

Energy Northwest. 2005. Columbia Generating Station 2005 Annual Radiological 

Environmental Operating Report. Richland, Va. 

Energy Policy Act of 1992. P.L. 102-486, October 24, 1992. 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. P.L. 109-058, August 8, 2005. 

Entergy. 2003. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 2003 Annual Radiological 

Environmental Operating Report. Docket No. 50-271. Brattleboro, Vt. 

Entergy. 2006a. Arkansas Nuclear One—Units 1 and 2 Annual Radiological Environmental 

Operating Report for 2006. Russellville, Ark. 

Entergy. 2006b. Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants Units 1, 2, and 3 Annual Radiological 

Environmental Operating Report for 2006. Docket Nos. 50-3, 50-247, 50-286. Buchanan, N.Y. 

Environmental Incorporated Midwest Laboratory (EIML). 2005. Radiological Environmental 

Monitoring Program (REMP) for the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. Project No. 8006. Two 

Rivers, Wis. 

Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, K.J. Sernka, and R.E. Good. 2001. Avian 

Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other 

Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating 

Committee Resource Document. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyo. 

August. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-261 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR). 2003. Recommendations of the European 

Committee on Radiation Risk, Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for 

Radiation Protection Purposes. Brussels, Belgium. 

Evans, D.R., and J.E. Gates. 1997. “Cowbird Selection of Breeding Areas: The Role of Habitat 

and Bird Species Abundance.” Wilson Bulletin 109:470–480. 

Evans, M.S., G.J. Warren, and D.I. Page. 1986. “The Effects of Power Plant Passage on 

Zooplankton Mortalities: Eight Years of Study at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant.” Water 

Research 20(6):725–734. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2001a. Applicant’s Environmental Report 

Operating License Renewal Stage Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. Kennett Square, Penn. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2001b. Letter from James D. von Suskil, Site Vice 

President, Braidwood Generating Station to U.S. NRC, Document control Desk. Subject: 

Environmental Non-Routine Event Report for Exelon Generation Company, LLC—Braidwood 

Station. August 20. ADAMS no. ML012390121. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2001c. Letter from William Riffer, Regulatory 

Assurance Manager, LaSalle County Station to U.S. NRC, Document control Desk. Subject: 

Environmental Non-Routine Event Report for Exelon Generation Company, LLC—LaSalle 

County Station. August 17. ADAMS no. ML01230070. 

Exelon Generating Company, LLC (Exelon). 2003. Applicant’s Environmental Report 

Operating License Renewal Stage, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3. Docket 

Nos. 50-237 and 50-249. Warrenville, Ill. January. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2005. Letter from Gregory A. Boerschig, Plant 

Manager, Braidwood Generating Station to U.S. NRC, Document control Desk. Subject: 

Environmental Non-Routine Event Report for Exelon Generation Company, LLC—Braidwood 

Station. August 28. ADAMS No. ML052160140. 

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA). 7 USC 4201 et seq. 

Fairbanks, R.B., and R.P Lawton. 1977. “Occurrence of Large Striped Mullet, Mugil cephalus, 

in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts.” Chesapeake Science 18:309310. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended (FIFRA). 7 USC 135 et seq. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-262 

Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. 2009. The Effects of Climate Change on Florida’s Ocean 

& Coastal Resources. Florida Oceans and Coastal Council, Tallahassee, Fla. Available URL: 

http://www.floridaoceanscouncil.org/reports/Climate_Change_Report.pdf (Accessed February 3, 

2011). 

Florida Power & Light Company (FPL). 2000. Applicant’s Environmental Report—Operating 

License Renewal Stage Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. Miami, Fla. 

Fox, J.L., and M.S. Moyer. 1973. “Some Effects of a Power Plant on Marine Microbiota.” 

Chesapeake Science 14(1):1–10. 

Fritsche, U.R. 2006. Comparison of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Cost of 

Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life-Cycle Perspective. Oko-Institut, Darmstadt 

Office. January. Available URL: http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/315/2006-017-en.pdf (Accessed 

June 19, 2011). 

 

Fthenakis, V.M., and H.C. Kim. 2007. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Solar Electric and 

Nuclear Power: A Life Cycle Study.” Energy Policy 35(4): 2549–2557. 

Fthenakis, V.M., H.C. Kim, and M. Alsema. 2008. “Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles.” 

Environmental Science and Technology 42:2168–2174. 

Gagnon, L., C. Belanger, Y. Uchiyama. 2002. “Lifecycle Assessment of Electricity Generation 

Options: The Status of Research in Year 2001.” Energy Policy 30:1267–1278. 

Gibbs, J.P. 1998. “Distribution of Woodland Amphibians along a Forest Fragmentation 

Gradient.” Landscape Ecology 13:263–268. 

Gilmer, D.S., and R.E. Stewart. 1983. “Ferruginous Hawk Populations and Habitat Use in 

North Dakota.” Journal of Wildlife Management 47:146–157. 

Goodman, R., and A.S. Henderson. 1986. “Sine Waves Enhance Cellular Transcription.” 

Bioelectromagnetics 7(1):23–29. 

Goodman, R., and A.S. Henderson. 1988. “Exposure of Salivary Gland Cells to LowFrequency Electromagnetic Fields Alters Polypeptide Synthesis.” Proceedings of the National 

Academy Science 85:3928–3932. 

Goodman, R., J. Abbott, and A.S. Henderson. 1987. “Transcriptional Patterns in the 

X Chromosome of Sciara coprophilia Following Exposure to Magnetic Fields.” 

Bioelectromagnetics 8(1):1–7. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-263 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Gray, R.H., T.L. Page, and M.G. Saroglia. 1983. “Behavioral Response of Carp, Cyprinus 

carpio, and Black Bullhead, Ictalurus melas, from Italy to Gas Supersaturated Water.” 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 8:163167. 

Greenberg, B., et al. 1985. Extra-High Voltage Transmission Lines: Mechanisms of Biological 

Effects on Honeybees. EPRI EA-4218. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif. 

Guerra-García, J.M., J. Corzo, and J. García-Gomez. 2003. “Short-Term Benthic 

Recolonization after Dredging in the Harbour of Ceuta, North Africa.” Marine Ecology

24:217229. 

Gunter, L., P. Gunter, S. Cullen, and N. Burton. 2001. Licensed to Kill: How the Nuclear 

Power Industry Destroys Endangered Marine Wildlife and Ocean Habitat to Save Money. 

Prepared by Safe Energy Communication Council, Washington, D.C.; Nuclear Information and 

Resource Service, Washington, D.C.; Standing for Truth About Radiation, East Hampton, New 

York; and Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C. 

Hagen, R.E., J.R. Moens, and Z.D. Nikodem. 2001. Impact of U.S. Nuclear Generation on 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, November. 

Available URL: http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/ghg.pdf (Accessed June 19, 

2011). 

Hall, C.A.S., R. Howarth, B. Moore, III, and C.J. Vorosmarty. 1978. “Environmental Impacts of 

Industrial Energy Systems in the Coastal Zone.” Annual Review of Energy 3:395–475. 

Hallenbeck, W.H., and G.R. Brenniman. 1989. “Risk of Fatal Amoebic Meningoencephalitis 

from Waterborne Naegleria fowleri.” Environmental Management 13(2):227–232. 

Harness, R.E., and K.R. Wilson. 2001. “Electric-Utility Structures Associated with Raptor 

Electrocutions in Rural Areas.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:612623. 

Harrison, F.L. 1985. “Effect of Physiochemical Form on Copper Availability to Aquatic 

Organisms.” In R.D. Cardwell et al., eds., Seventh Symposium on Aquatic Toxicology and 

Hazard Assessment. ASTM STP 854. American Society for Testing and Materials, 

Philadelphia, Penn. 

Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention (HCCP). 2007. Electromagnetic Fields. Available URL: 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cancer/resources_materials/reports/HCCPreport_1electro.htm 

(Accessed October 10, 2007). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-264 

Haynes, J.M., and J.C. Makarewicz. 1982. “Comparison of Benthic Communities in Dredged 

and Undredged Areas of the St. Lawrence River, Cape Vincent, N.Y.” Ohio Journal of Science

82:165170. 

Henderson, P.A., and R.M.H. Seaby. 2000. Technical Evaluation of U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Proposed Cooling Water Intake Regulations for New Facilities. Pices 

Conservation Ltd., Lymington, England. 

Henderson, P.A., R.M.H. Seaby, and J.R. Somes. 2003. A Comparison of Ecological Impacts 

of Power Plant Once-through, Evaporative and Dry Cooling Systems on Fish Impingement and 

Entrainment. Pisces Conservation Ltd., Lymington, England. May. Available URL: 

http://www.riverkeeper.org/document.php/135/Appendix_B_Pis.pdf (Accessed 

November 27, 2007). 

Hinton, T.G., M. McDonald, Y. Ivanov, N. Arkhipov, and A. Arkhipov. 1996. “Foliar Absorption 

of Resuspended 137Cs Relative to Other Pathways of Plant Contamination.” Journal of 

Environmental Radioactivity 30(4):1530. 

Hinton, T.G., C.M. Bell, F.W. Whicker, and T. Philippi. 1999. “Temporal Changes and Factors 

Influencing 137Cs Concentration in Vegetation Colonizing an Exposed Lake Bed over a ThreeYear Period.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 44:119. 

Hitchcock, D.R., C.D. Barton, K.T. Rebel, J. Singer, J.C. Seaman, J.D. Strawbridge, S.J. Riha, 

and J.I. Blake. 2005. “A Containment and Disposition Strategy for Tritium-Contaminated 

Groundwater at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina, United States.” Environmental 

Geosciences 12(1):1728. 

Indiana Michigan Power (IMP). 2006. Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2006. Docket Nos. 50-315, 50-316. 

Bridgman, Mich. 

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). 2007. National Electrical Safety 

Code. New York, N.Y. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, 

M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, New York. Available URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/ 

publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_

science_basis.htm (Accessed June 19, 2011). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-265 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2011. Special Report on Renewable 

Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, N.Y. 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2002. “Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: 

Static and Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Field.” IARC Monographs on 

the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 80:1–429. 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and 

Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report 

No. 332. Vienna, Austria. 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2000. “Nuclear Power for Greenhouse Gas 

Mitigation under the Kyoto Protocol: The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM),” November 

2000. Available URL: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/GreenhouseGas/ 

greenhousegas.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2011). 

International Radiation Protection Association/International Non-Ionizing Radiation Commission 

(IRPA/INIRC). 1990. “Interim Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to 50/60 Hz Electric and 

Magnetic Fields.” Health Physics 58(1):113–1122. 

Janes, D.E. 1980. Evaluation of Health and Environmental Effects of Extra-High-Voltage (EHV) 

Transmission. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs. 

Janss, G.F.E. 2000. “Avian Mortality from Power Lines: A Morphological Approach of SpeciesSpecific Mortality.” Biological Conservation 95:353359. 

Jinks, S. 2005. “A Review of Impingement Survival Studies at Steam-Electric Power Stations.” 

Pp. 219–241 in EPA 625-C-05-002, Proceedings Report Symposium on Cooling Water Intake 

Technologies to Protect Aquatic Organisms, Hilton Crystal City at National Airport, Arlington, 

Virginia, May 6–7, 2003. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625c05002/ 

proceedings.pdf (Accessed February 16, 2012). 

Johnson, W.C., R.K. Schreiber, and R.L. Burgess. 1979. “Diversity of Small Mammals in a 

Powerline Right-of-Way and Adjacent Forest in East Tennessee.” American Midland Naturalist

101:231235. 

Joint Resolution 87 Approving the Site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the Development of a 

Repository for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel, pursuant 

to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 2002. Public Law 107-200. 116 Stat. 735. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-266 

Kaplan, D.I., T.G. Hinton, and A.S. Knox. 2005. “Cesium-137 Partitioning to Wetland 

Sediments and Uptake by Plants.” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

264(2):393399. 

Kaplan, E.H., J.R. Welker, M.G. Kraus, and S. McCourt. 1975. “Some Factors Affecting the 

Colonization of a Dredged Channel.” Marine Biology 32:193204. 

Keepin, B. 1988. “Greenhouse Warming: Efficient Solution of Nuclear Nemesis?,” Rocky 

Mountain Institute, Joint Hearing on Technologies for Remediating Global Warming, 

Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment and 

Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 

June 1988. Available URL: http://old.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E88-

28_GreenhouseWmg.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2011). 

Kelsey-Wall, A., J.C. Seaman, C.H. Jagoe, C.E. Dallas, K.F. Gaines. 2005. “Rodents as 

Receptor Species at a Tritium Disposal Site.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity

82:95104. 

Kelso, J.R., and G.S. Milburn. 1979. “Entrainment and Impingement of Fish by Power Plants in 

the Great Lakes Which Use the Once-Through Cooling Process.” Journal of Great Lakes 

Research 5(2):182–194. 

Kemper, C. 1996. “A Study of Bird Mortality at a West Central Wisconsin TV Tower from 

19571995.” The Passenger Pigeon 58:219235. 

Kennedy, V.S. 1990. “Anticipated Effects of Climate Change on Estuarine and Coastal Fishes,” 

Fisheries, 15:16–24. 

 

Kennish, M.J., et al. 1984. “Anthropogenic Effects on Aquatic Communities.” Pp. 318–38 in 

M.J. Kennish and R.A. Lutz, eds., Ecology of Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Springer-Verlag, 

New York. 

Kheifets, L., M. Repacholi, R. Saunders, and E. van Deventer. 2005. “The Sensitivity of 

Children to Electromagnetic Fields.” Pediatrics 116(2). August. Available URL: 

www.pediatrics.org (Accessed September 20, 2007). 

King, D.I., and B.E. Byers. 2002. “An Evaluation of Powerline Rights-of-Way as Habitat for 

Early Successional Shrubland Birds.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:868–874. 

Klem, D., Jr. 1990. “Bird Injuries, Cause of Death, and Recuperation from Collisions with 

Windows.” Journal of Field Ornithology 61:115119. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-267 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Kroodsma, R.L. 1984. “Effects of Power-Line Corridors on the Density and Diversity of Bird 

Communities in Forested Areas.” Pages 551–61 in A.F. Crabtree, ed., Proceedings of the 

Third International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, 

San Diego, California, February 15–18, 1982. Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, 

Miss. 

Kroodsma, R.L. 1987. “Edge Effect on Breeding Birds Along Power-Line Corridors in East 

Tennessee.” American Midland Naturalist 118:275–83. 

Kryshev, I.I., and T.G. Sazykina. 1998. “Radioecological Effects on Aquatic Organisms in the 

Areas with High Levels of Radioactive Contamination: Environmental Protection Criteria.” 

Radiation Protection Dosimetry 75:187191. 

Laist, D.W., and J.E. Reynolds, III. 2005. “Influence of Power Plants and Other Warm-Water 

Refuges on Florida Manatees.” Marine Mammal Science 21(4):739–764. 

LaJeone, L.J., and R.G. Monzingo. 2000. “316(b) and Quad Cities Station, Commonwealth 

Edison Company.” Environmental Science & Policy 3:S313–S322. 

Langford, T.E. 1975. “The Emergence of Insect from a British River, Warmed by Power Station 

Cooling-Water. Part II: The Emergence Patterns of Some Species of Ephemeroptera, 

Trichoptera and Megaloptera in Relation to Water Temperature and River Flow, Upstream and 

Downstream of the Cooling-Water Outfalls.” Hydrobiologia 47(1):91–133. 

Langford, T.E. 1983. Electricity Generation and the Ecology of Natural Waters. Liverpool 

University Press, Liverpool, England. 

Larkin, R.P., and B.A. Frase. 1988. “Circular Paths of Birds Flying near a Broadcasting Tower 

in Cloud.” Journal of Comparative Physiology 102:9093. 

Lee, G.F., and P.H. Martin. 1975. “Dissolved Gas Supersaturation and Dilution in Thermal 

Plumes from Steam Electric Generating Stations.” Water Research 9:643648. 

Lee, J.M., Jr. 1980. “Raptors and the BPA Transmission System.” Pp. 41–55 in R.P. Howard 

and J.F. Gore, eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on Raptors and Energy Developments, 

Boise, Idaho, January 25–26, 1980. Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Idaho Power Company, and the Idaho Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-268 

Lee, J.M., Jr., V.L. Chartier, D.P. Hartmann, G.E. Lee, K.S. Pierce, F.L. Shon, R.D. Stearns, 

and M.T. Zeckmeister. 1989. Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A 

Review. DOE/BP-945. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, 

Ore. June. 

Lieberman, J.T., and P.H. Muessio. 1978. “Evaluation of an Air Bubbler to Mitigate Fish 

Impingement at an Electric Generating Plant.” Estuaries 1(2):129–132. 

Maes, J., A.W.H. Turnpenny, D.R. Lambert, J.R. Nedwell, A. Parmentier, and F. Ollevier. 2004. 

“Field Evaluation of a Sound System to reduce Estuarine Fish Intake Rates at a Power Plant 

Cooling Water Inlet.” Journal of Fish Biology 64:938–946. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. 16 USC 1801 et seq. 

Manville, A.M., II. 2005. “Bird Strikes and Electrocutions at Power Lines, Communication 

Towers, and Wind Turbines: State of the Art and State of the Science—Next Steps Toward 

Mitigation, Bird Conservation Implementation in the Americas.” Pp. 10511064 in C.J. Ralph 

and T.D. Rich, eds., Proceedings of the 3rd International Partners in Flight Conference 2002. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Albany, Calif. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). 16 USC 1361 et seq. 

Marino, A.A., et al. 1983. “Weak Electric Fields Affect Plant Development.” IEEE Transactions 

on Biomedical Engineering BME30(12):833–834. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2003. The Future of Nuclear Power: An 

Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Available URL: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpowersummary.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2011). 

Marshall, J.S., and L.W. Vandruff. 2002. “Impact of Selective Herbicide Right-of-Way 

Vegetation Treatment on Birds.” Environmental Management 30(6):801–806. 

McCormick, S.D., R.A. Cunjak, B. Dempson, M.F. O’Dea, and J.B. Carey. 1999. 

“Temperature-Related Loss of Smolt Characteristics in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the 

Wild.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:1649–1658. 

McInerny, M.C. 1990. “Gas-Bubble Disease in Three Fish Species Inhabiting the Heated 

Discharge of a Steam-Electric Station Using Hypolimnetic Cooling Water.” Water, Air, and Soil 

Pollution 49:715. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-269 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

McLean, R., W.A. Richkus, S.P. Schreiner, and D. Fluke. 2002. Maryland Power Plant Cooling 

Water Intake Regulations and Their Application in Evaluation of Adverse Environmental Impact. 

Maryland Power Plant Research Program PPRP-127. Available URL: http://esm.vesar.com/ 

PPRP/316/PPRP-127.pdf (Accessed May 10, 2007). 

Meyer, S.W., and S.M. Pegula. 2006. Injuries, Illness, and Fatalities in the Construction 

Industry, 2004. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. 

May 24. Available URL: http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/print/sh20060519ar01p1.htm (Accessed 

October 15, 2007). 

Meyers-Schone, L., and B.T. Walton. 1990. Comparison of Two Freshwater Turtle Species as 

Monitors of Environmental Contamination. ORNL/TM-11460, Environmental Sciences Division 

Publication No. 3454. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 16 USC 703-712.

Miller, M.W. 1983. “Biological Effects from Exposure to Transmission Line Electromagnetic 

Fields.” International Right of Way Association 30(3):8–15. 

Mitchell, C.A., and J. Carlson. 1993. “Lesser Scaup Forage on Zebra Mussels at Cook Nuclear 

Plant, Michigan.” Journal of Field Ornithology 64:219222. 

Morrow, J.V., and J.C. Fischenich. 2000. Habitat Requirements for Freshwater Fishes. 

EMRRP Technical Notes Collection, ERDC TN-EMRRPSR-06. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Miss. May. Available URL: 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr06.pdf. (Accessed November 12, 2007). 

Mortimer, N. 1990. “World Warms to Nuclear Power.” SCRAM Safe Energy Journal, 

December 1989 and January 1990. Available URL: http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/ 

articles/mortimer_se74.php (Accessed June 19, 2011). 

Nagasawa, H., J.B. Little, W.C. Inkret, S. Carpenter, K. Thompson, M.R. Raju, D.J. Chen, and 

G.F. Strniste. 1990. “Cytogenetic Effects of Extremely Low Doses of Plutonium-238 Alphaparticle Irradiation in CHO K-1 Cells.” Mutation Research 244:233238. 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. 

Washington, D.C. 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1991. Effects of Ionizing 

Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109. Bethesda, Md. August. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-270 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 2006. Cesium-137 in 

the Environment: Radioecology and Approaches to Assessment and Management, 

Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. NCRP 

Report No. 154. Bethesda, Md. November. 

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2006. Emerging Issues for Fossil Energy and 

Water. DOE/NETL-2006/1233. U.S. Department of Energy. June. Available URL: 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/AP/IssuesforFEandWater.pdf 

(Accessed November 15, 2007). 

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2007. Cost and Performance Baseline for 

Fossil Energy Plants, Vol. 1, Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity. DOE/NETL 

2007/1281, Final Report. U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh, Penn. May. Available URL: 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Bituminous%20Baseline_Final%20Report.pdf 

(Accessed February 10, 2011). 

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

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA). 16 USC 470 et seq. 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health 

Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. NIH Publication 

No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 2002. EMF Electric and 

Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power, Questions & Answers. EMF RAPID 

Program Report. June. 

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2013. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 

142-9: Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, 

Part 3. Climate of the Contiguous United States. K.E. Kunkel, L.E. Stevens, S.E. Stevens, 

L. Sun, E. Janssen, D. Wuebbles, and J.G. Dobson, Washington, D.C. Available URL: 

http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/technical_reports/NOAA_NESDIS_Tech_Report_142-9-

Climate_of_the_Contiguous_United_States.pdf (Accessed January 14, 2013). 

National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). 2001. “Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of 

Cancer.” Documents of the NRPB 12(1). Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire, England. 

National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). 2004. “Review of the Scientific Evidence for 

Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Field.” Documents of the NRPB 12(3). Chilton, Didcot, 

Oxfordshire, England. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-271 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2003. Highlights of Biopower Technical 

Assessment: State of the Industry and the Technology. NREL/TP-510-33502. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Golden, Colo. April. Available URL: http://www.nrel.gov/ 

docs/fy03osti/33502.pdf (Accessed October 18, 2007). 

National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles Causes and Prevention. National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

Nebeker, A.V. 1971. “Effect of High Winter Water Temperatures on Adult Emergence of 

Aquatic Insects.” Water Resources 5:777–783. 

Nebeker, A.V., F.D. Baker, and S.L. Weitz. 1981. “Survival and Adult Emergence of Aquatic 

Insects in Air-Supersaturated Water.” Journal of Freshwater Ecology 1:243250. 

Nichols, S.R. 1981. “Effect of Thermal Effluents on Oligochaetes in Keowee Reservoir, South 

Carolina.” Hydrobiologia 79:129–136. 

Nichols, M., R.J. Diaz, and L.C. Schaffner. 1990. “Effects of Hopper Dredging and Sediment 

Dispersion, Chesapeake Bay.” Environmental Geology and Water Science 15:3143. 

Niemi, G.J., and J.M. Hanowski. 1984. “Effects of a Transmission Line on Bird Populations in 

the Red Lake Peatland, Northern Minnesota.” Auk 101:487–98. 

Noga, E.J. 2000. Fish Disease: Diagnosis and Treatment. Iowa State University Press, Ames, 

Iowa, pp. 7577. 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act. (1990). 16 USC 4701. 

Nuclear Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 

(NEA and OECD). 2002. Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto Protocol. Available URL: 

http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2002/nea3808-kyoto.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2011). 

Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC). 1990. Survey of U.S. Utility-Owned 

Nuclear Power Plants. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., and NUMARC, 

Washington, D.C. June. 

Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2004. Palisades Nuclear Plant 2004 Radiological 

Environmental Operating Report. Docket No. 50-255. Covert, Mich. 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). 42 USC 10101 et seq. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-272 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). 1997. Renewable Energy 

Technology Characterizations. Topical Report TR-109496. U.S. Department of Energy, Office 

of Utility Technologies, Washington, D.C. December. Available URL: http://www1.eere. 

energy.gov/ba/pba/tech_characterizations.html (Accessed November 12, 2007). 

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1989. Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric 

and Magnetic Fields, Background Paper. OTA-BP-E-53. U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C. 

Omaha Public Power District (OPPD). 2004. Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 2004 Radiological 

Environmental Operating Report. License No. DPR-40. 

Parametrix, Inc. 1975. Resource and Literature Review: Dissolved Gas Supersaturation and 

Gas Bubble Disease, 1975. Report #75-0815-042FR. Submitted by Parametrix, Inc., 

Environmental Services Section, Seattle, Wash., to Northwest Utility Cooperative, Boise, Idaho. 

Parkhurst, M.A., L. A. Rathbun, and D.W. Murphy. 1983. Radiological Assessment of Steam 

Generator Repair and Replacement. NUREG/CR-3540. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

December. 

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). 2006. “Carbon Footprint of Electricity 

Generation,” Postnote, Number 268. October. Available URL: http://www.parliament.uk/ 

documents/post/postpn268.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2011). 

Parsch, L.D., and M.D. Norman. 1986. “Impact of Powerlines on Crop Yields in Eastern 

Arkansas.” Arkansas Farm Research, September–October. 

Paton, P.W. 1994. “The Effect of Edge on Avian Nest Success: How Strong Is the Evidence?” 

Conservation Biology 8:17–26. 

Patrick, R., J. Palms, D. Kreeger, and C. Harris. 2007. “Twenty-Five-Year Study of 

Radionuclides in the Susquehanna River via Periphyton Biomonitors.” Health Physics 

92(1):1–9. 

Pehnt, M., 2006. “Dynamic Lifecycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Technologies.” 

Renewable Energy 31:55–71. 

Petersen, W., E. Willer, and C. Williamowski. 1997. “Remobilization of Trace Elements from 

Polluted Anoxic Sediments After Resuspension in Oxic Water.” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

99:515522. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-273 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Pinder, J.E. III, T.G. Hinton, and F.W. Whicker. 2006. “Foliar Uptake of Cesium from the Water 

Column by Aquatic Macrophytes.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 85:2347. 

Poznaniak, D.T., and T.J. Reed. 1978. “Recent Studies Examining the Biological Effects of 

UHV Transmission Line Ground Gradients.” Proceedings of the American Power Conference

40:1272–1284. 

Ramsdell, Jr., J.V., et al. 2001. Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel Burnup Above 

60 GWd/MTU. NUREG/CR-6703, PNNL-13257. Prepared by Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory, Richland, Wash., for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. January. 

Real, A., S. Sundell-Bergman, J.F. Knowles, D.S. Woodhead, and I. Zinger. 2004. “Effects of 

Ionizing Radiation Exposure on Plants, Fish, and Mammals: Relevant Data for Environmental 

Radiation Protection.” Journal of Radiological Protection 24:A123A137. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 1976. 42 USC 6901 et seq. 

Richards, B.R., et al. 1984. “Shipworms.” Pp. 201–25 in M.J. Kennish and R.A. Lutz, eds., 

Ecology of Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Robinson, S.K., et al. 1995. “Regional Forest Fragmentation and the Nesting Success of 

Migratory Birds.” Science 31:1987–1990. 

Rogers, L., and R. Hinds. 1983. Environmental Studies for a 1100-kV Power Line in Oregon. 

Prepared by Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, for Bonneville 

Power Administration. 

Rogers, L.E., et al. 1984. Environmental Studies of a 1100-kV Prototype Transmission Line—

Effects on Trees Growing Below the Line, An Annual Report for the 1984 Study Period. 

Prepared by Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, for Bonneville 

Power Administration. 

Romberg, G.P., et al. 1974. “Fish Behavior at a Thermal Discharge into Lake Michigan.” 

Pp. 296–312 in J. W. Gibbons and R. R. Sharitz, eds., Thermal Ecology. CONF-730505. 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 

Roosenburg, W.H. 1969. “Greening and Copper Accumulation in the American Oyster, 

Crassostrea virginica, in the Vicinity of a Steam Electric Generating Station.” Chesapeake 

Science 10:41252. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-274 

Ross, Q.E., D.J. Dunning, R. Thorne, J.K. Menezes, G.W. Tiller, and J.K. Watson. 1993. 

“Responses of Alewives to High-frequency Sound at a Power Plant Intake on Lake Ontario.” 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:291–303. 

Ross, Q.E., D.J. Dunning, J.K. Menezes, M.K. Kenna, Jr., and G. Tiller. 1996. “Reducing 

Impingement of Alewives with High-Frequency Sound at a Power Plant Intake on Lake Ontario.” 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:548–559. 

Rothermel, B.B. 2004. “Migratory Success of Juveniles: A Potential Constraint on Connectivity 

for Pond-Breeding Amphibians.” Ecological Applications 14:1535–1546. 

Sackschewsky, M.R. 2004. Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating 

Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. January. 

Sahl, J.D., et al. 2002. “Occupational Magnetic Field Exposure and Cardiovascular Mortality in 

a Cohort of Electric Utility Workers.” American Journal of Epidemiology 156:913–918. 

Sahr, T., G. Voight, W. Schimmack, H.G. Paretzke, and D. Ernst. 2005. “Low-Level 

Radiocaesium Exposure Alters Gene Expression in Roots of Arabidopsis.” New Phytologist

168:141148. 

Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules. 1991. “Biological Consequences of 

Ecosystem Fragmentation: A Review.” Conservation Biology 5:1832. 

Schneider, M. 2000. Climate Change and Nuclear Power, World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 

April 2000. Available URL: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/fullnuclearreprotwwf.pdf 

(Accessed June 19, 2011). 

Schreiber, R.K., et al. 1976. “Effects of Power Line Rights-of-Way on Small Nongame Mammal 

Community Structure.” Pp. 264–273 in R.E. Tillman, ed., Proceedings of the First National 

Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, January 6–8, 1976. 

Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Miss. 

Schubel, J.R., C.F. Smith, and T.S. Koo. 1977. “Thermal Effects of Power Plant Entrainment 

on Survival of Larval Fishes: A Laboratory Assessment.” Chesapeake Science 18(3):290–298. 

Scott-Walton, B., et al. 1979. Potential Environmental Effects of 765-kV Transmission Lines: 

Views Before the New York State Public Service Commission, Cases 26529 and 26559, 1976–

1978. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-275 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Sergio, F., L. Marchesi, P. Pedrini, M. Ferrer, and V. Penteriani. 2004. “Electrocution Alters the 

Distribution and Density of a Top Predator, the Eagle Owl Bubo bubo.” Journal of Applied 

Ecology 41:836845. 

Solley, W.B., R.R. Pierce, and H.A. Perlman. 1998. Estimated Use of Water in the 

United States in 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200. Available URL: 

http://onlinepubs.er.usgs.gov/djvu/CIR/circ_1200.djvu (Accessed November 15, 2007). 

Southern California Edison (SCE). 2005. 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 and Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Facility. Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 50-362. San Clemente, Calif. 

Southern Company. 2003. Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Annual Radiological Environmental 

Operating Report for 2003. 

Sovacool, B.K. 2008. “Valuing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power: A Critical 

Survey.” Energy Policy 36:2940–2953. 

Spadaro, J.V., L. Langlois, and B. Hamilton. 2000. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electricity 

Generation Chains: Assessing the Difference.” IAEA Bulletin 42/2/2000, Vienna, Austria. 

Available URL: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf 

(Accessed June 19, 2011). 

State of New York Public Service Commission (SNYPSC). 1978. Opinion No. 78-13, Opinion 

and Order Determining Health and Safety Issues, Imposing Operating Conditions, and 

Authorizing, in Case 26529, Operation Pursuant to Those Conditions. Power Authority of the 

State of New York, Albany, N.Y. 

Steenhof, K., et al. 1993. “Nesting by Raptors and Common Ravens on Electrical 

Transmission Line Towers.” Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2):271–281. 

Stout, I.J., and G.W. Cornwell. 1976. “Nonhunting Mortality of Fledged North American 

Waterfowl.” Journal of Wildlife Management 40:681693. 

Su, S.H., L.C. Pearlman, J.A. Rothrock, T.J. Iannuzzi, and B.L. Finley. 2002. “Potential LongTerm Ecological Impacts Caused by Disturbance of Contaminated Sediments: A Case Study.” 

Environmental Management 29:234249. 

Sundar, K.S.G., and B.C. Choudhury. 2005. “Mortality of Sarus Cranes (Grus antigone) Due to 

Electricity Wires in Uttar Pradesh, India.” Environmental Conservation 32:260269. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-276 

Talbot, J. 1979. “A Review of Potential Biological Impacts of Cooling Tower Salt Drift.” 

Atmospheric Environment 13:395–405. 

Taylor, W.K., and M.A. Kershner. 1986. “Migrant Birds Killed at the Vehicle Assembly Building 

(VAB), John F. Kennedy Space Center.” Journal of Field Ornithology 57:142154. 

Temme, M., and W.B. Jackson. 1979. “Cooling Towers as Obstacles in Bird Migrations.” In 

Bird Control Seminars Proceedings. Internet Center for Wildlife Management. Available URL: 

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmbirdcontrol/16 (Accessed November 7, 2007). 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2003. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3—

Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2003. Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, 

50-296. Decatur, Ala. 

Turner, F.B., P. Litcht, J.D. Thrasher, P.A. Medica, and J.R. Lannom, Jr. 1971. “RadiationInduced Sterility in Natural Populations of Lizards (Crotaphytus wislinzenii and Cnemidophorus 

tigris).” In D.J. Nelson, ed., Volume 1, Radionuclides in Ecosystems, Proceedings of the Third 

National Symposium on Radioecology. Oak Ridge, Tenn. May. 

TXU Generation Company (TXU). 2004. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) 

Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2004. Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446. 

Glen Rose, Texas. 

Ulsh, B.A., M.C. Muhlmann-Diaz, F.W. Whicker, T.G. Hinton, J.D. Congdon, and J.S. Bedford. 

2000. “Chromosome Translocations in Turtles: A Biomarker in a Sentinel Animal for Ecological 

Dosimetry.” Radiation Research 153:752759. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2005a. Fatal Occupational Injuries by Event or 

Exposure, All United States, 2005. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. Available 

URL: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0005.pdf (Accessed October 14, 2007). 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2005b. 2005 News Release, National Census of Fatal 

Occupational Injuries in 2005. USDL-06-1364. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 

Available URL: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfnr0012.pdf (Accessed October 14, 2007). 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2005c. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal Occupational 

Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2005. U.S. Department of Labor, 

Washington, D.C. Available URL: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1619.pdf (Accessed 

October 14, 2007). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-277 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1999. Telephone Flat Geothermal Development 

Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Impact Report. California 

Clearinghouse Number 97052078; DOI/FEIS 99-6; USFS/MDF/FEIS 99-1; DOE/FEIS-0298. 

February. Available URL: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/894161-og5W8v/ 

(Accessed October 22, 2007). 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2007. Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 

on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States, Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement. FES 07-21. U.S. Department of the Interior, Reno, Nev. June. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1999. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium 

Hexafluoride. DOE/EIS-0269. Washington, D.C. April. Available URL: http://web.ead.anl. 

gov/uranium/documents/ (Accessed October 25, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002. A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses 

to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota. DOE-STD-1153-2002. Washington, D.C. July. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the 

Paducah, Kentucky, Site. DOE/EIS-0359. Washington, DC. June. Available URL: 

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/documents/ (Accessed October 25, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility, at the 

Portsmouth, Ohio, Site. DOE/EIS-0360. Washington, D.C. June. Available URL: 

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/documents/ (Accessed October 25, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004c. “Record of Decision for Construction and Operation 

of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, Kentucky, Site.” 

Federal Register (143):4465444658. Washington, D.C. July 27. Available URL: 

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/documents/ (Accessed October 25, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004d. “Record of Decision for Construction and Operation 

of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio, Site.” Federal 

Register 69(143):4464944654. Washington, D.C. July 27. Available URL: 

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/documents/ (Accessed October 25, 2007). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-278 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004e. RESRAD-BIOTA: A Tool for Implementing a 

Graded Approach to Biota Dose Evaluation. ISCORS Technical Report 2004-02. Interagency 

Steering Committee on Radiation Standards, Office of Air, Water and Radiation Protection 

Policy and Guidance, Washington, D.C. January. Available URL: http://web.ead.anl.gov/ 

resrad/documents/RESRAD-BIOTA_Manual_Version_1.pdf (Accessed November 13, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2007. Draft Supplement Analysis for Locations(s) to 

Dispose of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated from DOE’s Inventory of 

Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DOE/EIS-0359-SA1 and DOE/EIS-0360-SA1). Washington, 

D.C. March. Available URL: http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/documents/ (Accessed 

October 25, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive 

Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250F-S1. Washington, D.C. June. 

Available URL: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/seis/index.shtml. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML081750211, ML081750212, ML081750213, ML081750214, ML081750216, 

ML081750217, ML081750218. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2010. Secretary Chu Announces Blue Ribbon Commission 

on America’s Nuclear Future, Press Release. Washington, D.C. January 29. Available URL: 

http://www.energy.gov/news/8584.htm (Accessed September 21, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 2007a. Industry Injury and Illness Data—2006, Summary 

Table 1, Incident Rates of Non-Fatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case 

Types. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. Available URL: http://www.bls.gov/iif/ 

oshwc/osh/os/osnr0028.txt (Accessed October 15, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 2007b. Census of Fatal and Occupational Injuries—Current 

and Revised Data for 2006, Table A-1. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. 

Available URL: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0214.pdf (Accessed October 15, 2007). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 

Report 550/9-74-004. Washington, D.C. Available URL: http://www.nonoise.org/library/ 

levels74/levels74.htm. March. See also EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and 

Welfare. September 21, 2007. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ 

noise/01.htm (Accessed March 2, 2009). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA 440/5-86-

001. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. May. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-279 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Evaluation of the Potential 

Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields. EPA/600/6-90/005B, Workshop Review Draft. 

Washington, D.C. October. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Natural Wetlands and Urban Stormwater: 

Potential Impacts and Management. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands 

Division, Washington, D.C. February. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands, A Guide to 

Stormwater Best Management Practices. EPA-843-B-96-001. Office of Water. October. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in 

EPA Review of NEPA Documents. EPA 315-R-99-002. Office of Federal Activities, 

Washington, D.C. May. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Case Study Analysis for the Proposed 

Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. EPA-821-R-02-002. Office of Science and 

Technology, Washington, D.C. February. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. The Incidence and Severity of Sediment 

Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey: 

Second Edition. EPA-823-R-04-007. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. 

November. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Final Report: Environmental Footprints 

and Costs of Coal-Based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle and Pulverized Coal 

Technologies. EPA-430/R-06/006. Clean Air Markets, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 

Washington, D.C. July. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/coaltech/ 

2007_01_epaigcc.pdf (Accessed October 12, 2007). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. “Notice of Data Availability on the 

Disposal of Coal Combustion Wastes in Landfills and Surface Impoundments,” Federal 

Register 72(167). Office of Solid Waste, Research Triangle Park, N.C. August 29. Available 

URL: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/2007/August/Day-29/f17138.pdf (Accessed 

October 15, 2007). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009. EPA 430-R-11-005. April 15, 2011. Available URL: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html (Accessed June 18, 2011). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-280 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS and NMFS). 

1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, Procedures for Conducting Consultation 

and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/consultations/s7hndbk/s7hndbk.htm (Accessed November 14, 

2007). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS and NMFS). 2009. 

Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Panama City, Fla., and National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Southeast Region, St. Petersburg, Fla. Available URL: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/gulfsturgeon_5yearreview.pdf (Accessed January 10, 

2010). 

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in 

the United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). Cambridge University 

Press. June. Available URL: http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climateimpacts-report.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2011). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1974. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel 

Cycle. WASH-1248. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. April. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing 

and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, A Task Force Report. NUREG-0116 

(Supp. 1 to WASH-1248). Washington, D.C. October. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from 

Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix 1. Regulatory Guide 1.109. Office of Standards Development. October. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1980. Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, 

Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Amendment to Facility Operating License. 

Northern States Power Company. 

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. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-281 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section 6.3—Transportation, Table 9.1, 

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

Report. NUREG-1437, Addendum 1. Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. August. ADAMS Accession No. ML040690720. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 1: Regarding Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

Plant. NUREG-1437, Supplement 1. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

October. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1: Regarding the Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. November. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 5: Regarding Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4. 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 5. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

January. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 8: Regarding McGuire Nuclear Station, 

Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 8. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. December. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 6: Regarding Surry Power Station, Units 1 

and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 6. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

November. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002e. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 7: Regarding North Anna Power Station, 

Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 7. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. November. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 10: Regarding Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station, Units 2 and 3. NUREG-1437, Supplement 10. Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, Washington, D.C. January. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-282 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 13: Regarding H.B. Robinson Steam 

Electric Plant, Unit 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 13. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. December. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 17: Regarding Dresden Nuclear Power 

Station, Units 2 and 3. NUREG-1437, Supplement 17. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. June. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 15: Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

Station. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, 

D.C. February. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 20: Regarding Donald C. Cook Nuclear 

Plant Units No. 1 and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 20. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. May. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 23: Regarding Point Beach Nuclear Plant, 

Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 23. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. August. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 2005c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 22: Regarding Millstone Power Station, 

Units 2 and 3. NUREG-1437, Supplement 22. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. July. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 21: Regarding Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, 

Units 1, 2, and 3. NUREG-1437. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

June. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005e. Event Notification Report for June 29, 

2005. Operations Center, Washington, D.C. Available URL: http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2005/20050629en.html (Accessed November 20, 2007). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-283 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons 

Learned Task Force Final Report. September 1. Available URL: http://adamswebsearch2. 

nrc.gov/idmws/doccontent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^PBNTAD01&ID=062770207 

(Accessed October 17, 2007). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 25: Regarding New Brunswick Steam 

Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 25. Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, Washington, D.C. April. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 26: Regarding Monticello Nuclear 

Generating Plant. NUREG-1437, Supplement 26. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. August. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 27: Regarding Palisades Nuclear Plant. 

NUREG-1437. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. October. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006e. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 24: Regarding the Nine Mile Point. 

NUREG-1437. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. May. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 30: Regarding Vermont Yankee Power 

Station. NUREG-1437. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. August. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 28: Regarding Oyster Creek Nuclear 

Generating Station. NUREG-1437. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

January. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 29: Regarding Pilgrim Nuclear Power 

Station. NUREG-1437. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. July. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007d. Early Site Permits-Licensing Reviews. 

Available URL: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp.html (Accessed November 15, 

2007). 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-284 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 32: Regarding Wolf Creek Generating 

Station. NUREG-1437. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. May. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 34: Regarding Susquehanna Steam 

Electric Station. Draft, NUREG-1437. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

January. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008c. Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1 

& 2—NRC Inspection Report. Nos. 05000003/2007010 and 05000247/2007010. Docket 

Numbers 50-003 and 50-247. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML081340425. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2011. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 44: Regarding Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

Generating Plant. Draft. NUREG-1437. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, 

D.C. May. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2012. Commission Memorandum and Order 

CLI-12-16. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12220A094.

Valberg, P.A., R. Kavet, and C.N. Rafferty. 1997. “Can Low Level 50/60-Hz Electric and 

Magnetic Fields Cause Biological Effects?” Radiation Research 148(1):2–21. July. 

Varfalvy, L., et al. 1985. “Measurement and Statistical Analysis of Ozone from HVDC and 

HVAC Transmission Lines.” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS104(10), October. 

Veil, J.A., J.K. Rice, and M.E.S. Raivel. 1997. Biocide Usage in Cooling Towers in the Electric 

Power and Petroleum Refining Industries. Prepared by Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

Ill., for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Washington, D.C. September. 

Available URL: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/ANL-Biocide_Usage.pdf (Accessed 

November 1, 2007). 

Warren, J.L., et al. 1981. Environmental Studies of a 1100 kV Prototype Transmission Line: 

An Annual Report for the 1980 Study Period. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, 

Wash. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

 4-285 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS). 2009. WCS, Andrew County or Provide Texas 

Solution for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste. Press release. Waste Control 

Specialists LLC, Dallas, Texas. Available URL: http://www.wcstexas.com/index.shtml 

(Accessed July 6, 2010). 

 

Weisser, D. 2006. “A Guide to Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Electric 

Supply Technologies.” Available URL: https://iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/ 

GHG_manuscript_pre-print_versionDanielWeisser.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2011). 

Whitlatch, R.B., A.M. Lohrer, S.F. Thrush, R.D. Pridmore, J.E. Hewitt, V.J. Cummings, and 

R.N. Zajac. 1998. “Scale-Dependent Benthic Recolonization Dynamics: Life Stage-Based 

Dispersal and Demographic Consequences.” Hydrobiologia 375/376:217226. 

Wilber, D.H., and D.G. Clarke. 2001. “Biological Effects of Suspended Sediments: A Review 

of Suspended Sediment Impacts on Fish and Shellfish with Relation to Dredging Activities in 

Estuaries.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:855875. 

Wilcove, D.S. 1988. “Changes in the Avifauna of the Great Smoky Mountains: 1947–1983.” 

Wilson Bulletin 100:256–271. 

Williams, R.D., and E.W. Colson. 1989. “Raptor Associations with Linear Rights-of-Way.” 

Western Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop No. 12, pp. 173–192. 

Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS). 2003. Applicant’s Environmental Report; Operating 

License Renewal Stage. Docket No. 50-482, License No. NPF-42. 

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC). 2002. Wolf Creek Generating Station 

Annual Environmental Operating Report 2002. Docket No. 50-482, RA 03-0053. 

Wolff, J.O., E.M. Schauber, and W.D. Edge. 1997. “Effects of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation 

on the Behavior and Demography of Gray-Tailed Voles.” Conservation Biology 11:945–956. 

World Health Organization (WHO). 2007. Extremely Low Frequency Fields. Environmental 

Health Criteria Monograph No. 238, Geneva, Switzerland. Available URL: http://www.who.int/ 

peh-emf/publications/elf_ehc/en/index.html (Accessed November 18, 2010). 

Wright, T., J. Tomlinson, T. Schueler, K. Cappiella, A. Kitchell, and D. Hirschman. 2006. Direct 

and Indirect Impacts of Urbanization on Wetland Quality: Wetlands and Watersheds Article # 1. 

Prepared by Center for Watershed Protection for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington, D.C. December. 
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-286 

Yahner, R.H. 1988. “Changes in Wildlife Communities near Edges.” Conservation 

Biology 2:333–339. 

Yahner, R.H. 2004. “Wildlife Response to More Than 50 Years of Vegetation Maintenance on 

a Pennsylvania, U.S., Right-of-Way.” Journal of Arboriculture 30:123–126. 

Yahner, R.H., et al. 2004. “Long-Term Effects of Rights-of-Way Maintenance via the WireBorder Zone Method on Bird Nesting Ecology.” Journal of Arboriculture 30:288–294. 

Yahner, R.H., R.J. Hutnik, and S.A. Liscinsky. 2002. “Bird Populations Associated with an 

Electric Transmission Right-of-Way.” Journal of Arboriculture 28:123–130. 

York, R., M. Foster, N. Davis, J. Schoonmaker, R. Unsworth, C. Holmes, J. O’Hagan, and 

J. McKinney. 2005. Issues and Environmental Impacts Associated with Once-Through Cooling 

at California’s Coastal Power Plants. CEC-700-2005-013. California Energy Commission, 

Sacramento, Calif. June. Available URL: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/ 

CEC-700-2005-013/CEC-700-2005-013.pdf (Accessed May 21, 2007). 

Zach, R., J.L. Hawkins, and S.C. Sheppard. 1993. “Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Breeding 

Swallows at Current Radiation Protection Standards.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

12:779. 
List of Preparers 

 5-1 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

5 List of Preparers 

The overall responsibility for the preparation of this Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

revision was assigned to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation. The revision was prepared by members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation with assistance from other NRC organizations, Argonne National Laboratory, and 

Information Systems Laboratories, Inc. 

Name Education/Expertise Contribution 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Briana Balsam B.S., Conservation Biology; 8 years of experience in 

environmental impact analysis 

Terrestrial Resources 

April BeBault B.S., Biology; 5 years of experience in NEPA 

compliance related to socioeconomics, land-use 

analysis, cultural resource impacts, and terrestrial 

ecology impacts 

Ecological Resources; 

Alternatives; Historic and 

Cultural Resources 

Paula Cooper B.S. Civil Engineering; Registered Professional 

Engineer; 7 years of site design, stormwater 

management, and municipal water and sewer main 

design; 2 years of experience in NEPA compliance 

Water Resources 

Jennifer Davis B.A., Historic Preservation and Classical Civilization 

(archaeology); 5 years of fieldwork; 12 years of 

experience in NEPA compliance, project 

management, and cultural resources impact analysis 

and regulatory compliance 

Project Manager Draft 

Revised GEIS; Historic and 

Cultural Resources; 

Decommissioning 

Kevin Folk B.A., Geoenvironmental Studies, M.S., Environmental 

Biology; 25 years of experience in NEPA compliance, 

geologic, hydrologic, and water quality impacts 

analysis, utility infrastructure analysis, facility siting, 

and environmental regulatory compliance for 

government and industry 

Water Resources; Geologic 

Environment; Air Quality; 

Decommissioning 

Kimberly Green B.S., Nuclear Engineering; 20 years of experience in 

nuclear industry; 10 years of experience in severe 

accident mitigation alternatives analysis, cost-benefit 

analysis, and regulatory analysis 

Postulated Accidents; 

Severe Accident Mitigation 

Alternatives 

Donald Helton B.S., M.S., Nuclear Engineering; 12 years of 

experience in computational thermal hydraulic and 

severe accident analysis for reactors and spent fuel; 

additional limited experience in probabilistic risk 

assessment, consequence analysis, and incident 

response 

Postulated Accidents; 

Severe Accident Mitigation 

Alternatives 
List of Preparers 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 5-2 

Name Education/Expertise Contribution 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (cont.) 

Andrew Imboden B.S., Meteorology; M.S. Environmental Engineering; 

9 years of commercial and government service in 

effluent treatment, natural resource assessment and 

remediation, and environmental compliance. 

RERB Branch Chief; Air 

Quality and Meteorology 

Stephen Klementowicz M.S., Health Physics; 32 years of commercial and 

regulatory experience in reactor health physics, 

radiological effluent and environmental monitoring 

programs, and radioactive waste 

Human Health; Waste 

Management/Fuel Cycle; 

Accidents; 

Decommissioning 

Dennis Logan 

Nancy Martinez 

Ph.D., Marine Studies (Biological Oceanography), 

M.S., Marine Biology; 38 years of experience 

assessing the effects of anthropogenic actions on 

natural populations, including ecological and human 

health risk assessments, power plant-related 

environmental studies, and project management 

A.M., Earth and Planetary Science, B.S., Earth and 

Environmental Science; 2 years of experience in 

environmental impact analysis 

Aquatic Resources; 

Decommissioning 

Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions; Coordinating 

OGC Review of Final GEIS 

Robert Palla B.S., M.S., Mechanical Engineering; 28 years of 

experience in severe accident analysis; 20 years of 

experience in analysis of severe accident mitigation 

alternatives 

Postulated Accidents; 

Severe Accident Mitigation 

Alternatives 

Jeffrey Rikhoff M.R.P., Regional Planning, M.S., Economic 

Development and Appropriate Technology; 26 years 

of experience in NEPA compliance, socioeconomics 

and environmental justice impact analysis, cultural 

resource impacts, and comprehensive land-use and 

development planning 

Project Manager Final 

Revised GEIS; Alternatives; 

Socioeconomics; 

Environmental Justice; 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources; Land Use; 

Decommissioning 

Andrew Stuyvenberg M.E.M., Environmental Economics and Policy, B.S., 

Biochemistry/Molecular Biology and Political Science; 

8 years of experience in energy policy research and 

development, project management, utilities regulation, 

and energy investing 

Alternatives 

Jeremy Susco B.A., Physics; M.E.M., Engineering Management; 

2 years of experience in NEPA compliance; 8 years of 

experience in project management 

GEIS Team Lead for 

10 CFR Part 51 rulemaking 

Michael Wentzel B.S., Microbiology; 2 years experience in NEPA 

compliance; 14 years experience in nuclear power 

plant operations and project management 

Project Manager 

Coordinating OGC Review 

of Final GEIS 

 
List of Preparers 

 5-3 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Name Education/Expertise Contribution 

Argonne National Laboratory(a)

Timothy Allison M.S., Mineral and Energy Resource Economics, M.A., 

Geography; 24 years of experience in regional 

analysis and economic impact analysis 

Socioeconomics; 

Environmental Justice 

Halil Avci Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering; 26 years of experience in 

environmental assessment, waste management, 

accident analysis, and project management 

Assistant Project Team 

Leader; Waste 

Management/Fuel Cycle 

Vic Comello M.S., Physics; 39 years of experience in technical 

editing and writing 

Lead Technical Editor 

John Hayse Ph.D., Zoology; 26 years of experience in ecological 

research and environmental assessment 

Aquatic Resources 

Sunita Kamboj Ph.D., Health Physics, 19 years of experience in 

radiological dose and risk assessment 

Human Health 

Ronald Kolpa M.S., Inorganic Chemistry, B.S., Chemistry; 39 years 

of experience in environmental regulation, auditing, 

and planning 

Alternatives 

James Kuiper M.S., Biometrics, Certificate in Remote Sensing; 

24 years of experience in GIS analysis, programming, 

and remote sensing 

Geographic Information 

System Cartography and 

Analysis 

Kirk LaGory Ph.D., Zoology, M.En., Environmental Science; 

36 years of experience in ecological research and 

assessment 

Team Leader 

Michael Lazaro M.S., Environmental/Nuclear Engineering, 37 years of 

experience in atmospheric science/ modeling research 

and development; 23 years of experience in 

environmental assessment 

Air Quality and Meteorology; 

Noise 

William Metz Ph.D., Geography, M.A., Geography, M.B.A, M.I.S, 

Information Systems; 39 years of experience in 

socioeconomic and land-use assessment, emergency 

planning, and perception-based impact research 

Land Use; Visual Resources 

Marita Moniger B.A., English; 34 years of experience in technical 

editing and writing 

Technical Editor 

Ellen Moret M.P.P., Public Policy; B.A., Environmental Studies; 

9 years of experience in environmental impact 

statement preparation 

Administrative Support, 

Alternatives 

Michele Nelson Graphic designer; 33 years of experience in graphical 

design and technical illustration 

Graphics 

Lee Northcutt A.A.; 22 years of experience in program and editorial 

assistance; 15 years of experience in environmental 

impact statement preparation 

Glossary 

 
List of Preparers 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 5-4 

Name Education/Expertise Contribution 

Argonne National Laboratory (cont.) 

Daniel O’Rourke M.S., Industrial Archaeology; 16 years of experience 

in cultural resource management; 11 years of 

experience in historical property issues 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

Terri Patton M.S., Geology; 23 years of experience in 

environmental research and assessment 

Cumulative Impacts 

John Quinn M.S., Geology; 23 years of experience in 

hydrogeology 

Water Resources, Geologic 

Environment 

Carolyn M. Steele B.A., English; B.A., Rhetoric; 5 years of experience in 

technical writing and editing. 

Editor 

Robert Van Lonkhuyzen B.A., Biology; 22 years of experience in ecological 

research and environmental assessment 

Terrestrial Resources 

William Vinikour M.S., Biology with environmental emphasis; 34 years 

of experience in ecological research and 

environmental assessment 

Aquatic Resources 

Leroy Walston M.S., Biology; 7 years of experience in ecological and 

environmental research 

Terrestrial Resources 

Konstance Wescott M.A., Anthropology, B.A., Mathematics and 

Sociology/Anthropology; 24 years of experience in 

archaeology, 22 years in environmental assessment 

Alternatives 

Information Systems Laboratories, Inc.(b)

Thomas King M.S., Mechanical Engineering; 43 years of experience 

in nuclear reactor design, operation, safety reviews, 

rulemaking and research, including the environmental 

impacts of postulated accidents 

Postulated Accidents 

Christopher Chwasz B.S., Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences; 

6 years of experience in nuclear science and nuclear 

power research 

Postulated Accidents 

(a) Argonne National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by UChicago Argonne, LLC. 

(b) Information Systems Laboratories, Inc., is located in Rockville, Maryland. 
 

 6-1 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

6 Distribution List 

Kate Parker Adams Citizens Awareness Network 

David Agnew Cape Cod Downwinders 

Jack Alexander Entergy Nuclear 

Ralph Andersen Nuclear Energy Institute 

Rita Arditti Women’s Community Center Cancer Project 

Kathryn Barnes Don’t Waste Michigan 

Craig Beauchamp Coalition for Responsible and Ethical Environmental Decisions 

Rochelle Becker Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility 

Tama Becker-Varano San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace 

Pamela Blockey-O’Brien Private Citizen 

Dorothy Boberg United Nations Association of the San Fernando Valley 

James Boyd California Energy Commission 

Rodger Boyd Private Citizen 

Deborah Brancato Riverkeeper 

Matthew Brock Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General 

Susan Bromm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Rick Buckley Entergy Nuclear 

Andrew Burgess AmerenUE 

Barbara Byron California Energy Commission 

Brian Campbell WATD 

Bruce Campbell Private Citizen 

John Carlson American Electric Power 

Derek Casady Private Citizen 

Nancy Casady Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility 

Becky Chin Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee 

Andrew Christie Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter 

June Cochran Private Citizen 

Vera Cohen Women’s Community Cancer Program and Toxic Action Center 

Jerry Collamer Private Citizen 

Corey Conn Nuclear Energy Information Service 

Jennifer Cook Duane Morris, LLP 

Byron Costa Private Citizen 

Anne Cottingham Nuclear Energy Institute 

Janice Dean New York State Office of the Attorney General 

Bill Denneen Abalone Alliance 

Susan Devine San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors 

R.K. Dickey Private Citizen 
Distribution List 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 6-2 

Beryl Dilay Private Citizen 

Alice Domby Private Citizen 

Art Domby Troutman Sanders, LLP 

Emma Domby Private Citizen 

Kenneth Dow Environmental Resources Management 

Fred Emerson Nuclear Energy Institute 

Dean Engelhardt Permanent Radaste Solutions 

Sandy Exelby League of Women Voters 

Jerome Fields PPL Susquehanna, LLC 

Fred Flannell Private Citizen 

Carey Fleming Winston and Strawn 

Albert Fulvio Exelon Nuclear 

Michael Gallagher Exelon Nuclear 

Sandra Gavutis C-10 Research and Education Foundation 

Guillermo Gonzalez Office of Senator Feinstein 

Henriette Goot, Ph.D. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace 

Terry Grebel Pacific Gas and Electric 

Debbie Grinnell C-10 Research and Education Foundation 

Paul Gunter Beyond Nuclear 

Doveen Hagen Private Citizen 

Oliver Hall Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group 

Lyn Harris Hicks Coalition for Responsible and Ethical Environmental Decisions 

Frank Haselton Private Citizen 

Laurie Headrick San Clemente Green 

Adam Hill San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors 

Milton Hirshberg, MD Cape Cod Downwinders 

Ace Hoffman Private Citizen 

Sharon Hoffman Private Citizen 

Darcie Houck California Energy Commission 

Julea Hovey Constellation Nuclear Service, Inc 

Peggy Huang Private Citizen 

Michael Hubbard Private Citizen 

Mark Hull-Richter Private Citizen 

Ruth Hull-Richter Patrick Henry Democratic Club of America 

Trudy Jarratt Private Citizen 

George Jepsen Connecticut Office of the Attorney General 

Jualy Jones Private Citizen 

Tim Judson Citizens Awareness Network 

Deb Katz Citizens Awareness Network 

Fred Katz Climate Action Network 

Eugenia Kennedy Exponent 
Distribution List 

 6-3 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Julie Keyes Nuclear Energy Institute 

Rita Kilpatrick Southern Alliance for Clean Energy 

Ross Kongable Private Citizen 

Jeanne Kota Sierra Club GA 

Jan Kozyra Progress Energy 

R.M. Krich Tennessee Valley Authority 

Adele Kushner Action for a Clean Environment 

David Lach Entergy Nuclear 

Mary Lampert Pilgrim Watch 

Billie Pinnick Lovmark Coalition for Responsible and Ethical Environmental Decisions 

Rachel MacDonald California Energy Commission 

Eleanor Mack Private Citizen 

Bill Maher Exelon Corporation 

Philip Mahowald Prairie Island Indian Community 

James Mannion Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency 

Michael Mariotte Nuclear Information and Resource Service 

Matthew Maraglio New York State Department of State, Office of Coastal, Local 

Government and Community Sustainability 

Andre Marteuchini Duxbury Selectman 

Joan Leary Matthews New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Steve McGrath Port San Luis Harbor District 

Tom Murphy Private Citizen 

Phillip Musegaas Riverkeeper 

Tim Nader Private Citizen (Former Mayor, Chula Vista, CA) 

David Nelson Private Citizen 

Steve Netherby Coalition for Responsible and Ethical Environmental Decisions 

Roger Newton Nuclear Management Company 

Mary Olson Nuclear Information and Resource Service 

Marion Pack Private Citizen 

William Pardee Office of Massachusetts Attorney General 

Karen Patterson Tetra Tech NUS 

Giovanna Peebles State Archaeologist, Vermont Division of Historic Preservation 

Roberto Peña Office of Congressman Edward Markey 

Jeff Pienack Surfrider Foundation 

Peg Pinard Private Citizen (Former County Supervisor and Mayor, 

San Luis Obispo, CA) 

Sheldon Plotkin Private Citizen 

Barbara Pye Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee 

Nancy Ranek Exelon Generation 

Mark Richter Private Citizen 

Diane Rosen United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs 
Distribution List 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 6-4 

Cynthia Sauer Private Citizen 

Klaus Schumann Private Citizen 

Paul Schwartz New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of 

Nuclear Engineering 

Frank Scott Private Citizen 

Cecil Settles Illinois Energy Management Agency 

Sally Shaw Private Citizen 

Oscar Shirani Quality Assurance Consultants 

John Sipos New York Office of the Attorney General 

Pat Skibbee C-10 Research and Education Foundation 

Tyson Slocum Private Citizen 

John Snooks Areva 

Joanne Steele Oconee Nuclear Project, Action for a Clean Environment 

Kathryn Sutton Morgan Lewis 

Jane Swanson San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace 

Judy Treichel Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force 

Karen Tuccillo New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of 

Nuclear Engineering 

Carmela Vignocchi Private Citizen 

June von Ruden San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace 

David Weisman Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility 

Randall Westmoreland Detroit Edison 

Heather Westra Prairie Island Indian Community 

Chuck Wilson Tennessee Valley Authority 

Kathleen Yhip Southern California Edison 

Jill Zamek San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace 

Jeffrey Zappieri New York State Department of State, Office of Coastal, Local 

Government and Community Sustainability 
 

 7-1 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

7 Glossary 

Absorbed dose: The energy imparted by ionizing radiation per unit mass of tissue. The units 

of absorbed dose are the rad and the gray (Gy). 

Acid: A solution with a pH measurement less than 7

Acid rain: Also called acid precipitation or acid deposition, acid rain is precipitation containing 

harmful amounts of nitric and sulfuric acids formed from the smokestacks of coal and oil burning 

power plants and from nitrogen oxides emitted by motor vehicles. It can be wet precipitation 

(rain, snow, or fog) or dry precipitation (absorbed gaseous and particulate matter, aerosol 

particles, or dust). The term pH is a measure of acidity or alkalinity and ranges from 0 to 14. A 

pH measurement of 7 is regarded as neutral. Normal rain has a pH of about 5.6, which is 

slightly acidic. Acid rain has a pH below 5.6. 

Activation products: Radionuclides produced from the interaction of radiation with matter. 

Generally it is the neutrons that interact with stable atoms and make them radioactive. 

Activity: The rate of disintegration (transformation) or decay of radioactive material. The units 

of radioactivity are the curie (Ci) and the Becquerel (Bq). 

Acute effects: Effects resulting from short-term exposure to relatively high levels of a stressing 

factor (e.g., contaminant, disease, electromagnetic field, noise, and radionuclides) over long 

periods. 

Acute radiation exposure: A single accidental exposure to high doses of radiation for a short 

period of time, which may produce biological effects within a short time after exposure. 

Adverse environmental impacts: Impacts that are determined to be harmful to the 

environment. 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP): Established by the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is an independent 

Federal agency that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of the 

nation's historic resources and advises the President and the Congress on national historic 

preservation policy. The agency provides guidance on the application of Federal law 

concerning cultural resources and serves as an arbiter when disputes arise. 

Aerobic: Requiring the presence of oxygen to support life. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-2 

Air quality: Assessment of the health-related and visual characteristics of the air often derived 

from quantitative measurements of the concentrations of specific injurious or contaminating 

substances. Air quality standards are the prescribed levels of substances in the outside air that 

cannot be exceeded during a specific time in a specified area. 

ALARA: Acronym for “as low as (is) reasonably achievable.” This means making every 

reasonable effort to maintain exposures to ionizing radiation as far below the dose limits as 

practical, consistent with the purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into 

account the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of 

technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and 

safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to utilization of 

nuclear energy and licensed materials in the public interest (see 10 CFR 20.1003). 

Alkaline or basic: A solution with a pH measurement above 7.0.

Alkalinity: The capacity of water to neutralize acids; a property imparted by the water's content 

of carbonate, bicarbonate, hydroxide, and on occasion borate, silicate, and phosphate. 

Alluvial: Refers to soil or unconsolidated sediment that has been deposited by running water, 

as in a riverbed, floodplain, or delta. 

Alluvial aquifer: An aquifer composed of alluvial sediments, generally located in a river valley.

Alpha particle: Positively charged highly energetic ionizing radiation that consists of 

two protons and two neutrons. 

Alternatives to the proposed action considered in the GEIS: (1) Not renewing the operating 

licenses of commercial nuclear power plants (no-action alternative). This is the only alternative 

to the proposed action that is within the NRC’s decision-making authority; (2) replacing existing 

nuclear generating capacity with other energy sources (including fossil energy generation, new 

nuclear generation, and renewable energy); (3) compensating for lost nuclear generation 

capacity by using demand-side management (conservation) or purchasing power. 

Ambient air: The surrounding atmosphere as it exists around people, plants, and structures. 

Ambient noise level: The level of acoustic noise at a given location, such as in a room or 

outdoors, that is representative of typical conditions unaffected by human activities. 

Ambient water temperature: The water temperature in a water body that is representative of 

typical conditions unaffected by human activities (e.g., the temperature of the surface water 

body away from the thermal effluent).
Glossary 

 7-3 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Anadromous: Pertaining to fish that spend a part of their life cycle in the sea and return to 

freshwater streams to spawn; for example, salmon, steelhead, and shad. 

 

Annual dose: Dose received in one year. 

Anoxic: Absence of oxygen. Usually used in reference to an aquatic habitat when the water 

becomes completely depleted of oxygen and results in the death of any organism that requires 

oxygen for survival. 

Anthracite coal: A hard, black coal averaging 86–97 percent carbon, but with a slightly lower 

heating value than bituminous coal. Anthracite coal deposits are rare in the United States and 

account for less than 1 percent of annual production. Its limited availability confines its use to 

specialty applications such as residential and industrial space heating. 

Anthropogenic: Made or generated by a human or caused by human activity. 

Aquatic biota: Consisting of, relating to, or being in water; living or growing in, or near the 

water. An organism that lives in, on, or near the water. 

Aquifer: An underground layer of permeable, unconsolidated sediments or porous or fractured 

bedrock that yields usable quantities of water to a well or spring. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979: Requires Federal permitting for 

excavation or removal of archaeological resources from public or Native American lands. 

Area of Potential Effect (APE): The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking 

may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any 

such properties exist. The APE for a license renewal action is the area at the power plant site 

and its immediate environs and viewshed that may be impacted by post-license renewal landdisturbing operations or possible refurbishment activities associated with the proposed action. 

The APE may extend beyond the immediate environs in those instances where post-license 

renewal land-disturbing 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 (see also 

36 FR 800.16(d)). 

Atom: The smallest particle of an element that cannot be divided or broken up by chemical 

means. It consists of a central core of protons and neutrons, called the nucleus. Electrons 

revolve in orbits in the region surrounding the nucleus. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-4 

Atomic Energy Act: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is a United States Federal law that is, 

according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “the fundamental U.S. law on both the civilian 

and the military uses of nuclear materials.” It covers the laws for the “development and the 

regulation of the uses of nuclear materials and facilities in the United States.” It was an 

amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 and substantially refined certain aspects of the 

law, including increased support for the possibility of a civilian nuclear industry. 

Attainment: An area is deemed in attainment by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) when the air quality is monitored and the resultant concentrations are found to be 

consistently below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Areas can be in 

attainment for some pollutants, while designated as nonattainment for others. Some areas are 

designated as “maintenance” areas. These are regions that were initially designated as 

attainment or unclassifiable and have since attained compliance with the NAAQS. 

Attenuation: The reduction or lessening in amount, such as in the concentration or effects of a 

pollutant. 

Auxiliary buildings: Auxiliary buildings house support systems, such as the ventilation 

system, emergency core cooling system, laundry facilities, water treatment system, and waste 

treatment system. An auxiliary building may also contain the emergency diesel generators and, 

in some pressurized water reactors, the fuel storage facility. The facility’s control room is often 

located in the auxiliary building. 

Avian: Of, relating to, or characteristic of birds. 

Barrel: A unit of volume equal to 42 U.S. gallons. 

Background radiation: Radiation from cosmic sources; naturally occurring radioactive 

material, including radon (except as a decay product of source or special nuclear material); and 

global fallout as it exists in the environment from the testing of nuclear explosive devices or from 

past nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl and are not under the control of the licensee. 

Background radiation does not include radiation from sources, by-products, or special nuclear 

materials regulated by the Commission. 

Baseline: A quantitative expression of conditions, costs, schedule, or technical progress that 

constitutes the standard against which to measure the performance of an effort. For National 

Environmental Policy Act evaluations, baseline is defined as the existing environmental 

conditions against which impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives can be compared. 

The environmental baseline is the site environmental conditions as they exist or are estimated 

to exist in the absence of the proposed action. 
Glossary 

 7-5 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Becquerel: The unit of radioactive decay equal to 1 disintegration per second. 37 billion 

(3.7  1010) becquerels = 1 curie (Ci). 

BEIR reports: Series of reports issued by the National Research Council to advise the Federal 

government on the relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and human health. BEIR 

stands for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.

Benthic: Of, relating to, or occurring at the bottom of a body of water. 

Best Available Control Technology (BACT): A pollution control standard created by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that is used to determine what air pollution control 

technology will be used to control a specific pollutant to a specified limit. 

Best management practices (BMPs): A practice or combination of pollution control 

techniques that aim to reduce pollution. 

Beta particle: An electron that is ejected from the nucleus of a radioactive atom. It is much 

lighter than an alpha particle and can travel a longer distance in air compared to an alpha 

particle, but can still be stopped by a thin sheet of aluminum foil. 

Bioamplification: Also known as biological magnification and bioconcentration, is the 

progressive increase in the concentration of chemical contaminants (e.g., DDT, PCBs, methyl 

mercury) from the bottom of the food chain (e.g., bacteria, phytoplankton, zooplankton) to the 

top of the food chain (e.g., fishing-eating birds such as a bald eagle). 

Bioavailability: The degree to which chemicals can be taken up by organisms. 

Biocide: A chemical agent, such as a pesticide, that is used to kill and control living organisms. 

Biological Assessments: Information prepared by or under the direction of the Federal 

agency concerning listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat 

that may be present in the action area and the evaluation of potential effects of the action on 

such species and habitat. 

Biomass: Organic nonfossil material of biological origin constituting a renewable energy 

source. 

Biota: The combined flora and fauna of a region. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-6 

Bituminous coal: A dense black or brown coal that has, on average 45–86 percent carbon by 

weight and a heating value as much as five times greater than lignite coal. U.S. deposits are 

100–300 million years old and are found primarily in the states of West Virginia, Kentucky, and 

Pennsylvania, with lesser amounts in the Midwest. Bituminous coal is the most abundant rank 

of coal in the United States. It is used primarily to produce electricity, and in the industrial 

sector, to produce heat and process steam and as a starting material for the production of coke, 

an intensely hot-burning derivative fuel used in the steel industry. 

Blast furnace: A furnace in which solid fuel (coke) is burned with an air blast to smelt ore. 

Blowdown: Continual or periodic purging of a circulating working fluid to prevent buildup of 

impurities in the fluid. 

Boiler: A device for generating steam for power, processing, or heating purposes; or hot water 

for heating purposes or hot water supply. Heat from an external combustion source is 

transmitted to a fluid contained within the tubes found in the boiler shell. This fluid is delivered 

to an end-use at a desired pressure, temperature, and quality. 

Boiling water reactor (BWR): A reactor in which water, used as both coolant and moderator, 

boils in the core to produce steam, which drives a turbine connected to an electrical generator, 

thereby producing electricity. 

Brownfield site: Abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities in which 

expansion or redevelopment is sometimes complicated by real or perceived environmental 

contaminations. (See also greenfield site). 

Btu: British thermal unit. A measure of the energy required to raise the temperature of one 

pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. 

Burnup spent fuel: See spent fuel burnup. 

Cap and trade: An environmental policy instrument used by governments to limit the amount of 

pollutants emitted to the environment. The total emissions are capped at a specified level but 

polluters can trade the emission allowances among themselves as long as the total amount is 

not exceeded. 

Capacity: See generator capacity. 

Capacity factor: The actual energy output of an electricity-generating device divided by the 

energy output that would be produced if it operated at its rated power output for the entire year. 

Generally expressed as percentage.
Glossary 

 7-7 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Capacity rating: See rated power.

Carbon: A naturally abundant nonmetallic element that occurs in many inorganic and in all 

organic compounds, which exists freely as graphite and diamond and as a constituent of coal, 

limestone, and petroleum. Carbon is capable of chemical self-bonding to form an enormous 

number of chemically, biologically, and commercially important molecules. Carbon’s atomic 

number is 6. 

Carbon capture and storage: Refers to the capture of carbon dioxide generated at fossilfueled power plants and the storing of carbon dioxide so it is not released into the air. 

Underground storage media are being investigated for this feasibility (e.g., abandoned mines, 

depleted oil or natural gas fields, and other types of geologic media). 

Carbon monoxide (CO): A colorless, odorless gas formed when carbon in fuel is not burned 

completely. Motor vehicle exhaust is a major contributor to nationwide CO emissions, followed 

by other engines and vehicles. CO interferes with the blood’s ability to carry oxygen to the 

body’s tissues and results in numerous adverse health effects. CO is listed as a criteria air 

pollutant under Title I of the Clean Air Act. 

Carbonaceous: Consisting of, containing, relating to, or yielding carbon. 

Carbon sequestration: See carbon capture and storage. 

Carcinogenesis: The process by which normal cells are transformed into cancer cells.

Cask: A heavily shielded container used to store and/or ship radioactive materials. Lead and 

steel are common materials used in the manufacture of casks. 

Category 1 issue: Environmental impact issues that meet all of the following criteria: (1) the 

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

nuclear plants or, for some issues, to nuclear plants that have a specific type of cooling system 

or other specified plant or site characteristics; (2) a single significance level (i.e., small, 

moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological 

impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal); (3) mitigation of 

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

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

beneficial to warrant implementation. For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no 

additional plant-specific analysis is required in future supplemental environmental impact 

statements (SEISs) unless new and significant information is identified. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-8 

Category 2 issue: Environmental impact issues that do not meet one or more of the criteria of 

Category 1, and, therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required.

Cesium: A metal that may be stable (nonradioactive) or unstable (radioactive). The most 

common radioactive form of cesium is cesium-137. Another fairly common radioisotope is 

cesium-134. 

Chain reaction: A reaction that initiates its own repetition. In a fission chain reaction, a 

fissionable nucleus absorbs a neutron and fissions spontaneously, releasing additional 

neutrons. These, in turn, can be absorbed by other fissionable nuclei, releasing more neutrons. 

A fission chain reaction is self-sustaining when the number of neutrons released in a given time 

equals or exceeds the number of neutrons lost by absorption in nonfissionable material or by 

escape from the system. 

Chlorinated hydrocarbons: Organic compounds made up of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, and 

chlorine. All chlorinated hydrocarbons have a carbon-chlorine bond. Sometimes hydrogen is 

not present at all, as in carbon tetrachloride (CCl4). Examples of chlorinated hydrocarbons 

include dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). 

Chlorinated hydrocarbons tend to be very long-lived and persistent in the environment; they 

tend to be toxic; and they tend to accumulate in the food web and undergo bioamplification. 

Chronic effects: Effects resulting from exposure to low levels of a stressing factor 

(e.g., contaminant, disease, electromagnetic field, noise, and radionuclides) over long periods. 

Chronic radiation exposure: Long-term, low-level overexposure to radiation or radioactive 

materials. 

Cladding: The thin-walled metal tube that forms the outer jacket of a nuclear fuel rod. It 

prevents corrosion of the fuel by the coolant and the release of fission products into the coolant. 

Aluminum, stainless steel, and zirconium alloys are common cladding materials. 

Class I areas (Clean Air Act): Class I areas are Federally owned properties for which air 

quality-related values are highly prized and for which no diminution of air quality, including 

visibility, can be tolerated. Class I areas fall under the stewardship of four Federal agencies: the 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

the U.S. Forest Service. Air quality impacts in Class I areas are strictly limited, while restrictions 

in Class II areas are less strict. 

Class II areas (Clean Air Act): See Class I areas. 
Glossary 

 7-9 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Class 2B carcinogenic: Agents (e.g., electromagnetic fields [EMFs]) or substances that are 

possibly carcinogenic to humans.

Clean Air Act (CAA): Establishes national ambient air quality standards and requires 

facilities to comply with emission limits or reduction limits stipulated in State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs). Under this act, construction and operating permits, as well as reviews of new 

stationary sources and major modifications to existing sources, are required. The Act also 

prohibits the Federal government from approving actions that do not conform to SIPs.

Clean coal technologies: Technologies that would allow the continued use of coal (or coalderived synthetic fuels) for electricity production, while at the same time, mitigating the potential 

adverse impacts to air quality and guaranteeing compliance with regulatory requirements. 

Clean coal initiatives include coal-cleaning processes to remove constituents that would 

ultimately be converted to problematic pollutants during combustion, synthesis of clean 

derivative fuels through coal gasification technologies, improved combustion technologies, and 

improved devices, and ancillary support systems for capturing and sequestering pollutants. 

Clean Water Act (CWA): Act requiring National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits for discharges of effluents to surface waters, permits for stormwater 

discharges related to industrial activity, permits for discharges to or dredging of wetlands, 

notification of oil discharges to navigable waters of the United States, and water quality 

certification from the State in which the discharge will occur. 

Climatology: The meteorological study of climates and their phenomena. 

Closed-cycle cooling: In this type of cooling water system, the cooling water is recirculated 

through the condenser after the waste heat is removed by dissipation to the atmosphere, 

usually by circulating the water through large cooling towers constructed for that purpose. 

Coal: A readily combustible black or brownish-black rock whose composition, including 

inherent moisture, consists of more than 50 percent by weight and more than 70 percent by 

volume of carbonaceous material. It is formed from plant remains that have been compacted, 

hardened, chemically altered, and metamorphosed by heat and pressure over geologic time. 

Coal bed methane: Methane is generated during coal formation and is contained in the coal 

microstructure. Typical recovery entails pumping water out of the coal to allow the gas to 

escape. Methane is the principal component of natural gas. Coal bed methane can be added 

to natural gas pipelines without any special treatment. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-10 

Coal combustion wastes: Wastes produced from the combustion of coal, which contains 

concentrated levels of numerous contaminants, particularly metals like arsenic, mercury, lead, 

chromium, cadmium, and radioactive elements found naturally in coal. 

Coal gasification: The process of converting coal into gas. The basic process involves 

crushing coal to a powder, which is then heated in the presence of steam and oxygen to 

produce a gas. The gas is then refined to reduce sulfur and other impurities. The gas can be 

used as a fuel or processed further and concentrated into chemical or liquid fuel. 

Coal-producing regions: Appalachian Region: Alabama, Georgia, eastern Kentucky, 

Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia; Interior 

Region (with Gulf Coast): Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and western Kentucky; Western Region: Alaska, 

Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 

Note: Some States discontinue producing coal as reserves are depleted or as production 

becomes uneconomical. 

Coal rank: The classification of coals according to their degree of progressive alteration 

from lignite to anthracite. In the United States, the standard ranks of coal include lignite, 

sub-bituminous coal, bituminous coal, and anthracite, and are based on fixed carbon, volatile 

matter, heating value, and agglomerating (or caking) properties. 

Coal seam: A deposit of coal. 

Coal synfuel: Any liquid fuel obtained from coal. 

Coal washing: The process of removing noncombustible materials, sulfur, mercury, and other 

contaminants from coal. Coal washing involves grinding the coal into smaller pieces and 

separating materials according to density. One coal-washing technique involves feeding the 

coal into barrels that contain a fluid with a density that causes the coal to float, while unwanted 

material sinks and is removed from the fuel mix. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal 

government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation. 

Each volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar year and is issued on a quarterly basis. 

Co-firing: The process of burning natural gas in conjunction with another fuel to reduce air 

pollutants. 
Glossary 

 7-11 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Coke: A solid carbonaceous residue derived from low-ash, low-sulfur bituminous coal from 

which the volatile constituents are driven off by baking in an oven at temperatures as high as 

2000°F so that the fixed carbon and residual ash are fused together. Coke is used as a fuel 

and as a reducing agent in smelting iron ore in a blast furnace. Coke from coal is gray, hard, 

and porous and has a heating value of 24.8 million Btu per ton. 

Cold shutdown: The term used to define a reactor coolant system at atmospheric pressure 

and at a temperature below 200°F following a reactor cooldown.

Collective dose: The sum of the individual doses received in a given period by a specified 

population from exposure to a specified source of radiation. 

Combined cycle: A technology through which electricity is produced from otherwise lost waste 

heat exiting from one or more gas (combustion) turbines. The exiting heat is routed to a 

conventional boiler or to a heat recovery steam generator for utilization by a steam turbine in the 

production of electricity. This process increases the efficiency of the electric generating unit. 

Combustion: Chemical oxidation accompanied by the generation of energy, typically in the 

form of light and heat. 

Committed dose equivalent: The dose equivalent to organs or tissues of reference that will 

be received from an intake of radioactive material by an individual during the 50-year period 

following the intake. 

Compact: A group of two or more States formed to dispose of low-level radioactive waste on a 

regional basis. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 encouraged States to form 

compacts to ensure continuing low-level waste disposal capacity. As of December 2000, 

44 States have formed 10 compacts. No compact has successfully sited and constructed a 

disposal facility. 

Condenser: A large heat exchanger designed to cool exhaust steam from a turbine below the 

boiling point so that it can be returned to the heat source as water. In a pressurized water 

reactor, the water is returned to the steam generator. In a boiling water reactor, it returns to the 

reactor core. The heat removed from the steam by the condenser is transferred to a circulating 

water system and is exhausted to the environment, either through a cooling tower or directly into 

a body of water. 

Coniferous: Of or relating to or part of trees or shrubs bearing cones and evergreen leaves. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-12 

Containment or reactor building: The containment or reactor building in a pressurized water 

reactor (PWR) is a massive concrete or steel structure that houses the reactor vessel, reactor 

coolant piping and pumps, steam generators, pressurizer, pumps, and associated piping. The 

reactor building structure of a BWR generally includes a containment structure and a shield 

building. The BWR containment reactor building is a massive concrete or steel structure that 

houses the reactor vessel, the reactor coolant piping and pumps, and the suppression pool. It is 

located inside a somewhat less substantive structure called the shield building. The shield 

building for a BWR also generally contains the spent fuel pool and the new fuel pool. The 

reactor building for both PWRs and BWRs is designed to withstand natural disasters, such as 

hurricanes and earthquakes. The containment’s ability to withstand such events and to contain 

the effects of accidents initiated by system failures constitutes the principal protection against 

releasing radioactive material to the environment. 

Cooling pond: A natural or man-made body of water that is used for dissipating waste heat 

from power plants. 

Cooling tower: Structures designed to remove excess heat from the condenser without 

dumping the heated cooling water directly into water bodies, such as lakes or rivers. There are 

two principal types of cooling towers: mechanical draft towers and natural draft towers. Most 

nuclear plants that have once-through cooling do not rely on cooling towers. However, five 

facilities with once-through cooling also have cooling towers. 

Cooling tower drift: Water lost from a cooling tower in the form of liquid droplets entrained in 

the exhaust air. Drift is independent of water lost through evaporation. Units may be in lb/hr or 

a percentage of circulating water flow. Drift eliminators control this loss from the tower. 

Cooling-water intake structure: The structure and any associated constructed waterways 

used to withdraw cooling water from water bodies. The cooling water intake structure extends 

from the point at which water is withdrawn from the surface water source to the first intake pump 

or series of pumps. 

Corona discharge: The electrical breakdown of air into charged particles that results in the 

creation of ions or charged particles in air due to electric field discharge near transmission lines, 

most noticeable during thunder or rain storms. Corona is a phenomenon associated with all 

energized transmission lines. It is the electrical breakdown of air into charged particles. The 

phenomenon appears as a bluish-purple glow on the surface of and adjacent to a conductor 

when the voltage gradient exceeds a certain critical value, thereby producing light, audible noise 

(described as crackling or hissing), and ozone. 
Glossary 

 7-13 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): Established by the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508) describe 

the process for implementing NEPA, including preparation of environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, and the timing and extent of public participation. 

Criteria pollutants: A group of very common air pollutants whose presence in the environment 

is regulated by the EPA on the basis of certain criteria (information on health and/or 

environmental effects of pollution). Criteria air pollutants are widely distributed all over the 

United States. There are six common air pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards have been established by the EPA under Title I of the Clean Air Act: sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and lead. 

Standards were developed for these pollutants on the basis of scientific knowledge about their 

health and environmental effects. 

Critical habitat: Specific geographic areas, whether occupied by a listed species or not, that 

are essential for its conservation and that have been formally designated by rules published in 

the Federal Register. 

Criticality: A term used in reactor physics to describe the state when the number of neutrons 

released by fission is exactly balanced by the neutrons being absorbed (by the fuel and 

poisons) and escaping the reactor core. A reactor is said to be “critical” when it achieves a 

self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, as when the reactor is operating. 

Crude oil: A mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid phase in natural underground 

reservoirs and remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after passing through surface separating 

facilities. Depending upon the characteristics of the crude stream, it may also include: (1) small 

amounts of hydrocarbons that exist in the gaseous phase in natural underground reservoirs but 

are liquid at atmospheric pressure; (2) small amounts of nonhydrocarbons produced with the oil, 

such as sulfur and various metals, and (3) drip gases and liquid hydrocarbons produced from tar 

sands, oil sands, gilsonite, and oil shale. 

Cultural resources: The remains of past human activities that have historic or cultural 

meaning. They include archaeological sites (e.g., prehistoric campsites and villages), historicera resources (e.g., farmsteads, forts, and canals), and traditional cultural properties 

(e.g., resource collection areas and sacred areas). Culture is understood to mean the traditions, 

beliefs, practices, lifeways, arts, crafts, and social institutions of any community, be it an Indian 

tribe, a local ethnic group, or the people of the nation as a whole (see also National Park 

Service Bulletin #38). 

Cumulative dose: The total dose resulting from repeated or prolonged exposures to ionizing 

radiation over time. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-14 

Cumulative impacts: The impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impacts 

of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of what agency (Federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative risk: The risk of a common toxic effect associated with concurrent exposure by all 

relevant pathways and routes of exposure to a group of chemicals that share a common 

mechanism of toxicity. 

Curie (Ci): The basic unit used to describe the intensity of radioactivity in a sample of material. 

The curie is equal to 37 billion (3.7  1010) disintegrations per second, which is approximately 

the activity of 1 gram of radium. A curie is also a quantity of any radionuclide that decays at a 

rate of 37 billion disintegrations per second. It is named for Marie and Pierre Curie, who 

discovered radium in 1898. 

Decibel, A-weighted (dBA): A standard unit for the measure of the relative loudness or 

intensity of sound. The relative intensity is the ratio of the intensity of a sound wave to a 

reference intensity. In general, a sound doubles in loudness with every increase of 10 dB. By 

convention, the intensity level of sound at the threshold of hearing for a young healthy individual 

is 0 dB. 

Deciduous: Trees and shrubs that shed their leaves on an annual cycle. 

Decommissioning: The process of closing down a facility followed by reducing residual 

radioactivity to a level that permits the release of the property for unrestricted use or restricted 

use (see 10 CFR 20.1003). 

DECON: A method of decommissioning in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a 

facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed and safety buried in a 

low-level radioactive waste landfill or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be 

released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations. 

Decontamination: Removal of unwanted radioactive or hazardous contamination by a 

chemical or mechanical process. 

Deep-dose equivalent: The dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 1 cm; applies to external 

whole-body exposure. 
Glossary 

 7-15 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Demand-side management (DSM): The planning, implementation, and monitoring of utility 

activities designed to encourage consumers to modify patterns of electricity usage, including the 

timing and level of electricity demand. It only refers to energy and load-shape modifying 

activities that are undertaken in response to utility-administered programs. It does not refer to 

energy and load-shaped changes arising from the normal operation of the marketplace or from 

government-mandated energy-efficiency standards. DSM covers the complete range of 

load-shape objectives, including strategic conservation and load management, as well as 

strategic load growth. 

Demographics: A term used to describe specific population characteristics such as age, 

gender, education, and income level. 

Densitometer: An apparatus for measuring the optical density of a material, such as a 

photographic negative. 

Depleted uranium: Uranium having a percentage of uranium-235 smaller than the 0.7 percent 

found in natural uranium. It results from uranium isotope enrichment operations. 

 

Deposition: The laying down of matter by a natural process (e.g., the settling of particulate 

matter out of air or water onto soil or sediment surfaces). 

Design-basis accident: A postulated accident that a nuclear facility must be designed and 

built to withstand without loss to the systems, structures, and components necessary to ensure 

public health and safety. 

Desquamation: To shed, peel, or come off in scales. 

Detritus: Dead, decaying plant material. 

Dewatering: To remove or drain water from an area. 

Dielectric: A nonconductor of electricity. 

Diesel generator: An electric generator that runs on diesel fuel. 

Diffusion: A process in which substances are transported from one area to another due to 

differences in the concentration of that material or in temperature. 

Disposal: The act of placing unwanted materials in an area with the intent of not recovering in 

the future. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-16 

Dissolved gas: Gas dissolved in water or in other liquid without change in its chemical 

structure. 

Dissolved oxygen: Oxygen dissolved in water. Dissolved oxygen is necessary for the life of 

fish and most other aquatic organisms, and is one of the most important indicators of the 

condition of a water body. 

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid): One of two types of molecules that encode genetic information 

(the other is ribonucleic acid [RNA]). In humans, DNA is the genetic material, and RNA is 

transcribed from it. In some other organisms, RNA is the genetic material and, in reverse 

fashion, the DNA is transcribed from it. 

Dose: The absorbed dose, given in rads (or in SI units, grays), that represents the energy 

absorbed from the radiation in a gram of any material. The biological dose or dose equivalent, 

given in rem or sieverts, is a measure of the biological damage to living tissue from radiation 

exposure. 

Dose equivalent: The product of the absorbed dose in tissue, quality factor, and all other 

modifying factors at the location of interest. The units of dose equivalent are the rem and 

sievert (Sv). 

Dose rates: The ionizing radiation dose delivered per unit of time (e.g., rem or sieverts per 

hour). 

Dosimeter: A small, portable instrument (such as a film badge or thermoluminescent or pocket 

dosimeter) for measuring and recording the total accumulated personal dose of ionizing 

radiation. 

Dredging: Removing accumulated sediments from a water body to increase depth or remove 

contaminants. 

Dry cask: Large, rugged container made of steel or steel-reinforced concrete, 18 or more 

inches thick. A cask uses materials like steel, concrete and lead—instead of water—as a 

radiation shield. 

Dry cask storage: A method for storing spent nuclear fuel (see dry cask). 

Dry steam: Geothermal plants that use the steam from the geothermal reservoir as it comes 

from wells, and route it directly through turbine/generator units to produce electricity. 
Glossary 

 7-17 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Dual-fired unit: A generating unit that can produce electricity using two or more input fuels. In 

some of these units, only the primary fuel can be used continuously; the alternate fuel(s) can be 

used only as a start-up fuel or in emergencies. 

Earthquake: A sudden ground motion or vibration of the Earth. It can be produced by a rapid 

release of stored-up energy along an active fault in the Earth’s crust.

Ecoregion: A geographically distinct area of land that is characterized by a distinctive climate, 

ecological features, and plant and animal communities. 

Ecosystem: A group of organisms and their physical environment interacting and functioning 

as a unit. 

Effective dose equivalent: The sum of the products of the dose equivalent to the organ or 

tissue and the weighting factors applicable to each of the body organs or tissues that are 

irradiated. 

Effluent: Wastewater (treated or untreated) that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or 

industrial outfall. This term generally refers to wastes discharged into surface waters. 

Electric power: The rate at which electric energy is transferred. Electric power is measured by 

capacity and is commonly expressed in megawatts (MW). 

Electric power grid: A system of synchronized power providers and consumers connected by 

transmission and distribution lines and operated by one or more control centers. In the 

continental United States, the electric power grid consists of three systems: the Eastern 

Interconnect, the Western Interconnect, and the Texas Interconnect. In Alaska and Hawaii, 

several systems encompass areas smaller than the State (e.g., the interconnect serving 

Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Kenai Peninsula). 

Electricity: A form of energy characterized by the presence and motion of elementary charged 

particles generated by friction, induction, or chemical change. 

Electricity generation: The process of producing electric energy or the amount of electric 

energy produced by transforming other forms of energy, commonly expressed in kilowatt 

hours (kWh) or megawatt hours (MWh). 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-18 

Electromagnetic fields: The field of energy resulting from the movement of alternating electric 

current (AC) along the path of a conductor, composed of both electrical and magnetic 

components and existing in the immediate vicinity of, and surrounding, the electric conductor. 

Electromagnetic fields exist in both high-voltage electric transmission power lines and in 

low-voltage electric conductors in homes and appliances. 

Electromagnetic radiation: A traveling wave motion resulting from changing electric or 

magnetic fields. Familiar electromagnetic radiation ranges from x-rays (and gamma rays) of 

short wavelength, through the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared regions, to radar and radio waves 

of relatively long wavelength. 

Endangered species: Any species, plant or animal, that is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant part of its range. Requirements for declaring a species endangered are found 

in the Endangered Species Act. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA): Requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether endangered or 

threatened species or their habitats will be affected by a proposed activity and what, if any, 

mitigation measures are needed to address the impacts. 

Energy: The capacity for doing work as measured by the capability of doing work (potential 

energy) or the conversion of this capability to motion (kinetic energy). Energy has several 

forms, some of which are easily convertible and can be changed to another form useful for 

work. Most of the world’s convertible energy comes from fossil fuels that are burned to produce 

heat that is then used as a transfer medium to mechanical or other means in order to 

accomplish tasks. Electrical energy is usually measured in kilowatt hours, while heat energy is 

usually measured in British thermal units (Btu). 

Energy demand: The energy needed by consumers at any point in time for household, 

business, or industrial purposes. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA): An independent agency within the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that develops surveys, collects energy data, and analyzes 

and models energy issues. The EIA must meet (1) the requests of Congress, other elements 

within the DOE, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Executive Branch; (2) its own 

independent needs; and (3) assist the general public or other interest groups, without taking a 

policy position. 

Energy supply: Energy made available for use. Supply can be considered and measured 

from the point of view of the energy provider or the receiver. 
Glossary 

 7-19 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

ENTOMB: A method of decommissioning nuclear facilities in which radioactive contaminants 

are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete. The entombment structure 

is appropriately maintained and continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactivity 

decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property. 

Entrainment: The incorporation of all life stages of fish and shellfish with intake water-flow 

entering and passing through a cooling water intake structure and into a cooling water system. 

Environmental assessment (EA): A concise public document that a Federal agency prepares 

under the National Environmental Policy Act to provide sufficient evidence and analysis to 

determine whether a proposed action requires preparation of an environmental impact 

statement or whether a Finding of No Significant Impact can be issued. An EA must include 

brief discussions on the need for the proposed action and the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action and the no action alternative. 

Environmental impact statement (EIS): A document required of Federal agencies by the 

National Environmental Policy Act for major proposals or legislation that will or could 

significantly affect the environment. 

Environmental justice: The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and 

educational levels with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. 

Erosion: The process where wind, water, ice, and other mechanical and chemical forces wear 

away materials such as rocks and soil, breaking up particles and moving them from one place to 

another. 

Erythema: Superficial reddening of the skin due to the dilatation of blood vessels. Erythema is 

often a sign of infection or inflammation. 

Essential fish habitat (EFH): Those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding or growth to maturity. EFH is protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 1976. 

Estuary: A transitional zone along the coastline where ocean saltwater mixes with freshwater 

from the land, subject to tidal influences. Estuaries are often semi-enclosed by land, but their 

currents always have access to the open ocean. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-20 

Eutrophication: A condition in an aquatic ecosystem where high nutrient concentrations 

stimulate blooms of algae (e.g., phytoplankton). Algal decomposition may lower dissolved 

oxygen concentrations. Although eutrophication is a natural process in the aging of lakes and 

some estuaries, it can be accelerated by both point and nonpoint sources of nutrients. 

Exceedance probability: The average frequency with which an event (e.g., flood, earthquake) 

of a particular magnitude will be exceeded during a certain length of time. Expressed as the 

probability that a level will be exceeded in any year (the annual exceedance probability) or as 

the average recurrence interval (e.g., a 100-year flood). 

Exposure: Being exposed to ionizing radiation, radioactive material, or other contaminants. 

External dose: That portion of the dose equivalent received from radiation sources outside the 

body. 

Farmland Protection Policy Act: An Act whose purpose is to reduce the conversion of 

farmland to nonagricultural uses as a result of Federal projects and programs. The Act requires 

that Federal agencies comply to the fullest extent possible with state and local government 

policies to preserve farmland. It includes a recommendation that evaluations and analyses of 

prospective farmland conversion impacts be made early in the planning process—before a site 

or design is selected—and that, where possible, agencies make such evaluations and analyses 

part of the National Environmental Policy Act process. 

Fault (geology): A fracture or a zone of fractures within a rock formation along which vertical, 

horizontal, or transverse slippage has occurred. A normal fault occurs when the hanging wall 

has been depressed in relation to the footwall. A reverse fault occurs when the hanging wall has 

been raised in relation to the footwall. A strike-slip fault occurs where two geologic plates are 

sliding past each other and stress builds up between them. 

Fecundity: Number of eggs an animal produces during each reproductive cycle; the potential 

reproductive capacity of an organism or population. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC): Independent Federal agency with 

jurisdiction over interstate electricity sales, wholesale electric rates, hydroelectric licensing, 

natural gas pricing, and oil pipeline rates. 

Federal Register: The official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal 

agencies and organizations, as well as Executive Orders and other presidential documents. 
Glossary 

 7-21 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Film badge: Photographic film used to measure ionizing radiation exposure for personnel 

monitoring purposes. The film badge may contain two or three films of differing sensitivities, 

and it may also contain a filter that shields part of the film from certain types of radiation. 

Fission: The splitting of a nucleus into at least two other nuclei and the release of a relatively 

large amount of energy. Two or three neutrons are usually released during this type of 

transformation. 

Fission products: The radioactive isotopes formed by the fission of heavy elements. 

Floodplain: Lowlands and relatively flat areas adjoining the channel of a river, stream, or other 

watercourse; or ocean, lake, or other body of water, which have been or may be inundated by 

flood water, and those other areas subject to flooding. Floodplains include, at a minimum, that 

area with at least a 1.0 percent chance of being inundated by a flood in any given year.

Flue gas: The air coming out of a chimney after combustion in the burner it is venting. It can 

include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides, particles, and many chemical 

pollutants. 

Flue gas desulfurization: Equipment (also referred to as scrubbers) used to remove sulfur 

oxides from the combustion gases of a boiler plant before discharge to the atmosphere. 

Chemicals such as lime are used as scrubbing media. 

Fluidized-bed combustion: A method of burning particulate fuel, such as coal, in which the 

amount of air required for combustion far exceeds that found in conventional burners. The fuel 

particles are continually fed into a bed of mineral ash in the proportions of 1 part fuel to 

200 parts ash, while a flow of air passes up through the bed, causing it to act like a turbulent 

fluid.

Fossil fuel: Fuel derived from ancient organic remains such as peat, coal, crude oil, and 

natural gas. 

Fossil fuel plant: A plant using coal, petroleum, or gas as its source of energy. 

Fossil-fuel electric (power) generation: Electric generation in which the prime mover is a 

turbine rotated by high-pressure steam produced in a boiler by heat from burning fossil fuels. 

Fuel: Any material substance that can be consumed to supply heat or power. Includes 

petroleum, coal, and natural gas (the fossil fuels), and other consumable materials, such as 

uranium, biomass, and hydrogen. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-22 

Fuel assembly: A cluster of fuel rods (or plates) that are also called fuel pins or fuel elements. 

Many fuel assemblies make up a reactor core. 

Fuel cladding: See cladding.

Fuel cycle: The entire set of sequential processes or stages involved in the utilization of fuel, 

including extraction, transformation, transportation, and combustion. Emissions generally occur 

at each stage of the fuel cycle. 

Fuel oil: A liquid petroleum product less volatile than gasoline, used as an energy source. Fuel 

oil includes distillate fuel oil (No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4), and residual fuel oil (No. 5 and No. 6). 

Fuel pellets: As used in pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors, a pellet is a 

small cylinder approximately 3/8-in. in diameter and 5/8-inch in length, consisting of uranium 

fuel in a ceramic form—uranium dioxide (UO2). Typical fuel pellet enrichments in nuclear power 

reactors range from 2.0 percent to 3.5 percent uranium-235. 

Fuel rod: A long, slender tube that holds fissionable material (fuel) for nuclear reactor use. 

Fuel rods are assembled into bundles called fuel elements or fuel assemblies, which are loaded 

individually into the reactor core. 

Fugitive dust: Particulate air pollution released to the ambient air from ground-disturbing 

activities related to construction, manufacturing, or transportation (i.e., the discharges are not 

released through a confined stream such as a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally 

equivalent opening). Specific activities that generate fugitive dust include, but are not limited to, 

land-clearing operations, travel of vehicles on disturbed land or unpaved access roads, or onsite 

roads. 

Fugitive emissions: Unintended leaks of gas from vessels, pipes, valves, or fittings used in 

the processing, transmission, and/or transportation of liquids or gases. These emissions can 

include the release of volatile vapors from a diesel fuel, natural gas, or solvent leak. 

Fujita scale: Classifies tornadoes based on wind damage. The scale ranges from F0 for the 

weakest to F5 for the strongest tornadoes. 

Gamma rays: High-energy, short wavelength, electromagnetic radiation emitted from the 

nucleus of an atom. Gamma radiation frequently accompanies alpha and beta emissions and 

always accompanies fission. Gamma rays are very penetrating and are best stopped or 

shielded by dense materials, such as lead or depleted uranium. Gamma rays are similar to 

x-rays. See also x-rays and gamma rays. 
Glossary 

 7-23 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Gas bubble disease: A condition that occurs when aquatic organisms are exposed to water 

with high partial pressures of certain gases (usually nitrogen) and then subsequently are 

exposed to water with lower partial pressures of the same gases. Dissolved gas (especially 

nitrogen) within the tissues comes out of solution and forms embolisms (bubbles) within the 

affected tissues, most noticeably the eyes and fins. 

Gas supersaturation: Concentrations of dissolved gases in water that are above the normal 

saturation limit. 

Gas turbine: A gas turbine consists typically of an axial-flow air compressor and one or more 

combustion chambers where liquid or gaseous fuel is burned and the hot gases are passed to 

the turbine, and where the hot gases expand, drive the generator, and are then used to run the 

compressor.

Gasification: A method for converting coal, petroleum, biomass, wastes, or other 

carbon-containing materials into a gas that can be (1) burned to generate power or 

(2) processed into chemicals and fuels. 

Generator capacity: The maximum output, commonly expressed in megawatts (MW), that 

generating equipment can supply to system load, adjusted for ambient conditions. 

Generic environmental impact statement (GEIS): A GEIS assesses the scope and impact of 

environmental effects that would be associated with an action at numerous sites. 

Geologic repository: A deep underground engineered facility used to permanently isolate 

used nuclear fuel or high-level nuclear waste while its radioactivity decays safely. 

Geology: The science that deals with the study of the Earth: its materials, processes, 

environments, and its history, including rocks and their formations and structures. 

Geothermal energy: Hot water or steam extracted from geothermal reservoirs in the earth’s 

crust. Water or steam extracted from geothermal reservoirs can be used for geothermal heat 

pumps, water heating, or electricity generation. 

Geothermal plant: A plant in which the prime mover is a steam turbine driven either by steam 

produced from hot water or by natural steam that derives its energy from heat found in rock. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-24 

Global climate change: Changes in the Earth’s surface temperature thought to be caused by 

the greenhouse effect and responsible for changes in global climate patterns. The greenhouse 

effect is the trapping and buildup of heat in the atmosphere (troposphere) near the Earth’s 

surface. Some of the heat flowing back toward space from the Earth’s surface is absorbed by 

water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, and certain other gases in the atmosphere and then 

reradiated back toward the Earth’s surface.

Global warming: An increase in the near-surface temperature of the earth. Global warming 

has occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is today most 

often used to refer to the warming many scientists predict will occur as a result of increased 

anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. 

Global warming potential (GWP): An index used to compare the relative radiative forcing per 

unit molecule or unit mass change for varied greenhouse gases of different gases without 

directly calculating the changes in atmospheric concentrations. The GWPs of a particular 

greenhouse gas are calculated as a time-integrated ratio of the radiative or climate forcing that 

would result from the emission of one kilogram of that greenhouse gas to that resulting from the 

emission of one kilogram of carbon dioxide over a fixed period of time, such as 100 years. 

Gonads: Male and female sex organs (testes and ovaries). 

Graphite: Pure carbon in mineral form. Technically, graphite at 100 percent carbon is the 

highest rank of coal. However, its relatively limited availability and physical characteristics and 

chemical characteristics have limited its use as an energy source. Instead, it is used primarily in 

lubricants. 

Gray: The international system (SI) unit of absorbed dose. One gray is equal to an absorbed 

dose of 1 Joule/kilogram (one gray equals 100 rads) (see 10 CFR 20.1004). 

Greater-than-Class C Waste (GTCC): GTCC waste means low-level radioactive waste that 

exceeds the concentration limits of radionuclides established for Class C waste 

in 10 CFR 61.55. 

Greenfield site: Vacant land that has never been developed or was formerly occupied by 

farms or low-density development that left the land free of environmental contamination. 

Greenfield sites are typically located in suburban or ex-urban areas and can be less costly to 

develop than the brownfield sites that are often located in urban areas. 
Glossary 

 7-25 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Greenhouse gases: Those gases, such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride, that are 

transparent to solar (short-wave) radiation but opaque to long-wave (infrared) radiation, thus 

preventing long-wave radiant energy from leaving the earth’s atmosphere. The net effect is a 

trapping of absorbed radiation and a tendency to warm the planet’s surface. While also a 

product of industrial activities, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone, and water vapor 

are naturally occurring greenhouse gases. 

Grid: See electric power grid. 

Gross generation: The total amount of electric energy produced by generating units and 

measured at the generating terminal in kilowatt hours (kWh) or megawatt hours (MWh). 

Groundwater: The water found beneath the earth’s surface, usually in porous rock formations 

(aquifers) or in a zone of saturation, which may supply wells and springs, as well as base flow to 

major streams and rivers. Generally, it refers to all water contained in the ground. 

Habitat: The place, including physical and biotic conditions, where a population or community 

of organisms, both plants and animals, lives. 

Half-life: The time in which one-half of the atoms of a particular radioactive substance 

disintegrate into another nuclear form. Measured half-lives vary from millionths of a second to 

billions of years. Also called physical or radiological half-life. 

Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs): Air pollutants that are not covered by ambient air quality 

standards but which, as defined in the Clean Air Act, may present a threat of adverse human 

health effects or adverse environmental effects. Such pollutants include asbestos, beryllium, 

mercury, benzene, coke oven emissions, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride. 

Hazardous waste: A solid waste or combination of solid wastes that, because of its quantity, 

concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may (1) cause or significantly 

contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating 

reversible illness or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the 

environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed 

(as defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, Public Law 94-580). 

Heat sink: Anything that absorbs heat. It is usually part of the environment, such as the air, a 

river, or a lake. 

Heavy metals: Metallic elements with higher atomic weights, many of which are toxic at higher 

concentrations. Examples are mercury, chromium, cadmium, and lead. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-26 

High-level waste (HLW): The highly radioactive materials produced as a byproduct of the 

reactions that occur inside nuclear reactors. High-level wastes take one of two forms, (1) Spent 

(used) reactor fuel when it is accepted for disposal, or (2) Waste materials remaining after spent 

fuel is reprocessed. 

Historic property: Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included 

in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the 

Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to 

and located within such properties. The term can also include properties of traditional religious 

and cultural importance that meet the National Register criteria (see also 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1)). 

Horizontal axis wind turbine: The most common type of wind turbine, in which the axis of 

rotation is oriented horizontally. 

Hydrocarbons: Any compound or mix of compounds, solids, liquids, or gases, composed of 

carbon and hydrogen (e.g., coal, crude oil, and natural gas). 

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs): Chemicals composed of one or more carbon atoms and 

varying numbers of hydrogen, chlorine, and fluorine atoms. 

Hydroelectric power: The use of flowing water to produce electrical energy. 

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs): A group of man-made chemicals composed of one or two 

carbon atoms and varying numbers of hydrogen and fluorine atoms. Most HFCs have 100-year 

Global Warming Potentials in the thousands. 

Hydrology: The study of water that considers its occurrence, properties distribution, circulation, 

and transport and includes groundwater, surface water, and rainfall. 

IGCC: See integrated gasification combined cycle technology. 

Impacting factors: The mechanisms by which an action affects a given resource or receptor. 

Impingement: The entrapment of all life stages of fish and shellfish on the outer part of an 

intake structure or against a screening device during periods of intake water withdrawal. 

Impulse turbine: A turbine that is driven by high-velocity jets of water or steam from a nozzle 

directed onto vanes or buckets attached to a wheel. 
Glossary 

 7-27 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI): An ISFSI is designed and constructed 

for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials associated with 

spent fuel storage. ISFSIs may be located at the site of a nuclear power plant or at another 

location. The most common design for an ISFSI, at this time, is a concrete pad with dry casks 

containing spent fuel bundles. ISFSIs are used by operating plants that require increased spent 

fuel storage capability because their spent fuel pools have reached capacity. 

In situ: In its original place. 

Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology: An energy generation 

technology in which coal, water, and oxygen are fed to a gasifier, which produces syngas. This 

medium-Btu gas is cleaned (particulates and sulfur compounds removed) and fed to a gas 

turbine. The hot exhaust of the gas turbine and heat recovered from the gasification process is 

routed through a heat-recovery generator to produce steam, which drives a steam turbine to 

produce electricity. 

Internal dose: That portion of the dose equivalent received from radioactive material taken into 

the body. 

Ionizing radiation: Any radiation capable of displacing electrons from atoms or molecules, 

thereby producing ions. Some examples are alpha, beta, gamma, x-rays, neutrons, and 

ultraviolet light. High doses of ionizing radiation may produce severe skin or tissue damage. 

Isotopic enrichment: A process by which the relative abundance of the isotopes of a given 

element is altered, thus producing a form of the element that has been enriched in one 

particular isotope and depleted in its other isotopic forms. 

Landfill gas: Gas that is generated by decomposition of organic material at landfill disposal 

sites. The average composition of landfill gas is approximately 50 percent methane and 

50 percent carbon dioxide and water vapor by volume. The methane percentage, however, can 

vary from 40 to 60 percent, depending on several factors including waste composition 

(e.g., carbohydrate and cellulose content). The methane in landfill gas may be vented, flared, or 

combusted to generate electricity or heat, or injected into a pipeline for combustion elsewhere. 

Leachate: The liquid that has percolated through the soil or other medium. 

License renewal: Renewal of the operating license of a nuclear power plant. 

License renewal term: That period of time past the original or current license term for which 

the renewed license is in force. Although the length of license renewal terms can vary, they 

cannot exceed 20 years. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-28 

Licensee: The entity (usually an energy company) that holds the license to operate a nuclear 

power plant.

Light water reactors (LWRs): Reactors that use ordinary water as coolant, including BWRs 

and PWRs, the most common types used in the United States. 

Lignite coal: Also referred to as brown coal, it is the youngest and lowest rank coal with 

respect to its value as an energy source. Lignite coal deposits are relatively young and have 

not experienced extremes of heat and pressure as have higher ranks of coal. On average, 

lignite coals contain 25–35 percent by weight carbon. They represent about 7 percent of the 

U.S. annual coal production and are used primarily to produce electricity. 

Load shape: A method of describing peak load demand and the relationship of power supplied 

to the time of occurrence. 

Lower limit of detection (LLD): The lowest limit that a detector can measure. 

Lowest observed effects level (LOEL): The lowest exposure level at which there are 

statistically or biologically significant increases in frequency or severity of an effect between the 

exposed population and its appropriate control group. 

Low-income populations: Persons whose average family income is below the poverty line. 

The poverty line takes into account family size and age of individuals in the family. In 1999, the 

poverty line for a family of five with three children below the age of 18 was $19,882. For any 

family below the poverty line, all family members are considered to be below the poverty line. 

Low-level radioactive waste (LLW): A general term for a wide range of wastes having low 

levels of radioactivity. Nuclear fuel cycle facilities (e.g., nuclear power reactors and fuel 

fabrication plants) that use radioactive materials generate low-level wastes as part of their 

normal operations. These wastes are generated in many physical and chemical forms and 

levels of contamination (see 10 CFR 61.2). Low-level radioactive wastes containing source, 

special nuclear, or by-product material are acceptable for disposal in a land disposal facility. 

For the purposes of this definition, low-level waste has the same meaning as in the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Act, that is, radioactive waste not classified as high-level radioactive 

waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or by-product material as defined in 

Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act (uranium or thorium tailings and waste). 

Macroinvertebrates: Nonplanktonic, aquatic invertebrates, including insects, crustaceans, 

mollusks, and worms, which typically inhabit the bottom sediments of rivers, ponds, lakes, 

wetlands, or oceans. Their abundance and diversity are often used as an indicator of 

ecosystem health. 
Glossary 

 7-29 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Maintenance areas: Regions that were initially designated as nonattainment or unclassifiable 

and have since attained compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The 

Clean Air Act outlines several conditions that must be met before an area can be reclassified 

from nonattainment to an attainment maintenance area, one of which is the development and 

EPA approval of a maintenance plan. 

Man-rem: See person-rem. 

Marine: Of or pertaining to ocean environments. 

Maximally exposed individual (MEI): A hypothetical individual who, because of proximity, 

activities, or living habits, could potentially receive the maximum possible dose of radiation or of 

a hazardous chemical from a given event or process. 

Maximum achievable control technology (MACT): The emission standard for sources of air 

pollution requiring the maximum reduction of hazardous emissions, taking cost and feasibility 

into account. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the MACT must not be less than 

the average emission level achieved by controls on the best performing 12 percent of existing 

sources, by category of industrial and utility sources. 

Mechanical draft tower: Cooling tower system that sprays heated cooling water downward, 

while large fans pull air across the dropping water to remove the heat. As the water drops 

downward onto the slats in the cooling tower, the drops break up into a finer spray, and, thus, 

facilitate cooling. 

Megawatt: A unit of power equal to 1 million watts. Megawatt-thermal is commonly used to 

define heat produced, while megawatt-electric defines electricity produced.

Methane: A colorless, flammable, odorless hydrocarbon gas (CH4), which is the major 

component of natural gas. Methane is an important source of hydrogen in various industrial 

processes. Methane is a greenhouse gas. 

Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE): A gasoline additive, an oxygenate produced by reacting 

methanol with isobutylene. 

Microorganism: An organism that can be seen only through a microscope. Microorganisms 

include bacteria, protozoa, algae, and fungi.

Minority populations: Include American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islander; Black races; or people of Hispanic ethnicity. “Other” races and multiracial 

individuals may be considered as separate minorities. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-30 

Mitigation: A method or process by which impacts from actions can be made less injurious to 

the environment through appropriate protective measures. 

Mixed waste: Waste that contains both radioactive and hazardous constituents. 

Motile: Moving or having the power to move. 

Municipal solid waste (MSW): Residential solid waste and some nonhazardous commercial, 

institutional, and industrial wastes. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Air quality standards established by the 

Clean Air Act, as amended. The primary NAAQS specify maximum outdoor air concentrations 

of criteria pollutants that would protect the public health within an adequate margin of safety. 

The secondary NAAQS specify maximum concentrations that would protect the public welfare 

from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): Act requiring Federal agencies to 

prepare a detailed statement on the environmental impacts of their proposed major actions that 

may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966: Section 106 of the NHPA addresses the 

impacts of Federal undertakings on historic properties. Undertakings are defined in the NHPA 

as any project or activity that is funded or under the direct jurisdiction of a Federal agency, or 

any project or activity that requires a Federal permit, license, or approval (see also 

36 CFR 800.16(y)). 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): A Federal and State permitting 

system controlling the discharge of effluents to surface water and regulated through the Clean 

Water Act, as amended. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: This Act provides a process for 

museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items—human 

remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony—to lineal 

descendants and culturally affiliated Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. The Act 

includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American cultural items, 

intentional and inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural items on Federal and Tribal 

lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking. The Act also allows the 

intentional removal from or excavation of Native American cultural items from Federal or Tribal 

lands only with a permit or upon consultation with the appropriate Tribe. 
Glossary 

 7-31 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Natural draft cooling towers: Natural draft cooling towers use the differential pressure 

between the relatively cold outside air and the hot humid air on the inside of the tower as the 

driving force to move and cool water without the use of fans. 

Natural gas: A gaseous mixture of hydrocarbon compounds, the primary one being methane. 

Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) technology: An advanced power generation 

technology that improves the fuel efficiency of natural gas. Most new gas power plants in 

North America and Europe use NGCC technology. 

Natural gas liquids (NGL): Those hydrocarbons in natural gas that are separated from the gas 

as liquids through the process of absorption, condensation, adsorption, or other methods in gas 

processing or cycling plants. Generally such liquids consist of propane and heavier 

hydrocarbons and are commonly referred to as lease condensate, natural gasoline, and 

liquefied petroleum gases. Natural gas liquids include natural gas plant liquids (primarily 

ethane, propane, butane, and isobutene). 

Naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM): Radioactive materials that are found in 

nature. 

Neutron: An uncharged elementary particle, with a mass slightly greater than that of the 

proton, found in the nucleus of every atom heavier than hydrogen. 

NGCC: See natural gas combined cycle technology. 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx): Nitrogen oxides include various nitrogen compounds, primarily 

nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide. They form when fossil fuels are burned at high temperatures 

and react with volatile organic compounds to form ozone, the main component of urban smog. 

They are also a precursor pollutant that contributes to the formation of acid rain. Nitrogen 

oxides are among the six criteria air pollutants specified under Title I of the Clean Air Act. 

No-action alternative: For this GEIS, the no-action alternative represents a decision by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission to not allow for continued operation of nuclear power plants 

beyond the current operating license terms. All plants eventually would be required to shut 

down and undergo decommissioning. Under the no-action alternative, these eventualities would 

occur sooner rather than later. 

Noble gases: A gaseous chemical element that does not readily enter into chemical 

combination with other elements. Examples are helium, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-32 

Noise: Unwanted sound; a subjective term reflective of societal values regarding what 

constitutes unwanted or undesirable intrusions of sound. 

Nonattainment: Any area that does not meet the national primary or secondary ambient air 

quality standard established by the Environmental Protection Agency for designated pollutants, 

such as carbon monoxide and ozone. 

Nonradioactive nonhazardous waste: Waste that is neither radioactive nor hazardous. 

Nonrenewable fuels: Fuels that cannot be easily made or “renewed,” such as oil, natural gas, 

and coal.

Nonrenewable waste fuels: Municipal solid wastes from nonbiogenic sources and tire-derived 

fuels. 

Nonstochastic effect: Health effects, the severity of which varies with the dose and for which 

a threshold is believed to exist. Radiation-induced cataract formation is an example of a 

nonstochastic effect (also called a deterministic effect). 

North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC): A council formed in 1968 by the electric 

utility industry to promote the reliability and adequacy of bulk power supply in the electric utility 

systems of North America. NERC consists of regional reliability councils and encompasses 

essentially all the power regions of the contiguous United States, Canada, and Mexico. 

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): A coding system developed jointly 

by the United States, Canada, and Mexico to classify businesses and industries according to 

the type of economic activity in which they are engaged. NAICS replaces the Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. 

Nuclear fuel: Fuel that produces energy in a nuclear reactor through the process of nuclear 

fission. 

Nuclear fuel cycle: The series of steps involved in supplying fuel for nuclear power reactors, 

including mining, milling, isotopic enrichment, fabrication of fuel elements, use in reactors, 

chemical reprocessing to recover the fissionable material remaining in the spent fuel, 

re-enrichment of the fuel material re-fabrication into new fuel elements, and waste disposal. 

Nuclear power (nuclear electric power): Electricity generated by the use of the thermal 

energy released from the fission of nuclear fuel in a reactor. 

 
Glossary 

 7-33 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nuclear power plant: A facility that uses a nuclear reactor to generate electricity. 

Nuclear reactor: A device in which nuclear fission may be sustained and controlled in a 

self-supporting nuclear reaction. There are many types of reactors, but all incorporate certain 

features, including fissionable material or fuel, a moderating material (unless the reactor is 

operated on fast neutrons), a reflector to conserve escaping neutrons, provisions of removal of 

heat, measuring and controlling instruments, and protective devices. The reactor is the heart of 

a nuclear power plant. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): An independent regulatory agency that is 

responsible for overseeing the civilian use of nuclear materials in the United States. The NRC 

was established on October 11, 1974, by President Gerald Ford as one of two successor 

organizations to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which became defunct on that same 

day. The NRC took over the AEC’s responsibility for seeing that civilian nuclear materials and 

facilities are used safely and affect neither the public health nor the quality of the environment. 

The Commission’s activities focus on the nuclear reactors in the United States that are used to 

generate electricity on a commercial basis. It licenses the construction of new nuclear reactors 

and regulates their operation on a continuing basis. It oversees the use, processing, handling, 

and disposal of nuclear materials and wastes; inspects nuclear power plants and monitors both 

their safety procedures and their security measures; enforces compliance with established 

safety standards; and investigates nuclear accidents. The NRC’s Commissioners are appointed 

by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms. 

Occupational dose: The dose received by an individual in the course of employment in which 

the individual’s assigned duties involve exposure to radiation or to radioactive material. 

Occupational dose does not include dose received from background radiation, from any medical 

administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive 

materials and released in accordance with 10 CFR 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical 

research programs, or as a member of the general public. 

Occupational exposure: An exposure that occurs during work with sources of ionizing 

radiation. For example, exposures received from working on a nuclear reactor, in nuclear 

reprocessing, or by a dental nurse taking x-rays would be classed as occupational. 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): Independent Federal agency 

whose mission is to prevent work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths. Congress created 

OSHA under the Occupational Safety and Health Act on December 29, 1970. 

Once-through cooling system: In this cooling system, circulating water for condenser cooling 

is obtained from an adjacent body of water, such as a lake or river, passed through the 

condenser tubes, and returned directly at a higher temperature to the adjacent body of water.
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-34 

Organ dose: Dose received as a result of radiation energy absorbed in a specific organ. 

Organism: An individual of any form of animal or plant life. 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS): The OCS consists of the submerged lands, subsoil, and 

seabed, lying between the seaward extent of the States’ jurisdiction and the seaward extent of 

Federal jurisdiction. 

Overburden: Any material, consolidated or unconsolidated, that overlies a coal or other rock or 

mineral deposit.

Ozone (O3): A strong-smelling, reactive toxic chemical gas consisting of three oxygen atoms 

chemically attached to each other. It is formed in the atmosphere by chemical reactions 

involving nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds. The reactions are energized by 

sunlight. Ozone is a criteria air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and is a major constituent of 

smog. 

Parabolic trough: A high-temperature (above 180°F) solar thermal concentrator with the 

capacity for tracking the sun using one axis of rotation. Also known as a power trough. 

Particulate matter: Fine solid or liquid particles, such as dust, smoke, mist, fumes, or smog, 

found in air or emissions. The size of the particulates is measured in micrometers (μm). One 

micrometer is 1 millionth of a meter or 0.000039 inch. The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency has set standards for PM2.5 and PM10 particulates. 

Pathway (exposure): The way in which people are exposed to radiation or other contaminants. 

The three basic pathways are inhalation (contaminants are taken into the lungs), ingestion 

(contaminants are swallowed), and direct (external) exposure (contaminants cause damage 

from outside the body). 

Peak load: The maximum load during a specified period of time. 

Perched aquifer/groundwater: A body of groundwater of small lateral dimensions separated 

from an underlying body of groundwater by an unsaturated zone.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs): A group of man-made chemicals composed of one or two carbon 

atoms and four to six fluorine atoms, containing no chlorine. PFCs have no commercial uses 

and are emitted as a by-product of aluminum smelting and semiconductor manufacturing. PFCs 

have very high 100-year Global Warming Potentials and are very long-lived in the atmosphere. 
Glossary 

 7-35 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Personal protective equipment (PPE): Clothing and equipment that are worn to reduce 

exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals and other pollutants. 

Person-rem: The sum of the individual radiation dose equivalents received by members of a 

certain group or population. It may be calculated by multiplying the average dose per person by 

the number of persons exposed. For example, a thousand people, each exposed to 

one millirem, would have a collective dose of one person-rem.

Petroleum: A broadly defined class of liquid hydrocarbon mixtures. Includes crude oil, lease 

condensate, unfinished oils, refined products obtained from the processing of crude oil, and 

natural gas plant liquids. Volumes of finished petroleum products include nonhydrocarbon 

compounds, such as additives and detergents, after they have been blended into products. 

Photosynthesis: The process in green plants and certain other organisms by which 

carbohydrates are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water using sunlight as an energy 

source. Most forms of photosynthesis release oxygen as a by-product. Chlorophyll typically 

acts as the catalyst in this process. 

Photovoltaic and solar thermal energy: Energy radiated by the sun as electromagnetic 

waves (electromagnetic radiation) that is converted at electric utilities into electricity by means of 

solar (photovoltaic) cells or concentrating (focusing) collectors. 

Photovoltaic cell (PVC): An electronic device consisting of layers of semiconductor materials 

fabricated to form a junction (adjacent layers of materials with different electronic 

characteristics) and electrical contacts and being capable of converting incident light directly into 

electricity (direct current). 

Photovoltaic system: A system that converts light into electric current. 

Phytoplankton: Small, often single-celled plants that live suspended in bodies of water. 

Plutonium: A heavy, man-made, radioactive metallic element. The most important isotope is 

Pu-239, which has a half-life of more than 20,000 years; it can be used in reactor fuel and is the 

primary isotope in weapons. 

Plume: A visible or measurable emission or discharge of a contaminant from a given point of 

origin into any medium, such as that formed from a cooling water outfall into a receiving water 

body or smokestack into the atmosphere. 

PM10: Particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (0.0004 in.) or 

less. Particles less than this diameter are small enough to be deposited in the lungs.
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-36 

PM2.5: Particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers (0.0001 in.) or 

less. 

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): Aromatic hydrocarbons containing more than 

one fused benzene ring. PAHs are commonly formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil 

and gas, garbage, or other organic substances. 

Population dose: Dose received collectively by a population. 

Potable water: Water that is fit for humans to drink.

Power: The rate of producing, transferring, or using energy, most commonly associated with 

electricity. Power is measured in watts and often expressed in kilowatts (kW) or 

megawatts (MW). 

Pressurized water reactor (PWR): A power reactor in which thermal energy is transferred 

from the core to a heat exchanger by high-temperature water kept under high pressure in the 

primary system. Steam is generated in the heat exchanger in a secondary circuit. 

Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD): A Federal permit program for facilities defined 

as major sources under the New Source Review program. The intent of the program is to 

prevent the air quality in an attainment area from deteriorating. 

Primary system: A term that refers to the circulating water system in a pressurized water 

reactor, which removes the energy from the reactor and delivers it to the heat exchanger. 

Proposed action: An action proposed by a Federal agency and evaluated in an environmental 

impact statement or environmental assessment. In this GEIS, the proposed action is to renew 

commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses. 

Proton: A small particle, typically found within an atom’s nucleus, that possesses a positive 

electrical charge. The number of protons is unique for each chemical element. 

Proximity: Used sparingly to evaluate the remoteness of areas in which nuclear plants are 

located. A measure of the distance to larger cities. 
Glossary 

 7-37 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Public dose: The dose received by members of the public from exposure to radiation or to 

radioactive material released by a licensee, or to any other source of radiation under the control 

of a licensee. Public dose does not include occupational dose or doses received from 

background radiation, from any medical administration the individual has received, from 

exposure to individuals administered radioactive materials and released in accordance with 

10 CFR 35.75, or from voluntary participation in medical research programs. 

Pulverized coal: Coal that has been crushed to a fine dust in a grinding mill. It is blown into 

the combustion zone of a furnace and burns very rapidly and efficiently. 

Pumped-storage hydroelectric plant: A hydropower plant that usually generates electric 

energy during peak load periods by using water previously pumped into an elevated storage 

reservoir during off-peak periods when excess generating capacity is available to do so. When 

additional generating capacity is needed, the water can be released from the reservoir through a 

conduit to turbine generators located in a power plant at a lower level. 

Putrescible: Subject to the biological decomposition of organic matter and associated with 

anaerobic (no oxygen present) conditions. 

Pyrolysis: The thermal decomposition of biomass at high temperatures (greater than 400°F, or 

200°C) in the absence of air. The end product of pyrolysis is a mixture of solids (char), liquids 

(oxygenated oils), and gases (methane, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide) with proportions 

determined by operating temperature, pressure, oxygen content, and other conditions. 

Quality factor: The modifying factor that is used to derive dose equivalent from absorbed 

dose. 

Rad: The special unit for radiation absorbed dose, which is the amount of energy from any type 

of ionizing radiation (e.g., alpha, beta, gamma, neutrons) deposited in any medium (e.g., water, 

tissue, air). A dose of one rad means the absorption of 100 ergs (a small but measurable 

amount of energy) per gram of absorbing tissue (100 rad = 1 gray). 

Radiation (ionizing radiation): Alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, x-rays, neutrons, 

high-speed electrons, high-speed protons, and other particles capable of producing ions. 

Radiation, as used in 10 CFR Part 20, does not include nonionizing radiation, such as 

radiowaves or microwaves, or visible, infrared, or ultraviolet light (see also 10 CFR 20.1003). 

Radioactive decay: The decrease in the amount of any radioactive material with the passage 

of time due to the spontaneous emission from the atomic nuclei of either alpha or beta particles, 

often accompanied by gamma radiation. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-38 

Radioactive waste: Radioactive materials at the end of a useful life cycle or in a product that is 

no longer useful and should be properly disposed of. 

Radioactivity: The spontaneous emission of radiation, generally alpha or beta particles, often 

accompanied by gamma rays, from the nucleus of an unstable isotope. Also, the rate at which 

radioactive material emits radiation. Measured in units of becquerels or disintegrations per 

second. 

Radioisotope: An unstable isotope of an element that decays or disintegrates spontaneously, 

emitting radiation. Approximately 5,000 natural and artificial radioisotopes have been identified. 

Radionuclide: A radioisotope of an element. 

Raptor: A bird of prey such as a falcon, hawk, or eagle. 

Rated power: The design power level of an electrical generating device, which is the maximum 

power the device is allowed to generate. 

Reactor vessel: A device in which nuclear fission may be sustained and controlled in a 

self-supporting nuclear reaction. It houses the core (made up of fuel rods, control rods, and 

instruments contained within a reactor vessel) of most types of power reactors. 

Receptor: The individual or resource being affected by the impact. 

Reference reactor year (RRY): Refers to one year of operation of a 1,000-MW electric 

capacity nuclear power plant operating at an 80 percent availability factor to produce about 

80 MW-yr (0.8 GW-yr) of electricity. 

Refurbishment: Repair or replacement of reactor systems, structures, and components, such 

as turbines, steam generators, pressurizers, and recirculation piping systems. 

Region of Influence: Area occupied by affected resources and the distances at which impacts 

associated with license renewal may occur. 

rem (roentgen equivalent man): The acronym for roentgen equivalent man is a standard unit 

that measures the effects of ionizing radiation on humans. The dose equivalent in rem is equal 

to the absorbed dose in rads multiplied by the quality factor of the type of radiation 

(see 10 CFR 20.1004). 
Glossary 

 7-39 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Renewable energy resources: Energy resources that are naturally replenishing but 

flow-limited. They are virtually inexhaustible in duration, but limited in the amount of energy that 

is available per unit of time. Renewable energy resources include biomass, hydro, geothermal, 

solar, wind, ocean thermal, wave action, and tidal action. 

Renewable portfolio standards (RPSs): State policies that require electricity providers to 

generate a certain percentage, or, in some cases a certain specified amount, of electrical power 

through the use of renewable energy sources by a certain date. 

Residual fuel oil: A general classification for the heavier oils, known as No. 5 and No. 6 fuel 

oils, that remain after the distillate fuel oils and lighter hydrocarbons are distilled away in refinery 

operations. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): Act that regulates the storage, 

treatment, and disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. 

Right-of-way: The land and legal right to use and service the land along which a transmission 

line is located. Transmission line right-of-ways are usually acquired in widths that vary with the 

kilovolt (kV) size of the line. 

Riparian: Relating to, living in, or located on the bank of a river, lake, or tidewater.

Risk: The combined answers to the following questions: (1) What can go wrong? (2) How 

likely is it? (3) What are the consequences? 

Risk coefficient: A coefficient used to convert dose to risk. 

roentgen equivalent man (rem): See rem. 

Runoff: The portion of rainfall, melted snow, or irrigation water that flows across the ground 

and that may eventually enter surface waters.

Run-of-river hydroelectric plant: A hydropower plant that uses the flow of a stream as it 

occurs and has little or no reservoir capacity for storage. 

SAFSTOR: A method of decommissioning in which the nuclear facility is placed and 

maintained in such condition that the nuclear facility can be safely stored and subsequently 

decontaminated to levels that permit release for restricted or unrestricted use. 

Savanna: Grassland with scattered individual trees. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-40 

Scouring: The rapid erosion of sediment caused by the movement of water. 

Scrubbers: Air pollution control devices that are used to remove particulates and/or gases 

from industrial or power exhaust streams. 

Sediment: Particles of geologic origin that sink to the bottom of a body of water, or materials 

that are deposited by wind, water, or glaciers. 

Seismic: Of, subject to, or caused by an earthquake or earth vibration. 

Seismicity: The frequency and distribution of earthquakes.

Service water: Water used to cool heat exchangers or coolers in the power house other than 

the condenser. Service water may or may not be treated for use. 

Shallow-dose equivalent: Applies to external exposure of the skin or an extremity, is taken as 

the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 0.007 centimeters averaged over an area of 1 square 

centimeter. 

Sievert (Sv): The international system (SI) unit for dose equivalent equal to 1 Joule/kilogram. 

1 sievert = 100 rem. Named for physicist Rolf Sievert. 

Sludge: A dense, slushy, liquid-to-semifluid product that accumulates as an end result of an 

industrial or technological process. Industrial sludges are produced from the processing of 

energy-related raw materials, chemical products, water, mined ores, sewage, and other natural 

and man-made products. 

Socioeconomics: Social and economic characteristics of a human population. Includes both 

the social impacts of economic activity and the economic impacts of social activity. 

Soils: All unconsolidated materials above bedrock. Natural earthy materials on the Earth’s 

surface, in places modified or even made by human activity, containing living matter, and 

supporting or capable of supporting plants.

Solar energy: The radiant energy of the sun, which can be converted into other forms of 

energy, such as heat or electricity. 

Solar power tower: A solar energy conversion system that uses a large field of independently 

adjustable mirrors (heliostats) to focus solar rays on a near single point atop a fixed tower 

(receiver). The concentrated energy may be used to directly heat the working fluid of a Rankin 

cycle engine or to heat an intermediary thermal storage medium (such as a molten salt).
Glossary 

 7-41 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Solar radiation: A general term for the visible and near-visible (ultraviolet and near-infrared) 

electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by the sun. It has a spectral, or wavelength, 

distribution that corresponds to different energy levels; short wavelength radiation has a higher 

energy than long-wavelength radiation. 

Solar thermal systems or concentrating solar power (CSP): See solar power tower. 

Sound intensity: The measure of the amount of energy that is transported over a given area 

per unit of time. Sound intensity is expressed in units of W/m2

. 

Sparseness: Used (with proximity) to evaluate the remoteness of areas in which nuclear plants 

are located. A measure of population density. 

Spawning: Release or deposition of spermatozoa or ova, of which some will fertilize or be 

fertilized to produce offspring. 

Spent fuel burnup: A measure of how much energy is extracted from the nuclear fuel before it 

is removed from the core. Its units are MW-day per metric tonne of uranium in fresh fuel. 

Spent nuclear fuel: Nuclear reactor fuel that has been removed from a nuclear reactor 

because it can no longer sustain power production for economic or other reasons. 

Spent-fuel pool: An underwater storage and cooling facility for spent fuel elements that have 

been removed from a reactor. 

State Historic Preservation Office(r) (SHPO): The State agency (or officer) charged with the 

identification and protection of prehistoric and historic resources in accordance with the National 

Historic Preservation Act in the State (see also 36 CFR 800.2(c)(1)). 

State implementation plan (SIP): State-specific air quality plan for controlling air pollution 

emissions at levels that would attain and maintain compliance with the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards or State-specific air quality standards. Each State must develop its own 

regulations to monitor, permit, and control air emissions within its boundaries. 

Steam turbine: A device that converts high-pressure steam, produced in a boiler, into 

mechanical energy that can then be used to produce electricity by forcing blades in a cylinder to 

rotate and turn a generator shaft. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-42 

Stilling basin: An open structure or excavation at the foot of an overfall, chute, drop, or 

spillway to reduce the energy of the descending stream. A basin constructed to dissipate the 

energy of fast-flowing water (e.g., from a spillway or bottom outlet) and to protect the stream 

bed below a dam from erosion. 

Stochastic effect: Health effects that occur randomly and for which the probability of the effect 

occurring, rather than its severity, is assumed to be a linear function of dose without threshold. 

Hereditary effects and cancer incidence are examples of stochastic effect. 

Store and release dam: Hydropower facilities that store water in a reservoir behind a dam and 

release the water through turbines as needed to generate electricity. 

Stormwater: Stormwater runoff, snowmelt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage. 

Stratification: The formation, accumulation, or deposition of materials in layers, such as layers 

of freshwater overlying higher salinity water (saltwater) in estuaries. 

Strip mine: An open cut in which the overburden is removed from a coal bed or other mineral 

deposit prior to the removal of the desired underlying material. 

Sub-bituminous coal: Sub-bituminous coal has a higher heating value than lignite coal, due 

primarily to its average carbon content of 35–45 percent carbon and lower moisture levels. 

Sub-bituminous coal deposits in the United States are estimated to be at least 100 million years 

old. Sub-bituminous coal represents about 42 percent of annual U.S. coal production, with the 

majority being burned in boilers to produce steam to drive turbines that produce electricity. The 

major sub-bituminous deposits are in the Western states, primarily Wyoming. 

Sulfur: A yellowish nonmetallic element. It is present at various concentrations in many fossil 

fuels whose combustion releases sulfur compounds that are considered harmful to the 

environment. Some of the most commonly used fossil fuels are categorized according to their 

sulfur content, with lower sulfur fuels usually selling at a higher price. 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2): A gas formed from burning fossil fuels. Sulfur dioxide is one of the six 

criteria air pollutants specified under Title I of the Clean Air Act and contributes to the formation 

of acid rain. 

Sulfur oxides (SOx): Pungent, colorless gases that are formed primarily by fossil fuel 

combustion. Sulfur oxides may damage the respiratory tract, as well as plants and trees. 
Glossary 

 7-43 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Supercritical and subcritical: Supercritical and subcritical define the thermodynamic state of 

the water in the steam cycle. In supercritical steam generating units, the pressure at which the 

steam cycle is maintained is above water’s critical point so there is no distinction between 

water’s liquid and gaseous phases and the steam behaves as a homogenous supercritical fluid. 

The supercritical point for water is 22.1 MPa (approximately 3,207 pounds per square inch 

[psi]). Supercritical steam generators offer numerous advantages over their subcritical 

counterparts, including higher thermal efficiencies, greater flexibility in changing loads, and 

greater combustion efficiencies, resulting in lesser amounts of pollutants per units of power 

generated. No ultra-supercritical units are operating in the United States. 

Supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS): A SEIS updates or supplements an 

existing EIS (such as the GEIS). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission directs the staff to 

issue site-specific supplements to the GEIS for each license renewal application. 

Surface mine (surface mining): A coal-producing mine that is usually within a few hundred 

feet of the surface. Earth above or around the coal (overburden) is removed to expose the 

coalbed, which is then mined with surface excavation equipment, such as draglines, power 

shovels, bulldozers, loaders, and augers. It may also be known as an area, contour, open-pit, 

strip, or auger mine. 

Surface water: Water on the earth’s surface that is directly exposed to the atmosphere, as 

distinguished from water in the ground (groundwater). 

Switchyard: A facility used at power plants to increase the electric voltage and feed into the 

regional power distribution system. Electricity generated at the plant is carried off the site by 

transmission lines. 

Syngas: A gas mixture that contains varying amounts of carbon monoxide and hydrogen 

generated by the gasification of a carbon-containing fuel. 

Tallgrass: Any of various grasses that are tall and that flourish with abundant moisture, 

typically associated with the prairies of the Midwestern United States. 

Terrestrial: Belonging to or living on land. 

Thermal: Having to do with heat. Also, a term used to identify a type of electric generating 

station, capacity, capability, or output in which the source of energy for the prime mover is heat. 

Thermal efficiency: A measure of the efficiency of converting the thermal energy generated by 

the burning of the fossils fuels or the fission of nuclear fuel to electrical energy. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-44 

Thermal effluents: Heated discharge from a cooling water system. 

Thermal plume: The hot water discharged from a power-generating facility or other industrial 

plant. When the water at elevated temperature enters a receiving stream or body of water, it is 

not immediately dispersed and mixed with the cooler waters. The warmer water moves as a 

single mass (plume) from the discharge point until it cools and gradually mixes with that of the 

receiving water. 

Thermal stratification: The formation of layers of different temperatures in a lake or reservoir. 

Thermophilic: Organisms such as bacteria that require a relatively high-temperature 

environment for normal development.

Threatened species: Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Requirements for declaring 

a species threatened are contained in the Endangered Species Act. 

Total body dose/Whole-body dose: Sum of the dose received from external exposure to the 

total body, gonads, active blood-forming organs, head and trunk, or lens of the eye and the 

dose due to the intake of radionuclides by inhalation and ingestion where a radioisotope is 

uniformly distributed throughout the body tissues rather than being concentrated in certain parts. 

Total effective dose equivalent (TEDE): The sum of the deep-dose equivalent (for external 

exposure) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposure). 

Transformer: An electrical device for changing the voltage of alternating current. 

Transmission: The movement or transfer of electric energy over an interconnected group of 

lines and associated equipment between points of supply and points at which it is transformed 

for delivery to consumers or is delivered to other electric systems. Transmission is considered 

to end when the energy is transformed for distribution to the consumer. 

Transmission line: A set of conductors, insulators, supporting structures, and associated 

equipment used to move large quantities of power at high voltage, usually over long distances 

between a generating or receiving point and major substations or delivery points. 

Transuranic elements: The chemical elements with atomic numbers greater than 92, the 

atomic number of uranium. 
Glossary 

 7-45 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Transuranic waste: Material contaminated with transuranic elements that is produced 

primarily from reprocessing spent fuel and from use of plutonium in fabrication of nuclear 

weapons. 

Tritium: A radioactive isotope of hydrogen with one proton and two neutrons. It decays by 

beta emission. It has a radioactive half-life of about 12.5 years. 

Turbine: A device in which a stream of water or gas turns a bladed wheel, converting the 

kinetic energy of the flow into mechanical energy available from the turbine shaft. Turbines are 

considered the most economical means of turning large electrical generators. They are typically 

driven by steam, fuel vapor, water, or wind. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): A Federal agency, created for the purpose of 

promoting human health by protecting the nation’s air, water, and soil from harmful pollution by 

enforcing environmental regulations based on laws passed by Congress. The agency conducts 

environmental assessment, research, and education. It has the responsibility of maintaining 

and enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws (e.g., Clean Air Act), in 

consultation with State, Tribal, and local governments. It delegates some permitting, 

monitoring, and enforcement responsibility to States and Native American Tribes. EPA 

enforcement powers include fines, sanctions, and other measures. The agency also works with 

industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention 

programs and energy conservation efforts. 

Uranium: A radioactive element with the atomic number 92 and, as found in natural ores, an 

atomic weight of approximately 238. The two principal natural isotopes are uranium-235 

(0.7 percent of natural uranium) and uranium-238 (99.3 percent of natural uranium). Natural 

uranium also includes a minute amount of uranium-234. 

Universal waste: A special class of hazardous waste consisting of commonly used and yet 

hazardous materials: batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and lamps. 

Vertebrate: Any species having a backbone or spinal column including fish, amphibians, 

reptiles, birds, and mammals. 

Visual impact: The creation of an intrusion or perceptible contrast that affects the scenic 

quality of a landscape. 

Visual resources: Refers to all objects (man-made and natural, moving and stationary) and 

features such as landforms and water bodies that are visible on a landscape. 
Glossary 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 7-46 

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs): A broad range of organic compounds that readily 

evaporate at normal temperatures and pressures. Sources include certain solvents, degreasers 

(e.g., benzene), and fuels. Volatile organic compounds react with other substances (primarily 

nitrogen oxides) to form ozone. They contribute significantly to photochemical smog production 

and certain health problems. 

Waste coal: Usable material that is a by-product of previous coal processing operations. 

Waste coal may be relatively clean material composed primarily of coal fines, material in which 

extraneous noncombustible constituents have been partially removed, or mixed coal, soil, and 

rock (mine waste) burned as is in unconventional boilers, such as fluidized bed units. Examples 

include fine coal, coal obtained from a refuse bank or slurry dam, anthracite culm, bituminous 

gob, and lignite waste. 

Wastewater: The used water and solids that flow to a treatment plant and/or are discharged to 

a receiving water body. Stormwater, surface water, and groundwater infiltration also may be 

included in the wastewater that enters a wastewater treatment plant. Domestic or sanitary 

wastewater is water originating from human sanitary water use and industrial wastewater is that 

derived from a variety of industrial processes. 

Water table: The boundary between the unsaturated zone and the deeper, saturated zone. 

The upper surface of an unconfined aquifer.

Water quality: The condition of water with respect to the amount of impurities in it. 

Weir: A structure in a waterway or stormwater control device, over which water flows that 

serves to raise the water level or to direct or regulate flow. 

Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater and that 

typically support vegetation adapted for life in saturated soils. Wetlands generally include 

swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (e.g., sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river 

overflow areas, mudflats, natural ponds).

Wind energy: Kinetic energy present in wind motion that can be converted to mechanical 

energy for driving pumps, mills, and electric power generators. 

Wind farm: One or more wind turbines operating within a contiguous area for the purpose of 

generating electricity. See also wind power plant. 

Wind power plant: Wind turbines interconnected to a common utility system through a system 

of transformers, distribution lines, and (usually) one substation. Operation, control, and 

maintenance functions are often centralized through a network of computerized monitoring 

systems, supplemented by visual inspection. 
Glossary 

 7-47 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Wind turbine: Wind energy conversion device that produces electricity; typically three blades 

rotating about a horizontal axis and positioned upwind of the supporting tower. 

X-rays and gamma rays: Waves of pure energy that travel with the speed of light that are very 

penetrating and require thick concrete or lead shielding to stop them. 

Yucca Mountain: The Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site of the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

proposed location for a repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established the public health and environmental radiation 

protection standards for the facility. However, in March 2010, DOE filed a request with the 

NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to withdraw its application for authorization to 

construct a high-level waste geological repository at Yucca Mountain. The decisions and 

recommendations concerning the ultimate disposition of spent nuclear fuel are ongoing. 

Zooplankton: Small animals that float passively in the water column. Includes eggs and larvae 

of many fish and invertebrate species. 




UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

--------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
 

 

NUREG-1437, Vol. 1

Revision 1

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants