This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

80797 

Vol. 89, No. 193 

Friday, October 4, 2024 

1 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (1969). 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 51 

[NRC–2020–0101] 

RIN 3150–AK55 

Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Licensing of New 

Nuclear Reactors 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule, draft guidance, 

and draft generic environmental impact 

statement; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

amend the regulations that govern the 

NRC’s environmental reviews of new 

nuclear reactor applications under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. The 

rulemaking would codify the generic 

findings of the NRC’s draft Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors. The 

draft Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear 

Reactors uses a technology-neutral 

framework and a set of plant and site 

parameters to determine which 

potential environmental impacts would 

be common to the construction, 

operation, and decommissioning of 

many new nuclear reactors, and thus 

appropriate for a generic analysis, and 

which potential environmental impacts 

would be unique, and thus require a 

project-specific analysis. The NRC 

expects that both the proposed rule and 

the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear 

Reactors would streamline the 

environmental reviews for future 

nuclear reactor applicants. The NRC is 

also issuing for public comment draft 

regulatory guide (DG), ‘‘Preparation of 

Environmental Reports for Nuclear 

Power Stations,’’ and ‘‘Environmental 

Considerations Associated with New 

Nuclear Reactor Applications that 

Reference the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement.’’ 

DATES: Submit comments by December 

18, 2024. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but the Commission is able to 

ensure consideration only for comments 

received before this date. The NRC 

plans to hold three public meetings to 

promote a full understanding of the 

proposed rule and facilitate public 

comments. Public meetings will be held 

on November 7, 2024, November 13, 

2024, and November 14, 2024. See 

Section XV, ‘‘Public Meetings,’’ of this 

document for more information on the 

meetings. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject); however, the NRC 

encourages electronic comment 

submission through the Federal 

rulemaking website: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2020–0101. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Helen 

Chang; telephone: 301–415–3228; email: 

Helen.Chang@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions contact the individuals listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

• Email comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive an automatic email reply 

confirming receipt, then contact us at 

301–415–1677. 

• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

• Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

eastern time, Federal workdays; 

telephone: 301–415–1677. 

You can read a plain language 

description of this proposed rule at 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

NRC-2020-0101. For additional 

direction on obtaining information and 

submitting comments, see ‘‘Obtaining 

Information and Submitting Comments’’ 

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stewart Schneider, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, 

telephone: 301–415–4123, email: 

Stewart.Schneider@nrc.gov, Stacey 

Imboden, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301– 

415–2462, email: Stacey.Imboden@

nrc.gov, or Laura Willingham, Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 

telephone: 301–415–0857, email: 

Laura.Willingham@nrc.gov. All are staff 

of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

revise its regulations to codify the 

findings of the draft generic 

environmental impact statement, 

NUREG–2249, ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Licensing of New 

Nuclear Reactors’’ (NR GEIS). The draft 

NR GEIS analyzes the potential 

environmental impacts of the 

construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of a new nuclear 

reactor. The NR GEIS is intended to 

improve the efficiency of the NRC staff’s 

environmental review of a new nuclear 

reactor application by identifying those 

potential environmental issues that are 

expected to be common, or generic, to 

the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of many new nuclear 

reactors. If the Commission approves 

issuance of the NR GEIS, the NRC staff 

would be able to rely on the NR GEIS’ 

generic findings when conducting a 

subsequent, project-specific 

environmental review for a new nuclear 

reactor if specific conditions are met. 

The proposed rule would codify these 

generic findings into the NRC’s 

regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), 

‘‘Environmental Protection Regulations 

for Domestic Licensing and Related 

Regulatory Functions,’’ thus making the 

NRC’s licensing process for new nuclear 

reactors more efficient. Specifically, 

these findings would be codified into 

subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, which sets 

forth the NRC’s regulations to 

implement its obligations under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA).1


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80798 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

2Unless stated otherwise, references to RG 4.2 

refer to DG–4032, the draft revision to RG 4.2, 

which is being published at the same time as this 

notice. 

B. Major Provisions 

Major provisions of this proposed rule 

and guidance would include: 

1. Addition of a new appendix C, 

‘‘Environmental Effect of Issuing a 

Permit or License for a New Nuclear 

Reactor,’’ to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 

to codify the findings in the NR GEIS 

and state that, on a 10-year cycle, the 

Commission intends to review the 

material in this appendix and update if 

necessary. 

2. Changes to the regulations for the 

preparation of environmental reports for 

new reactors (§ 51.50, ‘‘Environmental 

report—construction permit, early site 

permit, or combined license stage’’) to 

provide the applicant with the option to 

use the NR GEIS. 

3. Changes to the regulations for the 

preparation of draft environmental 

impact statements (EISs) for new 

reactors (§ 51.75, ‘‘Draft environmental 

impact statement—construction permit, 

early site permit, or combined license’’) 

to require the NRC staff to use the NR 

GEIS in preparing its draft EIS if an 

applicant for a new nuclear reactor 

referenced the NR GEIS in its 

application. 

4. Addition of new section (§ 51.96, 

‘‘Final supplemental environmental 

impact statement relying on Appendix C 

to Subpart A’’) to provide the NRC staff 

with directions on the preparation of 

final EISs that reference the NR GEIS. 

5. Draft revisions to Regulatory Guide 

(RG) 4.2, ‘‘Preparation of Environmental 

Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,’’ 2

to provide guidance to applicants 

regarding the use of the NR GEIS. In 

addition, the NRC staff has prepared a 

draft interim staff guidance document, 

COL–ISG–030, ‘‘Environmental 

Considerations Associated with New 

Nuclear Reactor Applications that 

Reference the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement (NUREG–2249)’’ to 

provide guidance to the NRC staff 

regarding the use of the NR GEIS. 

C. Costs and Benefits 

The NRC prepared a draft regulatory 

analysis to determine the expected 

quantitative costs and benefits of this 

proposed rule and associated guidance. 

Assuming 20 applications over the next 

decade, the regulatory analysis 

concluded that, compared to the noaction alternative, the proposed rule 

alternative and associated guidance 

would result in undiscounted total net 

savings for the NRC and applicants up 

to $40.1 million or $2.0 million per 

application if the NR GEIS is fully 

utilized. 

The draft regulatory analysis also 

considered qualitative factors to be 

considered in the NRC’s rulemaking 

decision. Qualitative aspects include 

greater regulatory stability, 

predictability, and clarity to the 

licensing process. The proposed rule 

would reduce the cost to industry of 

preparing environmental reports for 

new nuclear reactor applications by 

focusing resources on project-specific 

analyses. The NRC also would recognize 

similar reductions in cost and be better 

able to focus its resources on the 

project-specific issues during new 

nuclear reactor licensing environmental 

reviews. 

The NR GEIS could potentially be 

utilized for micro-reactors, but the NRC 

staff does not have sufficient 

information at this time to determine 

whether the proposed rule could 

potentially affect any small entities as 

defined in § 2.810, ‘‘NRC size 

standards.’’ Therefore, the NRC staff has 

included an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis in Section VI, Regulatory 

Flexibility Certification, of this 

document and is requesting public 

comment on the potential impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. 

For more information, please see the 

draft regulatory analysis (available as 

indicated in Section XVI, Availability of 

Documents, of this document). 

Table of Contents 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting 

Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

B. Submitting Comments 

II. Background 

A. New Reactor Licensing Processes—10 

CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 52 

B. Environmental Review—Current 10 CFR 

Part 51 Regulations 

C. Use of Rulemaking and Generic 

Environmental Impact Statements 

D. Advanced Nuclear Reactors 

III. Discussion 

A. Proposed Amendments 

B. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 

C. Environmental Impacts To Be Reviewed 

D. Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement 

E. Summary of Issues Analyzed in the NR 

GEIS 

F. Public Comments on Notice of 

Exploratory Process and Notice of Intent 

To Prepare a Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement 

G. Clarifying Amendment for Postoperating 

Licenses 

IV. Specific Requests for Comments 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

VII. Regulatory Analysis 

VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 

IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation 

X. Plain Writing 

XI. National Environmental Policy Act 

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

XIV. Availability of Guidance 

XV. Public Meetings 

XVI. Availability of Documents 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2020– 

0101 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publicly 

available information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2020–0101. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, at 

301–415–4737, or by email to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the 

convenience of the reader, instructions 

about obtaining materials referenced in 

this document are provided in the 

Availability of Documents section. 

• NRC’s PDR: The PDR, where you 

may examine and order copies of 

publicly available documents, is open 

by appointment. To make an 

appointment to visit the PDR, please 

send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov 

or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415– 

4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern 

time, Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Technical Library: The Technical 

Library, which is located at Two White 

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, is open by 

appointment only. Interested parties 

may make appointments to examine 

documents by contacting the NRC 

Technical Library by email at 

Library.Resource@nrc.gov between 8 

a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

B. Submitting Comments 

The NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal rulemaking website (https://

www.regulations.gov). Please include 

Docket ID NRC–2020–0101 in your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80799 

3 In staff requirements memorandum, SRM– 

SECY–20–0020, ‘‘Results of Exploratory Process for 

Developing a Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Construction and Operation of 

Advanced Nuclear Reactors,’’ dated September 21, 

2020, the Commission approved the development of 

a GEIS for the construction and operation of 

advanced nuclear reactors and directed staff to 

codify the generic findings in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. In SRM–SECY–21–0098, ‘‘Proposed 

Rule: Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement,’’ dated April 17, 

2024, the Commission directed the staff to proceed 

with publication of the NR GEIS after modifying it 

to be applicable to any new nuclear reactor 

application. 

4Risk-Informed, Technology Inclusive Regulatory 

Framework for Advanced Reactors (Docket ID NRC– 

2019–0062; RIN 3150–AK31). 

5The NRC defines a ‘‘categorical exclusion’’ as a 

category of actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 

environment and which the Commission has found 

to have no such effect in accordance with 

procedures set out in § 51.22, ‘‘Criterion for 

categorical exclusion; identification of licensing 

and regulatory actions eligible for categorical 

exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental 

review,’’ and for which, therefore, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 10 CFR 51.14(a). The 

NRC’s list of categorical exclusions is set forth in 

§ 51.22. 

6The NRC defines an ‘‘environmental 

assessment’’ as a concise public document . . . that 

serves to: (1) Briefly provide sufficient evidence and 

analysis for determining whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or a finding of no 

significant impact. (2) Aid the Commission’s 

compliance with NEPA when no environmental 

impact statement is necessary. (3) Facilitate 

preparation of an environmental impact statement 

when one is necessary. 10 CFR 51.14(a). 

7The terms ‘‘nuclear reactor’’ and ‘‘testing 

facility’’ are defined in § 50.2, ‘‘Definitions.’’ 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at https://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Background 

The Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear 

Reactors (NR GEIS) is intended to 

streamline the NRC’s environmental 

review for new nuclear reactor 

applications received as part of the 

reactor licensing process.3 This 

Background section provides an 

overview of the two existing reactor 

licensing processes, 10 CFR part 50, 

‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production and 

Utilization Facilities,’’ and 10 CFR part 

52, ‘‘Licenses, Certifications, and 

Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ 

under which an applicant may apply for 

a license for a new nuclear reactor. This 

section also describes the environmental 

review process and the Commission’s 

policy and past practice with respect to 

the use of generic rulemakings to adopt 

improvements to the licensing process. 

A. New Reactor Licensing Processes—10 

CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 52 

The NRC licenses and regulates the 

construction and operation of nuclear 

reactor facilities in the United States. 

The NRC’s evaluation and ultimate 

decision on a reactor application will 

involve a safety review, governed by the 

NRC’s regulations in either 10 CFR part 

50 or 10 CFR part 52, and an 

environmental review, governed by the 

NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR part 51, 

‘‘Environmental Protection Regulations 

for Domestic Licensing and Related 

Regulatory Functions.’’ All nuclear 

reactors that were operating prior to 

2021 were licensed under a two-step 

licensing process governed by 10 CFR 

part 50. The first step is an application 

for and issuance of a construction 

permit. The second step, upon 

substantial completion of facility 

construction, is issuance of an operating 

license. 

In an effort to improve regulatory 

efficiency and add greater predictability 

to the reactor licensing process, the NRC 

issued 10 CFR part 52 on April 18, 1989 

(54 FR 15372). The rule added licensing 

processes for issuance of early site 

permits, standard design certifications, 

and combined licenses. Early site 

permits allow an applicant to obtain 

approval for a reactor site for future use, 

while certified standard plant designs 

can be used as pre-approved designs. 

Early site permits and certified designs 

can then be referenced in an application 

for a combined license. Combined 

licenses combine a construction permit 

and an operating license in a single 

authorization. 

A nuclear reactor applicant could 

apply for a license under 10 CFR part 

50 or 10 CFR part 52. The proposed rule 

to adopt the generic environmental 

conclusions of the NR GEIS in 10 CFR 

part 51 would be available for use in 

conjunction with either of these two 

licensing processes. Additionally, the 

NRC staff is preparing a rulemaking that 

would provide a new framework for 

licensing reactors in a proposed 10 CFR 

part 53.4 The NRC staff anticipates that 

the NR GEIS would be available for use 

with this new 10 CFR part 53 licensing 

process for new nuclear reactors. 

B. Environmental Review—Current 10 

CFR Part 51 Regulations 

As a Federal agency, the NRC must 

comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by 

assessing the potential environmental 

effects of a proposed agency action prior 

to making a decision to approve or 

disapprove of that proposed action. The 

regulations implementing the NRC’s 

NEPA obligations are found in 10 CFR 

part 51. 

Under NEPA, the environmental 

review of a proposed action can involve 

one of three different levels of analysis 

depending on the significance of a 

proposed action’s potential effects on 

the environment: (1) a categorical 

exclusion,5 (2) an environmental 

assessment,6 or (3) an environmental 

impact statement (EIS). An EIS, the most 

complex, resource-intensive, and 

thorough of the three levels of NEPA 

analysis, is a document that describes 

the potential environmental impacts of 

the proposed action as well as a 

reasonable range of alternatives to the 

proposed agency action. Under NEPA, 

Federal agencies shall prepare an EIS for 

any proposed agency action that may 

result in a significant impact to an 

environmental resource. In addition, the 

Commission has identified, by its 

§ 51.20, ‘‘Criteria for and identification 

of licensing and regulatory actions 

requiring environmental impact 

statements,’’ regulation, certain 

categories of NRC proposed actions that 

require the preparation of an EIS. In this 

regard, § 51.20(b)(1) identifies the 

issuance of a construction permit (under 

the 10 CFR part 50 licensing process) or 

an early site permit (under the 10 CFR 

part 52 licensing process) for a nuclear 

power reactor or testing facility, as 

proposed actions requiring the 

preparation of an EIS.7 Similarly, 

§ 51.20(b)(2) identifies the issuance or 

renewal of an operating license (under 

10 CFR part 50) or a combined license 

(under 10 CFR part 52) for a nuclear 

power reactor or testing facility, as 

proposed actions requiring the 

preparation of an EIS. 

The NRC’s regulation at § 51.45, 

‘‘Environmental report,’’ requires a 

reactor applicant to submit an 

environmental report that discusses: (1) 

the impact of the proposed action on the 

environment, (2) any adverse 

environmental impacts that cannot be 

avoided, (3) alternatives to the proposed 

action, (4) the relationship between 

local short-term uses of the environment 

and maintenance and enhancement of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80800 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

8Each issue corresponds to a specific type of 

environmental impact potentially resulting from 

building, operating, or decommissioning of a new 

nuclear reactor. 

9For a 10 CFR part 52 combined license that 

references an early site permit, the NRC will 

prepare a supplement to the final EIS for the early 

site permit in accordance with § 51.92(e) and will 

provide an opportunity for public comment on the 

supplement pursuant to § 51.92(f)(1). Similarly, for 

a 10 CFR part 50 operating license, the NRC will 

prepare a supplement to the final EIS for the 

construction permit in accordance with § 51.95(b) 

and will provide an opportunity for public 

comment on the supplement pursuant to § 51.95(a). 

10For the issuance of a 10 CFR part 50 operating 

license supported by a supplement prepared 

pursuant to § 51.95(b) that is uncontested (i.e., no 

hearing before the NRC’s ASLB), the Director, Office 

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, will prepare the 

record of decision in accordance with § 51.103. 

11 Generic Rulemaking to Improve Nuclear Power 

Plant Licensing, Interim Policy Statement (43 FR 

58377; December 14, 1978). 

long-term productivity, and (5) any 

irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources. In addition, 

the applicant is required to include in 

its environmental report, an analysis 

that considers and balances the 

environmental effects of the proposed 

action and the alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects, as well as the 

benefits of the action. The NRC will 

independently evaluate the applicant’s 

environmental report as part of the 

NRC’s preparation of the draft EIS. 

Before issuing a construction permit 

or an operating license for a nuclear 

plant under 10 CFR part 50 or an early 

site permit or combined license (that 

does not reference an early site permit 

for the proposed nuclear reactor) under 

10 CFR part 52, the NRC is required to 

prepare a draft EIS that assesses the 

potential environmental impacts that 

may result from the construction, 

operation, and decommissioning of the 

proposed nuclear reactor plant. In 

preparing the draft EIS, the NRC staff 

will analyze the potential 

environmental impacts in regard to 

different aspects or resources of the 

human environment (e.g., air quality). 

For each environmental aspect or 

resource area, the NRC staff will identify 

and analyze issues that correspond to 

specific, potential environmental 

impacts (e.g., for the air quality resource 

area, the criteria pollutant emissions 

likely to result during construction). In 

the draft EIS, the NRC staff also 

evaluates alternatives to the proposed 

agency action. 

After analyzing the potential 

environmental impacts for each issue,8

the NRC assigns one of the following 

three significance levels to describe its 

evaluation of those impacts on that 

issue: 

SMALL—The 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 as the term is used 

in this definition. 

MODERATE—The environmental 

effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, 

but not to destabilize, important 

attributes of the resource. 

LARGE—The environmental effects 

are clearly noticeable and are sufficient 

to destabilize important attributes of the 

resource. 

For issues where probability is a key 

consideration (i.e., accident 

consequences), probability is a factor in 

determining significance. 

The NRC will document its 

environmental review and analysis 

through the preparation of a draft EIS 

that will be published for public 

comment in the Federal Register, with 

a minimum 45-day comment period, in 

accordance with § 51.73, ‘‘Request for 

comments on draft environmental 

impact statement.’’ Further, as provided 

in § 51.74, ‘‘Distribution of draft 

environmental impact statement and 

supplement to draft environmental 

impact statement; news releases,’’ the 

NRC will distribute the draft EIS to the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Federal agencies that have a special 

expertise or jurisdiction with respect to 

any potential environmental impact that 

may be relevant to the proposed action, 

the applicant, and appropriate State, 

Tribal, and local agencies and 

clearinghouses. 

Following the public comment 

period, the NRC will analyze any 

comments received, revise its 

environmental analyses as appropriate, 

and then prepare the final EIS in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 51.91, ‘‘Final environmental impact 

statement—contents.’’ 9 Pursuant to 

§ 51.93, ‘‘Distribution of final 

environmental impact statement and 

supplement to final environmental 

impact statement; news releases,’’ the 

NRC will distribute the final EIS to 

many of the same entities as the draft 

EIS and to each commenter. The NRC 

also will publish a notice of availability 

for the final EIS in the Federal Register. 

As set forth in § 51.102, ‘‘Requirement 

to provide a record of decision; 

preparation,’’ and following the 

preparation and distribution of the final 

EIS, the Commission will prepare and 

issue the record of decision, which is a 

concise, publicly-available statement 

that documents the NRC’s decision, as 

informed by the final EIS. The 

requirements for a record of decision are 

described in § 51.103, ‘‘Record of 

decision—general,’’ and include stating 

the Commission’s decision (e.g., the 

approval or disapproval of the nuclear 

reactor application), identifying the 

alternatives (including the proposed 

agency action) considered by the 

Commission, and a statement as to 

whether the Commission has taken all 

practicable measures within its 

jurisdiction to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm from the 

alternative selected, and if not, to 

explain why those measures were not 

adopted (e.g., lack of jurisdiction or 

authority). In cases of an adjudicatory 

proceeding before the NRC’s Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), the 

initial decision of the presiding officer, 

or if appealed, the final decision of the 

Commission, will constitute the record 

of decision. To meet the § 51.102 

requirement that the record of decision 

be a concise document, the NRC staff 

will also prepare a ‘‘Summary Record of 

Decision,’’ signed by the NRC’s Director, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

that summarizes the presiding officer’s 

initial, or the Commission’s final, 

decision.10

C. Use of Rulemaking and Generic 

Environmental Impact Statements 

The use of rulemaking to adopt 

improvements to the licensing process 

for classes of applicants, such as reactor 

applicants, has several advantages, 

including the following, which were 

identified in a 1978 NRC interim policy 

statement: 11 (1) enhance stability and 

predictability of the licensing process by 

providing regulatory criteria and 

requirements in discrete generic areas 

on matters which are significant in the 

review and approval of license 

applications; (2) enhance public 

understanding and confidence in the 

integrity of the licensing process by 

inviting public participation in 

important generic issues which are of 

concern to the agency and the public; 

(3) enhance administrative efficiency in 

licensing by removing, in whole or in 

part, generic issues from NRC staff 

review and adjudicatory resolution in 

individual licensing proceedings and/or 

by establishing the importance (or lack 

of importance) of various safety and 

environmental issues to the decision 

process; (4) assist the Commission in 

resolving complex methodological and 

policy issues involved in recurring 

issues in the review and approval of 

individual licensing applications; and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80801 

12As described in § 51.51(a), the nuclear fuel 

cycle includes 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 these activities. 

13Certain issues such as the offsite radiological 

impacts of spent nuclear fuel storage and high-level 

waste disposal were not given a significance level 

because of uncertainty; however, the Commission 

concluded 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 offsite 

radiological impacts of spent fuel and high-level 

waste disposal, these issues were considered to be 

Category 1 issues by the Commission. 

14 10 CFR 2.335(a) (‘‘[N]o rule or regulation of the 

Commission, or any provision thereof, concerning 

the licensing of production and utilization facilities, 

source material, special nuclear material, or 

byproduct material, is subject to attack by way of 

discovery, proof, argument, or other means in any 

adjudicatory proceeding subject to this part.’’). 

15Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. v. NRDC, 462 

U.S. 87 (1983). 

16 Id. 

17 10 CFR 51.51(a). 

18Baltimore Gas, 462 U.S. at 101. The NEPA 

requires that a Federal agency ‘‘take a ‘hard look’ 

at the environmental consequences before taking a 

major action. Id. at 97 citing Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 

427 U.S. 390, 410, n. 21. 

19 Id. at 101. 

(5) yield an overall savings in the 

utilization of resources in the licensing 

process by the utility industry, those of 

the public whose interest may be 

affected by the rulemaking, the NRC, 

and other Federal, State, and local 

governments with an expected 

improvement in the quality of the 

decision process. 

The NRC has prepared the draft NR 

GEIS, which provides generic findings 

with respect to many environmental 

issues. The NRC is proposing to codify 

these generic findings in 10 CFR part 51 

to streamline and make more efficient 

the preparation of environmental 

reports by new nuclear reactor 

applicants and the NRC’s environmental 

reviews. This proposed rule is 

consistent with past NRC part 51 

rulemakings that adopted generic 

findings with respect to certain 

environmental issues related to the 

reactor licensing process. For example, 

table S–3, ‘‘Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle 

Environmental Data,’’ in § 51.51 

identifies the generic findings related to 

various environmental impacts of the 

nuclear fuel cycle.12 As such, these 

applicants are not required to conduct 

their own analysis of these impacts in 

their environmental reports and the 

NRC staff can likewise rely upon these 

findings when preparing its draft EIS. 

Based upon past experience, the NRC 

has determined that the use of a generic 

environmental impact statement (GEIS) 

and the codification of the generic 

findings into an NRC regulation is an 

efficient and thorough method of NEPA 

compliance when applied to a particular 

class of facilities or licensing and 

regulatory actions. Specifically, the NRC 

has relied upon the ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’ 

(NUREG–1437), which was issued in 

1996 and recently updated in 2024, for 

operating power reactor license renewal 

actions, and the ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear 

Fuel’’ (NUREG–2157), which was issued 

in 2014, for the continued storage of 

spent fuel beyond the licensed life for 

operation of a reactor. In this regard, the 

NRC added appendix B to 10 CFR part 

51, which codifies the generic findings 

of the NUREG–1437, and amended 

§ 51.23, ‘‘Environmental impacts of 

continued storage of spent nuclear fuel 

beyond the licensed life for operation of 

a reactor,’’ which codifies the findings 

of NUREG–2157. 

The NUREG–1437, which identifies 

the environmental issues that may apply 

to the renewal of an operating power 

reactor license, serves as a model for the 

preparation of the NR GEIS. For each 

operating power reactor license renewal 

action, the NRC prepares a projectspecific supplemental EIS (SEIS) that is 

issued as a supplement to NUREG– 

1437. To date, the NRC has issued SEISs 

to NUREG–1437 associated with initial 

license renewal and subsequent license 

renewal for 61 plants. In NUREG–1437, 

the NRC staff determined that those 

issues that were common, or generic, to 

all nuclear reactors were identified as 

Category 1. Further, the NRC staff 

determined that the vast majority of the 

Category 1 issues were of a SMALL 

significance level.13 Provided that 

neither the license renewal applicant 

nor the NRC identifies any new and 

significant information, no further 

analysis is needed for that issue by the 

applicant in its environmental report or 

by the NRC in its preparation of the 

draft SEIS. Those issues that cannot be 

resolved generically and are identified 

as Category 2 issues must be analyzed 

by both the applicant in its 

environmental report and by the NRC in 

the draft SEIS. The applicant in its 

environmental report and the NRC in its 

draft SEIS must also address any new 

and significant information. 

The NRC has codified the findings for 

the NUREG–1437 Category 1 issues into 

its regulations; the findings are listed in 

table B–1, ‘‘Summary of Findings on 

NEPA Issues for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Power Plants,’’ of appendix B to 

subpart A of 10 CFR part 51. The 

regulatory direction to use NUREG– 

1437 is set forth in § 51.53(c) for 

applicant environmental reports, in 

§ 51.71(d) for the NRC staff’s 

preparation of the draft SEIS, and in 

§ 51.95(c) for the NRC staff’s preparation 

of the final SEIS. In accordance with 

§ 2.335(a), the codification of the generic 

findings and the direction to use 

NUREG–1437 for operating power 

reactor license renewal actions bars any 

challenge to a generic finding or the 

NRC’s reliance upon NUREG–1437 in a 

site-specific licensing proceeding before 

the NRC’s ASLB.14 A person seeking to 

challenge a codified generic finding 

must either file a petition for 

rulemaking pursuant to § 2.802, 

‘‘Petition for rulemaking—requirements 

for filing,’’ or, if a party to an ASLB 

proceeding, file a request to waive the 

regulation pursuant to § 2.335(b), such 

waiver being subject to Commission 

approval. 

The use of a GEIS for meeting the 

NRC’s NEPA obligations and the 

concomitant codification of generic 

findings into an NRC regulation has 

been upheld by Federal courts. In its 

1983 decision, Baltimore Gas and 

Electric Co. v. NRDC, the Supreme Court 

adjudicated a challenge to table S–3, 

codified at § 51.51.15 The Court 

described table S–3 as ‘‘a numerical 

compilation of the estimated resources 

used and effluents released by fuel cycle 

activities supporting a year’s operation 

of a typical light-water reactor.’’ 16

Section 51.51 requires that an 

environmental report, prepared by an 

applicant for a construction permit, an 

early site permit, or a combined license 

for a light-water-cooled nuclear power 

reactor, use the data in table S–3 ‘‘as the 

basis for evaluating the contribution of 

the environmental effects’’ of all aspects 

of the uranium fuel cycle, such as 

uranium mining and milling, ‘‘to the 

environmental costs of licensing the 

nuclear power reactor.’’ 17 The Court 

held that ‘‘the generic method chosen by 

the [NRC] is clearly an appropriate 

method of conducting the hard look 

required by NEPA.’’ 18 The Court further 

stated that ‘‘administrative efficiency 

and consistency of decision are both 

furthered by a generic determination of 

these effects without needless repetition 

of the litigation in individual 

proceedings, which are subject to 

review by the Commission in any 

event.’’ 19 Lower Federal courts have 

applied the Baltimore Gas holding to 

the NRC’s reliance on NUREG–1437 for 

operating power license renewal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80802 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

20 Massachusetts v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, 708 F.3d 63, 68 (1st Cir. 2013) 

(upholding the NRC’s reliance upon NUREG–1437 

and its codified findings in appendix B of subpart 

A, 10 CFR part 51). 

21New York v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, 824 F.3d 1012, 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2016) 

(citing New York v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, 681 F.3d 471, 480 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (the 

court stated that ‘‘the cornerstone of our holding 

was that the NRC may generically analyze risks that 

are ‘essentially common’ to all plants so long as that 

analysis is ‘thorough and comprehensive.’ In this 

case, we are convinced that the NRC has met that 

standard.’’)). 

22The proposed amendments would require the 

applicant, for each Category 1 finding that it relies 

upon in preparing its environmental report, to 

describe the process it used to determine whether 

there is any new and significant information that 

may change that Category 1 issue’s generic analysis 

or finding. This proposed requirement is modeled 

after the requirement in § 51.50(c)(1)(iv) that has 

been used for new reactor combined license 

applications that referenced an early site permit. 

licensing actions.20 Similarly, the NRC’s 

codification of the generic findings of 

NUREG–2157 into § 51.23 have been 

upheld.21

D. Advanced Nuclear Reactors 

The NRC initially developed NUREG– 

2249 as a document that would be 

applicable only to ‘‘advanced nuclear 

reactors’’ that met the values and 

assumptions of the plant parameter 

envelopes and the site parameter 

envelopes used to develop the GEIS. See 

SECY–21–0098, ‘‘Proposed Rule: 

Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (RIN 

3150–AK55; NRC–2020–0101),’’ dated 

November 29, 2021. However, in staff 

requirements memorandum (SRM)– 

SECY–21–0098, ‘‘Proposed Rule: 

Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (RIN 

3150–AK55; NRC 2020–0101),’’ dated 

April 17, 2024, the Commission directed 

the NRC staff to change the applicability 

of the GEIS and rule from ‘‘advanced 

nuclear reactors’’ to any new nuclear 

reactor application that meets the values 

and assumptions of the plant parameter 

envelopes and the site parameter 

envelopes used to develop the GEIS. 

Based on the direction from the 

Commission, the draft GEIS and 

proposed rule would be applicable to 

any new nuclear reactor, as defined in 

10 CFR 50.2, ‘‘Definitions,’’ that meets 

the values and assumptions of the plant 

parameter envelopes and the site 

parameter envelopes used to develop 

the GEIS. 

The NRC has also retitled this 

rulemaking from ‘‘Advanced Nuclear 

Reactor Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement’’ (ANR GEIS) to ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors’’ (NR 

GEIS), to reflect the change in the 

applicability of the GEIS and rule. 

III. Discussion 

A. Proposed Amendments 

The proposed amendments to 10 CFR 

part 51 would establish new 

requirements for environmental reviews 

of applications for an early site or 

construction permit or an operating or a 

combined license for new nuclear 

reactors. 

Specifically, the proposed 

amendments would codify the generic 

conclusions of the draft NR GEIS for 

those issues for which a generic 

conclusion regarding the potential 

environmental impacts of issuing a 

permit or license for a new nuclear 

reactor can be reached. These issues are 

identified as Category 1 issues in the NR 

GEIS. Similar to the NUREG–1437, the 

Category 1 issues identified and 

described in the NR GEIS may be 

applied to any new nuclear reactor 

application and have been determined 

to have a SMALL impact or significance 

level. The proposed appendix C, 

‘‘Environmental Effect of Issuing a 

Permit or License for a New Nuclear 

Reactor,’’ to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 

summarizes the Commission’s findings 

for all Category 1 issues. In addition, the 

proposed amendments provide an 

applicant for a new nuclear reactor with 

the option to use the NR GEIS, 

including the reliance upon its generic 

analyses and the Category 1 findings. 

In this regard, an applicant can rely 

upon a given generic or Category 1 

finding if it can demonstrate that the 

design of its proposed nuclear reactor 

and the parameters of the proposed site 

meet or are bounded by the values and 

assumptions of the NR GEIS analysis 

supporting that Category 1 finding. For 

each Category 1 issue, each supporting 

value and assumption is further 

classified as being part of the plant 

parameter envelope (PPE) or the site 

parameter envelope (SPE). The PPE 

consists of those values and 

assumptions relating to the design and 

operation of the nuclear reactor, such as 

building height, water use, air 

emissions, employment levels, and 

noise generation levels. The SPE 

consists of those values and 

assumptions relating to the siting of the 

plant, such as the site size, size of water 

bodies supplying water to the reactor, 

and demographics of the region 

surrounding the site. The NR GEIS 

provides the analysis evaluating the 

environmental impacts of a proposed 

nuclear reactor that fits within the 

bounds of the PPE on a site that fits 

within the bounds of the SPE. By using 

this approach, impact analyses for the 

environmental issues common to many 

new reactors can be addressed 

generically, thereby eliminating the 

need to repeatedly reproduce the same 

analyses each time a licensing 

application is submitted and allowing 

applicants and the NRC staff to focus 

future environmental review efforts on 

issues that only can be resolved once a 

site and facility are identified. 

Thus, if an applicant can demonstrate 

that the proposed nuclear reactor or the 

proposed site meets or is bounded by 

these PPE/SPE values and assumptions, 

then the applicant can adopt the 

conclusions of that Category 1 finding 

without having to conduct a projectspecific analysis in its environmental 

report. Conversely, if an applicant 

cannot demonstrate that the proposed 

nuclear reactor or the proposed site 

meets or is bounded by these values and 

assumptions, or if the applicant 

determines that there is new and 

significant information regarding that 

Category 1 issue,22 then the applicant 

cannot adopt the conclusions of that 

Category 1 finding. In such case, the 

applicant would then have to prepare a 

project-specific analysis for that issue in 

its environmental report. 

Likewise, in preparing its draft SEIS, 

the NRC staff would rely upon those 

Category 1 findings for which the 

applicant has demonstrated meeting or 

being bounded by the underlying values 

and assumptions and would likewise 

not be required to include a projectspecific analysis within the draft SEIS, 

unless the NRC staff became aware of 

new and significant information 

regarding that Category 1 issue. The 

Category 1 findings in proposed table C– 

1 to appendix C, ‘‘Summary of Findings 

on Environmental Issues for Issuing a 

Permit or License for a New Nuclear 

Reactor,’’ can only be challenged in an 

individual ASLB licensing proceeding if 

a waiver is granted by the Commission 

in accordance with § 2.335(b). 

The NR GEIS also identifies and 

describes environmental issues for 

which a generic finding regarding the 

respective environmental impacts 

cannot be reached because the issue 

requires the consideration of projectspecific information that can only be 

evaluated once the proposed site and 

facility are identified. The NRC 

classifies these issues as Category 2 

issues in the NR GEIS and within the 

proposed amendments. The NRC staff 

will prepare a project-specific analysis 

in the draft SEIS for each Category 2 

issue, and for each Category 1 issue that 

the applicant cannot demonstrate that 

its project has met the underlying values 

and assumptions or for which there is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80803 

23Beneficial impacts may include increased tax 

revenues associated with the increased assessed 

value of new reactor projects, and other economic 

activity such as increases in local employment, 

labor income, and economic output. 24See Section II.B. of this document for a 

description of the SMALL, MODERATE, and 

LARGE significance levels used by the NRC in its 

EISs. 

25 Depending on the species impacted, the agency 

will consult with either the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service (U.S. Department of the Interior) or the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (U.S. Department 

of Commerce), as provided in the Services’ joint 

regulations at 50 CFR part 402, ‘‘Interagency 

Cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

Amended.’’ 

new and significant information. The 

draft SEIS will also include the NRC 

staff’s preliminary conclusions 

regarding the potential environmental 

impacts for each of these issues. 

Two additional issues are designated 

as non-applicable (N/A) (i.e., impacts 

are uncertain) in the NR GEIS, in that a 

classification of the issue as either 

Category 1 or 2 is not possible. These 

issues relate to human health effects 

from exposure to electromagnetic fields 

(EMFs) during both construction and 

operation. Because the state of the 

science is currently inadequate, no 

generic conclusion on human health 

impacts is possible for these issues. If, 

in the future, the Commission finds that 

a general agreement has been reached by 

appropriate Federal health agencies that 

there are adverse health effects from 

EMFs, the Commission will require 

applicants to submit plant-specific 

reviews of these health effects as part of 

their application. The proposed 

amendments do not require applicants 

to submit information on these issues in 

the environmental report nor will the 

NRC staff prepare a plant-specific 

analysis for these issues in the draft 

SEIS. 

The NRC wishes to emphasize the 

importance of the public commenting at 

this time on environmental analyses set 

forth in the NR GEIS, on the NRC’s 

classification of the potential 

environmental impacts of the 

construction, operation and 

decommissioning of a new nuclear 

reactor as either a generic (Category 1) 

or project-specific (Category 2) issue for 

each of the issues identified in the NR 

GEIS, and on the proposed rule changes 

that would codify the generic findings 

of the NR GEIS. After a final rule is 

published and effective, challenging the 

NRC’s reliance upon a Category 1 issue 

in an individual new nuclear reactor 

permitting or licensing action will be 

prohibited except through an approved 

waiver in accordance with § 2.335(b). 

On a 10-year cycle, the Commission 

intends to review the material in this 

GEIS and the associated rule and update 

it if necessary. 

B. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 

The NRC acknowledges recent 

amendments to the NEPA statute in the 

Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. 

L. 118–5, 137 Stat. 10) (FRA). 

The FRA added to NEPA a new 

section 107(e), which establishes page 

limits for environmental impact 

statements, including 300 pages for 

environmental impact statements for 

agency actions of ‘‘extraordinary 

complexity’’ (not including appendices, 

citations, figures, tables, and other 

graphics). The NRC finds that, to the 

extent that section 107(e) applies to the 

NR GEIS, a 300-page limit is appropriate 

because the NR GEIS addresses a 

proposed action of ‘‘extraordinary 

complexity’’ in light of the complicated 

systems, structures, and components 

deployed in operating nuclear power 

plants; the number of resource areas 

addressed; and the variety of 

environments in which nuclear power 

plants operate. The draft NR GEIS is less 

than 300 pages and therefore complies 

with the NEPA page limits. 

C. Environmental Impacts To Be 

Reviewed 

In the draft NR GEIS, the NRC has 

preliminarily made generic findings that 

many of the potentially adverse 

environmental impacts of constructing, 

operating, and decommissioning a new 

nuclear reactor will be SMALL provided 

that the applicant’s proposed nuclear 

reactor and the proposed site meets or 

is bounded by the respective values and 

assumptions supporting the Category 1 

finding under consideration. See 

Section III.C., ‘‘Environmental Impacts 

to be Reviewed,’’ of this document for 

a more detailed discussion of the 

process used in the NR GEIS. 

The NRC divided its conclusions 

about environmental impacts in the NR 

GEIS into the following three categories: 

• Category 1. Environmental issues 

for which the NRC has been able to 

make a generic finding of SMALL 

adverse environmental impacts, or 

beneficial impacts, provided that the 

applicant’s proposed reactor facility and 

site meet or are bounded by the relevant 

values and assumptions in the PPE and 

SPE that support the generic finding for 

that Category 1 issue.23

• Category 2. Environmental issues 

for which a generic finding regarding 

the environmental impacts cannot be 

reached because the issue requires the 

consideration of project-specific 

information that can only be evaluated 

once the proposed site is identified. The 

impact significance (i.e., SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE) 24 for these 

issues will be determined in a projectspecific evaluation. 

• Not Applicable (N/A). 

Environmental issues for which the 

state of the science is currently 

inadequate, and no generic conclusion 

on human health impacts is possible. 

In the NR GEIS, the NRC identifies a 

total of 122 environmental issues that 

may be associated with constructing, 

operating, and decommissioning a new 

nuclear reactor; of these issues, the NRC 

identified 100 environmental issues as 

Category 1 issues. Chapter 3, ‘‘Affected 

Environment and Environmental 

Consequences,’’ of the NR GEIS 

provides the analyses supporting the 

generic finding of a SMALL significance 

level impact for each Category 1 issue 

and indicates the relevant values and 

assumptions in the PPE and SPE 

underlying the analyses. Applicants and 

the NRC staff may rely on the generic 

finding for each Category 1 issue, as 

codified in proposed table C–1, 

provided that the applicant’s proposed 

reactor facility and the proposed site 

meet or are bounded by the relevant 

values and assumptions for that 

Category 1 issue and that there is no 

new and significant information that 

changes the issue’s generic analysis or 

finding, as determined by the NRC. 

The NR GEIS identifies 20 

environmental issues as Category 2 

issues. These issues cannot be evaluated 

generically and must be evaluated by 

the applicant, in its environmental 

report, and the NRC staff, in the draft 

SEIS, using project-specific information. 

For example, the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (ESA) requires every 

Federal agency to consult with the 

‘‘Service’’ 25 and document its 

consideration of the impacts of its 

actions on threatened and endangered 

species and critical habitats. The NRC 

typically conducts this ESA analysis in 

parallel with its NEPA process. 

Finally, for two environmental issues, 

the NR GEIS identifies the category as 

N/A. The two issues concern the 

potential exposure to EMFs from 

construction and operation. Studies of 

60 Hertz (Hz) EMFs have not uncovered 

consistent evidence linking harmful 

effects with field exposures. Because the 

state of the science is currently 

inadequate, no generic conclusion on 

human health impacts is possible. If, in 

the future, the Commission finds that a 

general agreement has been reached by 

appropriate Federal health agencies that 

there are adverse health effects from 

EMFs regarding these two issues, the 

Commission will then treat the issue in 

a manner similar to a Category 2 issue 

and require applicants to submit 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80804 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

26The NRC has regulatory authority over those 

construction activities that are related to 

radiological health and safety, physical security, or 

otherwise pertain to radiological controls. The NRC 

defines these activities as ‘‘construction’’ in § 51.4, 

‘‘Definitions.’’ As stated in § 51.45(c) 

preconstruction is defined as those activities listed 

in § 51.4(1)(ii). 

27The MOU between the NRC and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, dated September 12, 2008, is 

available in ADAMS under the accession number 

ML082540354. 

project-specific reviews of these health 

effects in their environmental report. 

Until such time, applicants are not 

required to submit information on these 

issues. 

D. Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement 

The purpose of the NR GEIS is to 

present impact analyses for the 

environmental issues common to many 

new nuclear reactors that can be 

addressed generically, thereby 

eliminating the need to repeatedly 

reproduce the same analyses each time 

a licensing application is submitted and 

allowing applicants and NRC staff to 

focus future environmental review 

efforts on issues that can only be 

resolved once a site is identified. The 

NR GEIS is intended to improve the 

efficiency of licensing new nuclear 

reactors by: (1) identifying the types of 

potential environmental impacts of 

constructing, operating, and 

decommissioning a new nuclear reactor, 

(2) assessing impacts that are expected 

to be generic (the same or similar) for 

many new nuclear reactors (Category 1 

issues), and (3) defining the 

environmental issues that will need to 

be addressed in project-specific SEISs 

(Category 2 issues). The NRC staff has 

preliminarily concluded in the draft NR 

GEIS that the potential environmental 

impacts will be beneficial or of a 

SMALL adverse significance level for 

Category 1 issues. 

In the NR GEIS, the NRC staff 

evaluated the impacts of constructing, 

operating, and decommissioning a new 

nuclear reactor sited within the United 

States that meets or is bounded by the 

values and assumptions in the PPE and 

SPE for each Category 1 issue. The term 

‘‘building,’’ as used in the NR GEIS, 

includes the full range of 

preconstruction activities (e.g., site 

grading) and NRC-authorized 

‘‘construction’’ activities.26 Further, for 

purposes of the NR GEIS, the NRC staff 

assumed that the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers would be a cooperating 

agency, in accordance with the 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

between the two agencies dated 

September 12, 2008.27 In this regard, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been 

a cooperating agency since the MOU 

was signed in 2008. In addition, the NR 

GEIS considered fuel cycle impacts and 

the impacts from continued storage of 

spent fuel, including incorporating by 

reference the NRC’s NUREG–2157, as 

further described below. 

Because there may be multiple new 

nuclear reactor designs and a new 

nuclear reactor could be sited anywhere 

in the United States that meets the NRC 

siting requirements in 10 CFR part 100, 

‘‘Reactor Site Criteria,’’ the NRC applied 

a technology-neutral, performancebased approach using a PPE. The PPE 

consists of parameters for specific 

reactor design features regardless of the 

site. Examples of parameters include the 

permanent footprint of disturbance, 

building height, water use, air 

emissions, employment levels, and 

noise generation levels. For each PPE 

parameter, the NRC staff developed a set 

of bounding values and assumptions 

that if met, and absent any new and 

significant information, would 

demonstrate that the potential 

environmental impacts for that PPE 

parameter would be SMALL. 

In addition, the NRC staff developed 

a set of site-related parameters termed 

the SPE. Examples of parameters 

include site size, size of water bodies 

supplying water to the reactor, and 

demographics of the region surrounding 

the site. For each SPE parameter, the 

NRC staff developed a set of bounding 

values and assumptions related to the 

condition of the affected environment, 

such as the extent and occurrence of 

nearby bodies of water, wetlands and 

floodplains, and proximity to sensitive 

noise receptors. Similar to a PPE 

parameter, if an applicant can 

demonstrate that the proposed reactor 

site meets the SPE parameter’s bounding 

values and assumptions, and absent any 

new and significant information, then 

the potential environmental impacts for 

that SPE parameter would be SMALL. 

Under this proposed rule, a proposed 

reactor site would be determined to 

meet a given Category 1 issue if the 

applicant has demonstrated that it has 

met the bounding values and 

assumptions of each PPE and SPE 

parameter relevant to that Category 1 

issue and that there is no new and 

significant information. 

The PPE and SPE values and 

assumptions in the NR GEIS were 

developed by an interdisciplinary team 

of subject matter experts (SMEs) 

assigned to prepare the NR GEIS. The 

SMEs developed the values and 

assumptions based on one or more 

criteria, as described in the NR GEIS. 

The NR GEIS identifies specific types 

of potential environmental impacts for 

16 environmental resource areas: land 

use, visual resources, meteorology and 

air quality, water resources (surface and 

groundwater), terrestrial ecology, 

aquatic ecology, historic and cultural 

resources, environmental hazards 

(radiological and nonradiological), 

noise, waste management (radiological 

and nonradiological), postulated 

accidents, socioeconomics, 

environmental justice, fuel cycle, 

transportation of fuel and waste, and 

decommissioning. Each resource area 

includes one or more types of potential 

impacts, and each type of potential 

impact is termed an issue. In addition 

to the 16 environmental resource areas, 

the NRC staff considered climate 

change, cumulative impacts, purpose 

and need, need for power, site 

alternatives, energy alternatives, and 

system design alternatives. Each of the 

122 issues that were identified 

corresponds to a specific type of 

environmental impact determined by 

the interdisciplinary team of SMEs that 

could potentially result from 

construction, operation, or 

decommissioning of a new nuclear 

reactor. For each issue, the SMEs then 

determined whether it would be 

possible to identify values and 

assumptions in the PPE and SPE that 

could effectively bound a meaningful 

generic analysis and provided the basis 

for each value and assumption. The 

SMEs then performed and described 

their generic analyses for each issue, for 

a hypothetical reactor/site that meets 

the PPE and SPE values and 

assumptions in the NR GEIS. The values 

and assumptions were set such that the 

SMEs could reach a generic conclusion 

of SMALL adverse impacts, and the 

issue was then designated as a Category 

1 issue. Issues for which the potential 

impacts are beneficial were also 

designated as Category 1. Issues for 

which the NRC staff could not reach a 

generic conclusion regarding impacts 

were designated as Category 2 issues. In 

addition, two issues were placed in the 

category of N/A because the state of the 

science is currently inadequate, and no 

generic conclusion on human health 

impacts is possible. 

An applicant addressing a Category 1 

issue in its environmental report may 

refer to the generic analysis in the NR 

GEIS for that issue and rely upon the 

generic finding of a SMALL significance 

level, without further analysis, provided 

that it demonstrates that the relevant 

values and assumptions of the PPE and 

SPE used in the resource analysis are 

met and there is no new and significant 

information that would require projectspecific analysis. The applicant will 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80805 

have to document how the proposed 

reactor facility and the proposed site 

meet or are bounded by the applicable 

values and assumptions for that 

Category 1 issue and describe the 

process it used to determine whether 

there is any new and significant 

information that may change that 

Category 1 issue’s generic analysis or 

finding. The extent of the information 

necessary to demonstrate that the 

applicant’s project meets or is bounded 

by a given value or assumption will 

vary. In some cases, the demonstration 

may only require showing that the 

project falls within a parameter value or 

assumption (e.g., building height). But 

in other cases, analysis may be required 

to demonstrate that a value or 

assumption has been met (e.g., noise 

levels). 

In its environmental report, the 

applicant would have to supply the 

requisite information necessary for the 

NRC staff to perform a project-specific 

analysis for (1) Category 1 issues for 

which the relevant values and 

assumptions are not met, or for which 

new and significant information was 

identified, and (2) all Category 2 issues. 

Guidance for applicants providing 

information to the NRC staff in an 

environmental report is available in RG 

4.2, ‘‘Preparation of Environmental 

Reports for Nuclear Power Stations.’’ If 

a project-specific analysis is required for 

a Category 1 issue, the applicant may be 

able to incorporate by reference all or 

part of the generic analysis provided in 

the NR GEIS as a part of its analysis and 

focus on providing any additional 

project-specific information needed to 

support its conclusion. 

After the applicant submits its 

environmental report, the NRC staff will 

prepare the draft SEIS, and following 

the public comment period, the final 

SEIS. When considering a Category 1 

issue in a SEIS, the NRC staff will 

likewise refer to the generic analysis in 

the NR GEIS for that issue without 

further analysis, provided that the 

relevant values and assumptions in the 

PPE and SPE are met and there is no 

new and significant information that 

changes the generic finding for that 

Category 1 issue. The NRC staff also will 

document that the applicant has 

demonstrated that the values and 

assumptions are met for that issue. The 

NRC staff will complete a projectspecific analysis in accordance with the 

latest version of the Environmental 

Standard Review Plan or related 

guidance (such as any relevant interim 

staff guidance) for (1) Category 1 issues 

for which the relevant values and 

assumptions are not met, or for which 

new and significant information was 

identified, and (2) all Category 2 issues. 

If a project-specific analysis is required 

for a Category 1 issue, the NRC staff may 

be able to incorporate by reference all or 

part of the generic analysis provided in 

the NR GEIS as a part of its analysis and 

focus on providing any additional 

project-specific information needed to 

support its conclusion. 

E. Summary of Issues Analyzed in the 

NR GEIS 

The following describes those 

environmental issues that were 

examined for the NR GEIS and 

summarizes the conclusions by resource 

area. The determination that an 

applicant can rely on the finding for a 

Category 1 issue assumes that the 

applicant can demonstrate that its 

proposed reactor facility and the 

proposed site meet or is bounded by all 

the respective values and assumptions 

of that Category 1 issue, and further, 

that there is no new and significant 

information related to that issue. 

1. Land Use 

The NRC staff evaluated the potential 

impacts to onsite and offsite land use for 

both construction and operation. In 

addition, the NRC staff considered the 

impacts of the project in accordance 

with the Coastal Zone Management Act 

and the Farmland Protection Policy Act, 

if applicable. The NRC staff concluded 

that all identified issues can be 

classified as Category 1 issues. 

2. Visual Resources 

The NRC staff evaluated the potential 

visual impacts in the site and vicinity 

and along the transmission lines for 

both the construction and operation. 

The NRC staff concluded that all 

identified issues can be classified as 

Category 1 issues. 

3. Meteorology and Air Quality 

The NRC staff evaluated the potential 

air quality impacts from the emissions 

of criteria pollutants, dust and 

hazardous pollutants, and greenhouse 

gas emissions for both construction and 

operation. In addition, the NRC staff 

considered the potential operationsrelated air quality impacts from coolingsystem emissions and the emission of 

ozone and nitrogen oxides during 

transmission line operations. The NRC 

staff concluded that all identified issues 

can be classified as Category 1 issues. 

4. Water Resources 

The NRC staff evaluated the potential 

impacts to water use and water quality 

for both surface water and groundwater 

for both construction and operation. The 

NRC staff concluded that all identified 

issues can be classified as Category 1 

issues, with one exception. The NRC 

staff determined that surface water 

quality degradation due to chemical and 

thermal discharges could not be 

resolved generically because there was 

no practical way to develop a 

comprehensive bounding set of water 

quality criteria, including both thermal 

and chemical criteria, for the PPE and 

SPE. Therefore, this issue is a Category 

2 issue, and thus requires a projectspecific evaluation. 

5. Terrestrial Ecology 

The NRC staff evaluated the potential 

impacts to terrestrial wildlife, habitats, 

and wetlands for both construction and 

operation. The NRC staff concluded that 

all identified issues can be classified as 

Category 1 issues, with two exceptions. 

The NRC staff determined that the 

potential impacts to wildlife regulated 

under the ESA could not be generically 

resolved for either construction or 

operations because the NRC staff would 

need to consult individually with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under 

ESA Section 7 regarding the potential 

effects of each specific licensing action. 

Therefore, these issues are Category 2 

issues, and thus require a projectspecific evaluation. 

6. Aquatic Ecology 

The NRC staff evaluated the potential 

impacts to aquatic wildlife and habitats 

for both construction and operation. The 

NRC staff concluded that all identified 

issues can be classified as Category 1 

issues, with four exceptions. The NRC 

staff determined that the potential 

impacts to resources regulated under the 

ESA and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

could not be generically resolved for 

either construction or operations 

because the NRC staff would need to 

consult individually with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and/or the 

National Marine Fisheries Service under 

ESA Section 7 and the MagnusonStevens Act regarding the potential 

effects of each specific licensing action. 

In addition, the NRC staff determined 

that potential thermal impacts on 

aquatic biota and other potential effects 

of cooling-water discharges on aquatic 

biota could not be resolved generically. 

For both of these issues, the NRC staff 

would have to first review the discharge 

plume analysis and the aquatic biota 

potentially present before being able to 

reach a conclusion regarding the 

possible significance of impacts on the 

biota. Therefore, these four issues are 

Category 2 issues, and thus require 

project-specific evaluations. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80806 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

7. Historic and Cultural Resources 

Both construction and operation of a 

new nuclear reactor have the potential 

to affect historic and cultural resources. 

The NRC staff would need to complete 

a project-specific consultation in 

accordance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act as 

part of its environmental review. 

Therefore, these two issues are Category 

2 issues, and thus require projectspecific evaluations. 

8. Environmental Hazards 

This resource area encompasses both 

radiological impacts and 

nonradiological impacts. The NRC staff 

evaluated the potential impacts of 

environmental hazards for both 

construction and operation. The NRC 

staff concluded that all identified issues 

can be classified as Category 1 issues, 

with two exceptions. These two issues 

are the human health impacts of EMFs 

for both construction and operation. The 

NRC staff determined that because the 

state of the science regarding the human 

health impacts of EMFs is currently 

inadequate, no generic conclusion on 

those impacts is possible, and has 

classified these issues as N/A. If, in the 

future, the Commission finds that a 

general agreement has been reached by 

appropriate Federal health agencies that 

there are adverse health effects from 

EMFs, the Commission will require 

applicants to submit plant-specific 

reviews of these health effects as part of 

their application. Until such time, 

applicants are not required to submit 

information on this issue. 

9. Noise 

The NRC staff evaluated the potential 

impacts of noise for both construction 

and operation. The NRC staff concluded 

that all identified issues can be 

classified as Category 1 issues. 

10. Waste Management 

This resource area encompasses the 

potential impacts of both radiological 

waste management and nonradiological 

waste management. The NRC staff 

evaluated the potential operational 

impacts of radiological waste 

management. In addition, the NRC staff 

evaluated the potential impacts of 

nonradiological waste management for 

both construction and operation. The 

NRC staff concluded that all identified 

issues can be classified as Category 1 

issues. 

11. Postulated Accidents 

The NRC staff evaluated the potential 

operational impacts of postulated 

accidents (because these impacts occur 

only during operations). The NRC staff 

concluded that all identified issues can 

be classified as Category 1 issues, with 

one exception. The NRC staff 

determined that severe accidents are a 

Category 2 issue. Based on the analysis 

in the preliminary or final safety 

analysis report regarding severe 

accidents and probabilistic risk 

assessments, if a new nuclear reactor 

design has severe accident progressions 

that involve radiological or hazardous 

chemical releases, then a projectspecific environmental risk evaluation 

must be performed. 

12. Socioeconomics 

The NRC staff evaluated the potential 

impacts of socioeconomics for both 

construction and operation. The NRC 

staff concluded that these two issues 

can be classified as Category 1 issues. 

13. Environmental Justice 

Both construction and operation may 

raise environmental justice issues. The 

NRC staff has determined that potential 

environmental justice impacts during 

construction or operations cannot be 

determined without the consideration of 

meaningful project-specific factors, and 

therefore, are Category 2 issues. Projectspecific factors include the presence, 

geographic location, and size of specific 

minority or low-income populations; 

impact pathways derived from the plant 

design, layout, or site characteristics; or 

other community characteristics 

affecting specific minorities or lowincome populations. 

14. Fuel Cycle 

The NRC staff evaluated the potential 

operational impacts of the fuel cycle 

(because these impacts do not occur 

during construction). The NRC staff 

concluded that all identified issues can 

be classified as Category 1 issues. 

However, because the values and 

assumptions do not encompass the 

potential fuel fabrication impacts for 

metal fuel and liquid-fueled molten salt, 

such fuels would require a projectspecific analysis. 

The NR GEIS incorporates by 

reference NUREG–2157, in which the 

NRC evaluated the environmental 

impacts of the continued storage of 

spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed 

life for the operation of light-water 

reactors (LWRs). In § 51.23, the NRC 

specifies that NUREG–2157 is deemed 

to be incorporated into the EIS for a new 

reactor. However, NUREG–2157 did not 

evaluate the storage of spent nuclear 

fuel from non-LWRs. The NRC staff 

expects that many new nuclear reactors 

will not be LWRs. The NR GEIS 

therefore evaluates the applicability of 

NUREG–2157 and determines that the 

findings in NUREG–2157 are applicable 

to non-LWR fuel, provided that the nonLWR fuel is stored in a manner that 

meets the regulatory requirements for 

spent fuel storage cask approval and 

fabrication in accordance with subpart 

L, ‘‘Approval of Spent Fuel Storage 

Casks,’’ to 10 CFR part 72. 

15. Transportation 

The NRC staff evaluated the potential 

operational impacts of the 

transportation of fuel and waste to and 

from new nuclear reactors (because 

these impacts occur only during 

operations). The NRC staff concluded 

that all identified issues can be 

classified as Category 1 issues. 

16. Decommissioning 

The NRC staff previously evaluated 

the environmental impacts of the 

decommissioning of nuclear power 

reactors as residual radioactivity at the 

site is reduced to levels that allow for 

termination of the NRC license. This 

evaluation was documented in the 

‘‘Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement on Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Facilities’’ (Decommissioning 

GEIS, NUREG–0586, Supplement 1). 

The NRC staff evaluated NUREG–0586, 

Supplement 1, and determined that its 

conclusions and analysis are applicable 

to new reactors in the NR GEIS. 

Therefore, for the purposes of the NR 

GEIS, the environmental impacts of 

decommissioning for certain resource 

areas that were generically addressed in 

NUREG–0586, would be limited to 

operational areas, would not be 

detectable or destabilizing, and are 

expected to have a negligible effect on 

the impacts of terminating operations 

and decommissioning. 

The issues for which these generic 

findings were made in the 

Decommissioning GEIS are designated 

as a Category 1 issue in the NR GEIS. 

However, certain issues in NUREG– 

0586, Supplement 1 were determined to 

require project-specific analysis and 

certain others to require project-specific 

analysis under certain conditions. These 

issues are therefore designated as 

Category 2 issues in the NR GEIS. 

NUREG–0586, Supplement 1, is 

incorporated into the NR GEIS. 

17. Issues Applying Across Resources 

The NRC staff determined that the 

impacts related to climate change and 

the consideration of cumulative impacts 

could not be evaluated generically. As 

such, both of these issues have been 

classified as Category 2 issues and thus 

require a project-specific evaluation. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80807 

18. Non-Resource Related Category 2 

Issues 

The NR GEIS addresses the 

environmental impact issues associated 

with constructing, operating, and 

decommissioning a new nuclear reactor. 

However, the environmental report and 

the NRC staff’s SEIS must also include 

other information, as required by the 

regulations and discussed in regulatory 

guidance. These are not resourcespecific issues. Rather, they are projectspecific issues, not tied to any specific 

environmental resource, that are 

necessary to support the NRC staff’s 

completion of its environmental review 

in accordance with NEPA. These issues 

cannot be evaluated generically and 

must be addressed in the environmental 

report and SEIS using project-specific 

information. In the NR GEIS, the NRC 

staff identified the following issues: 

purpose and need, need for power, site 

alternatives, energy alternatives, and 

system design alternatives. This list is 

not all-inclusive. NRC regulations at 10 

CFR part 51 and guidance such as RG 

4.2 describe information not included in 

this list that must be included as part of 

an application. 

F. Public Comments on Notice of 

Exploratory Process and Notice of Intent 

To Prepare a Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement 

On November 15, 2019 (84 FR 62559), 

the NRC published in the Federal 

Register, ‘‘Agency Action Regarding the 

Exploratory Process for the 

Development of an Advanced Nuclear 

Reactor Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement,’’ announcing an exploratory 

process and soliciting comments to 

determine the possibility of developing 

a GEIS for licensing advanced nuclear 

reactors. The exploratory process 

included two public meetings, a public 

workshop attended by multiple 

stakeholders, and a site visit to the 

Idaho National Laboratory, a location 

that is being contemplated for 

construction and operation of advanced 

nuclear reactors. 

Advice and recommendations on the 

possibility of preparing an advanced 

nuclear reactor GEIS were invited from 

all interested persons. Comments were 

specifically requested on the whether 

the scope of the GEIS should include 

reactors regardless of technology or be 

limited to specific reactor technologies, 

what reactor sizes (footprint) and power 

levels should be included in the scope 

of the GEIS, whether the geographical 

site of a reactor should be considered in 

developing the scope of the GEIS, and 

whether a set of bounding plant 

parameters should be consider in 

developing the scope of the GEIS, and 

if so, what parameters should be 

considered. 

The NRC received comments that 

both supported and opposed the 

development of an advanced nuclear 

reactor GEIS. Commenters who 

supported development of an advanced 

nuclear reactor GEIS stated that it would 

improve the efficiency of the 

environmental review process, would 

avoid duplication of effort, and would 

focus future reviews on important 

environmental issues. Commenters who 

did not support development of an 

advanced nuclear reactor GEIS stated 

that the GEIS would be premature at 

this time and that the NRC staff did not 

have sufficient information available to 

resolve issues generically. Based on the 

results of the exploratory process, the 

NRC staff concluded that there was 

sufficient information to complete an 

advanced nuclear reactor GEIS which 

would generically resolve many 

environmental issues, save resources for 

individual reviews, and provide 

predictability for potential applicants in 

developing their applications. The 

results of the exploratory process were 

summarized in SECY–20–0020, ‘‘Results 

of Exploratory Process for Developing a 

Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Construction and 

Operation of Advanced Nuclear 

Reactors,’’ issued on February 28, 2020. 

On April 30, 2020 (85 FR 24040), the 

NRC published in the Federal Register, 

‘‘Notice To Conduct Scoping and 

Prepare an Advanced Nuclear Reactor 

Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement.’’ Advice and 

recommendations on the scope of the 

GEIS were invited from all interested 

persons. 

Comments were requested regarding 

the parameters that the NRC should use 

to bound the advanced nuclear reactors 

in the PPE (including power level and 

size of the site) and the parameters that 

should be used to bound the affected 

environment in the SPE. In addition, 

comments were requested on resources 

or issues that could be resolved 

generically and ones that could not. 

The NRC received comments 

concerning the NEPA process, the PPE 

and SPE, hydrology, socioeconomics, 

environmental justice, historic and 

cultural resources, climate change, 

radiological health, uranium fuel cycle, 

accidents, transportation of spent fuel, 

and need for power. The NRC also 

received general comments in support 

of and opposition to the advanced 

nuclear reactor GEIS, and comments 

concerning issues outside the scope of 

the GEIS. A summary of comments and 

the NRC staff response are available in 

the scoping summary report issued on 

September 25, 2020, which is available 

as indicated in the ‘‘Availability of 

Documents’’ section of this document. 

G. Clarifying Amendment for 

Postoperating Licenses 

The NRC is proposing to add to 

§§ 51.53(d) a cross-reference to the 

license termination provisions under 

§ 52.110, ‘‘Termination of license.’’ This 

change will clarify in § 51.53(d) that 

NRC’s requirements at 10 CFR part 52 

also include license termination 

provisions. 

IV. Specific Requests for Comment 

The NRC is seeking public comment 

on this proposed rule, the NR GEIS, 

draft regulatory guide (DG), DG–4032, 

‘‘Preparation of Environmental Reports 

for Nuclear Power Stations,’’ and draft 

Interim Staff Guidance COL–ISG–030, 

‘‘Environmental Considerations 

Associated with New Nuclear Reactor 

Applications that Reference the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(NUREG–2249).’’ In addition, the NRC 

staff developed two draft documents 

referenced in DG–4032, the ‘‘Energy and 

System Design Mitigation Alternatives 

White Paper’’ (‘‘White Paper’’) and 

‘‘Recommendations for an Applicant to 

Calculate Activity Data for Greenhouse 

Gases Estimates’’ (‘‘GHG Estimates’’). 

These documents are references to DG– 

4032 and, therefore, are open to review 

and comment from the public. The DG– 

4032, COL ISG–030, the White Paper, 

and the GHG Estimates document are 

described in Section XIV, ‘‘Availability 

of Guidance,’’ of this document. 

Further, the NRC staff is particularly 

interested in comments and supporting 

rationale from the public on the 

following: 

1. Plant parameter envelope and site 

parameter envelope values and 

assumptions: If a commenter believes 

the NRC staff is using an inappropriate 

value to result in a SMALL impact 

(either too restrictive, or not restrictive 

enough), explain the basis for that 

position and provide an alternative 

proposed parameter value. 

2. Environmental issues evaluated: 

Are there any environmental issues that 

the NRC staff did not include in the 

scope of the NR GEIS and the proposed 

rule that should be included? 

Commenters should provide the basis 

for considering any proposed 

environmental issues. 

3. Categorization of issues: Are the 

environmental issues categorized 

appropriately? In other words, are there 

Category 1 issues that should be 

Category 2, or Category 2 issues that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80808 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

28A LWA permits a nuclear power plant 

applicant to engage in certain reactor construction 

activities before the NRC issues a 10 CFR part 50 

construction permit or a 10 CFR part 52 combined 

license. The applicable NRC regulations for LWAs 

include §§ 50.10, ‘‘License required; limited work 

authorization;’’ 52.1(a); 52.17(c); 52.24, ‘‘Issuance of 

early site permit;’’ 52.27, ‘‘Limited work 

authorization after issuance of early site permit;’’ 

52.80, ‘‘Contents of applications; additional 

technical information;’’ and 52.91, ‘‘Authorization 

to conduct limited work authorization activities.’’ 

The NRC last amended its LWA regulations in 2007 

(72 FR 57416; October 9, 2007). 

should be Category 1? Provide a basis 

for such conclusions. 

4. Scope of proposed rule changes 

and GEIS: Is the applicability of the 

GEIS to new reactors (which includes 

advanced nuclear reactors) clearly 

articulated? Do the proposed revisions 

adequately address all licensing 

scenarios associated with evaluating the 

environmental impacts of permitting 

and licensing new nuclear reactor 

construction and operation? For 

example, no changes are proposed to 

§ 51.53(b), ‘‘Post-construction 

environmental report–operating license 

stage,’’ because this provision already 

references the requirements of § 51.50, 

‘‘Environmental report—construction 

permit, early site permit, or combined 

license stage,’’ which is modified by the 

proposed rule. Commenters should 

clearly specify any proposed regulatory 

text additions or changes and provide 

the basis for such proposed changes. 

5. Guidance for applicants: Are the 

methods described in the draft revision 

to RG 4.2 for demonstrating values and 

assumptions appropriate? Describe and 

justify any methods that the commenter 

believes are not appropriate. 

6. Limited Work Authorizations: 

Should the NRC expand the NR GEIS 

and the rule to include NRC approval of 

limited work authorizations (LWAs) 28

for new nuclear reactor applications? 

Specifically, should an LWA applicant 

that demonstrates that its proposed 

project meets or is bounded by the PPE 

and SPE values and assumptions for a 

given Category 1 issue be able to rely on 

the generic findings for that issue in 

preparing the environmental report that 

it will submit in support of its LWA 

application? Similarly, should the NRC 

be able to rely on the generic findings 

for that Category 1 issue in preparing its 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement? If the NRC were to expand 

the NR GEIS and the rule to include 

NRC approval of LWAs, the expansion 

would cover both LWAs submitted as a 

stand-alone application and an LWA 

request submitted in conjunction with 

an application for another form of NRC 

approval described in the NR GEIS and 

in the proposed rule (e.g., a construction 

permit application). 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following paragraphs describe the 

specific changes proposed by this 

rulemaking. 

Section 51.50, Environmental Report— 

Construction Permit, Early Site Permit, 

or Combined License Stage 

The NRC proposes to amend 

paragraph (a) by adding a new second 

sentence regarding the requirement for 

non-LWR applicants to address fuel 

cycle impacts, making this paragraph 

consistent with the existing language in 

paragraphs (b) and (c). 

The NRC proposes to add a new 

paragraph (d) to permit the use of the 

NR GEIS for an application for a 

construction permit, early site permit, or 

combined license for a new nuclear 

reactor. 

Section 51.53, Postconstruction 

Environmental Reports 

The NRC proposes to amend the first 

sentence of paragraph (d) by adding 

‘‘§ 52.110’’ to reflect that 10 CFR part 52 

also includes license termination 

provisions. 

Section 51.75, Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement—Construction 

Permit, Early Site Permit, or Combined 

License 

The NRC proposes to add a new 

paragraph (d) to provide direction on 

the preparation of a draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement for an 

application that makes use of the NR 

GEIS for a construction permit, early 

site permit, or combined license for a 

new nuclear reactor. 

Section 51.96, Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Relying on Appendix C to Subpart A 

The NRC proposes to add a new 

section to provide direction on 

preparation of a final supplemental 

environmental impact statement for a 

new nuclear reactor application that 

relied on any of the findings in 

appendix C to subpart A of this part in 

preparing a draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement in 

accordance with § 51.75(d). 

Appendix C to Subpart A, 

Environmental Effect of Issuing a Permit 

or License for a New Nuclear Reactor 

The NRC proposes to add appendix C 

to add a table to codify the NR GEIS 

findings and to specify values and 

assumptions that need to be met by the 

applicant to incorporate Category 1 

conclusions into the environmental 

report and identify the Category 2 and 

uncategorized issues that need to be 

evaluated on a project-specific basis. 

Proposed appendix C states that, on a 

10-year cycle, the Commission intends 

to review the material in this appendix 

and update it if necessary. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq., requires that agencies consider the 

impact of their rulemakings on small 

entities and, consistent with applicable 

statutes, consider alternatives to 

minimize these impacts on the 

businesses, organizations, and 

government jurisdictions to which they 

apply. 

In accordance with the Small 

Business Administration’s regulation at 

13 CFR 121.903(c), the NRC has 

developed its own size standards for 

performing an RFA analysis and has 

verified with the SBA Office of 

Advocacy that its size standards are 

appropriate for NRC analyses. The NRC 

size standards at 10 CFR 2.810, ‘‘NRC 

size standards,’’ are used to determine 

whether an applicant or licensee 

qualifies as a small entity in the NRC’s 

regulatory programs. Section 2.810 

defines the following types of small 

entities: 

small business is a for-profit concern 

and is a—(1) Concern that provides a 

service or a concern not engaged in 

manufacturing with average gross 

receipts of $8.0 million or less over its 

last 5 completed fiscal years; or (2) 

Manufacturing concern with an average 

number of 500 or fewer employees 

based upon employment during each 

pay period for the preceding 12 calendar 

months. 

small organization is a not-for-profit 

organization which is independently 

owned and operated and has annual 

gross receipts of $8.0 million or less. 

small governmental jurisdiction is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

township, village, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000. 

small educational institution is one 

that is—(1) Supported by a qualifying 

small governmental jurisdiction; or (2) 

Not state or publicly supported and has 

500 or fewer employees. 

Number of Small Entities Affected 

The NRC is currently aware of no 

known small entities as defined in 

§ 2.810 that are planning to apply for a 

new nuclear reactor construction permit 

or operating license under 10 CFR part 

50 or an early site permit or combined 

license under 10 CFR part 52, which 

would be impacted by this proposed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80809 

29https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_

table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_03. 

rule. Based on this finding, the NRC has 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Economic Impact on Small Entities 

Depending on how the ownership 

and/or operating responsibilities for 

such an enterprise were structured, 

applicants for a new nuclear reactor 

rated 8 megawatts electric (MWe) or less 

could conceivably meet the definition of 

small entities as defined by § 2.810. 

Owners that operate power reactors 

rated greater than 8 MWe could generate 

sufficient electricity revenue that 

exceeds the gross annual receipts limit 

of $7 million, assuming a 90 percent 

capacity factor and the 2023 U.S. 

Department of Energy’s Energy 

Information Administration U.S. 

average price of electricity to the 

ultimate customer for all sectors of 12.7 

cents per kilowatt-hour. 29

Although the NRC is not aware of any 

small entities that would be affected by 

the proposed rule, there is a possibility 

that future applications for a new 

nuclear reactor permit or license could 

be submitted by small entities who plan 

to own and operate a nuclear reactor 

rated 8 MWe or less. Nuclear reactors 

that are rated 8 MWe or less would most 

likely be used to support electrical 

demand for military bases, small remote 

towns, and process heat and would not 

directly compete with larger nuclear 

reactors that typically produce 

electricity for the grid. As a result of 

these differing purposes, the NRC would 

expect that small and large entities 

would not be in direct competition with 

each other. 

Regulations at § 171.16(c) allow for 

certain NRC licensees to pay reduced 

annual fees if they qualify as small 

entities, although these regulations do 

not include licensees authorized to 

conduct activities under either 10 CFR 

part 50 or 10 CFR part 52. However, 

should a small entity apply for a nuclear 

reactor license or permit, the small 

entity could request a one-time fee 

exemption. In subsequent years, the 

NRC licensee could submit a new 

request for a fee exemption for each 

fiscal year for which it desires an 

exemption. Additionally, after the small 

entity receives an operating license 

under 10 CFR part 50 or under part 52 

and has completed power ascension 

testing, the small entity would be 

eligible for a reduced annual fee under 

§ 171.15, ‘‘Annual fees: Non-power 

production or utilization licenses, 

reactor licenses, and independent spent 

fuel storage licenses,’’ based on the 

cumulative licensed thermal power 

rating of the reactor. The fiscal year 

2023 annual fee for each large operating 

power reactor is $5,492,000. 

Therefore, the NRC preliminarily 

concludes that this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Request for Comments 

The NRC is seeking comments on 

both its initial RFA analysis and on its 

preliminary conclusion that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because of the likelihood that most 

expected applicants would not qualify 

as a small entity. Additionally, the NRC 

is seeking comments on its preliminary 

conclusion that if a small entity were to 

submit a new nuclear reactor 

application, the small entity would not 

incur a significant economic impact as 

it would most likely not be in 

competition with a large entity. 

Any small entity that could be subject 

to this regulation that determines, 

because of its size, it is likely to bear a 

disproportionate adverse economic 

impact should notify the Commission of 

this opinion in a comment that 

indicates— 

(1) The applicant’s size and how the 

proposed regulation would impose a 

significant economic burden on the 

applicant as compared to the economic 

burden on a larger applicant; 

(2) How the proposed regulations 

could be modified to take into account 

the applicant’s differing needs or 

capabilities; 

(3) The benefits that would accrue or 

the detriments that would be avoided if 

the proposed regulations were modified 

as suggested by the applicant; 

(4) How the proposed regulation, as 

modified, would more closely equalize 

the impact of NRC regulations or create 

more equal access to the benefits of 

Federal programs as opposed to 

providing special advantages to any 

individual or group; and 

(5) How the proposed regulation, as 

modified, would still adequately meet 

the NRC’s obligations under NEPA. 

VII. Regulatory Analysis 

The NRC has prepared a draft 

regulatory analysis on this proposed 

regulation. The analysis examines the 

costs and benefits of the alternatives 

considered by the NRC. The NRC 

requests public comment on the draft 

regulatory analysis. The regulatory 

analysis is available as indicated in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section of 

this document. Comments on the draft 

analysis may be submitted to the NRC 

as indicated under the ADDRESSES 

caption of this document. 

VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 

The proposed rule would codify in 10 

CFR part 51 certain environmental 

issues identified in the NR GEIS. The 

proposed rule also revises 10 CFR part 

51 to allow an applicant for a new 

nuclear reactor construction permit or 

operating license under 10 CFR part 50, 

or a new nuclear reactor early site 

permit or combined license under 10 

CFR part 52, to use the NR GEIS in 

preparing its environmental report. The 

proposed rule would require the NRC 

staff to prepare a project-specific draft 

SEIS and final SEIS for each application 

that references the NR GEIS. The NRC 

has determined that the backfitting rule 

in § 50.109, ‘‘Backfitting,’’ and the issue 

finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52 do 

not apply to this proposed rule because 

this amendment does not involve any 

provision that would either constitute 

backfitting as that term is defined in 10 

CFR chapter I or affect the issue finality 

of any approval issued under 10 CFR 

part 52. 

The proposed rule would not 

constitute backfitting for applicants for 

construction permits or operating 

licenses under 10 CFR part 50 and 

would not affect the issue finality of 

applicants for early site permits or 

combined licenses under 10 CFR part 

52. These applicants are not, with 

certain exceptions not applicable here, 

within the scope of the backfitting or 

issue finality provisions. The backfitting 

and issue finality regulations include 

language delineating when the 

backfitting and issue finality provisions 

begin; in general, they begin after the 

issuance of a license, permit, or other 

approval (e.g., §§ 50.109(a)(1)(iii) and 

52.98(a)). Furthermore, neither the 

backfitting provisions nor the issue 

finality provisions, with certain 

exceptions not applicable here, are 

intended to apply to NRC actions that 

substantially change the expectations of 

current and future applicants. 

Applicants cannot reasonably expect 

that future requirements will not 

change. 

The exceptions to the general 

principle are applicable when an 

applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 

approval (e.g., an early site permit or 

design certification rule) with specified 

issue finality provisions or a 

construction permit under 10 CFR part 

50. However, this proposed rule would 

have no effect on a construction permit 

held by an applicant for a 10 CFR part 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80810 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

50 operating license or an early site 

permit referenced by an applicant for a 

10 CFR part 52 combined license. 

Therefore, for purposes of this proposed 

rule, the exceptions to the general 

principle do not apply. 

IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation 

The NRC is following its cumulative 

effects of regulation (CER) process by 

engaging with external stakeholders 

throughout the rulemaking and related 

regulatory activities. Public involvement 

has included (1) the publication of a 

notice announcing an exploratory 

process and opportunity for comment to 

determine the possible utility of 

developing an advanced nuclear reactor 

GEIS on November 15, 2019 (84 FR 

62559); (2) public meetings on 

November 15 and November 20, 2019, 

and a workshop on January 8, 2020, to 

gather information for the exploratory 

process; (3) the publication of a notice 

of intent to conduct scoping and prepare 

an advanced nuclear reactor GEIS on 

April 30, 2020 (85 FR 24040); (4) a 

public meeting on May 28, 2020, to 

receive comments on the scope of the 

GEIS; and (5) public meetings on 

October 1, 2020 and April 15, 2021, to 

share information about the NRC’s 

progress on the development of the 

GEIS. 

The NRC is issuing draft guidance 

along with this proposed rule to support 

more informed external stakeholder 

understanding and feedback. The draft 

guidance is available as indicated in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section of 

this document. Further, the NRC will 

continue to hold public meetings 

throughout the rulemaking process. 

In addition to the questions on the 

implementation of this proposed rule 

presented in the ‘‘Specific Requests for 

Comments’’ section of this document, 

the NRC is requesting CER feedback on 

the following questions: 

1. In light of any current or projected 

CER challenges, does the proposed 

rule’s effective date, compliance date, or 

submittal date(s) provide sufficient time 

to implement the new proposed 

requirements, including changes to 

programs, procedures, and the facility? 

Provide a rationale for your answer. 

2. If CER challenges currently exist or 

are expected, what should be done to 

address them? For example, if more 

time is required for implementation of 

the new requirements, what period of 

time is sufficient? 

3. Do other (NRC or other agency) 

regulatory actions (e.g., orders, generic 

communications, license amendment 

requests, inspection findings of a 

generic nature) influence the 

implementation of this proposed rule’s 

requirements? Provide a rationale for 

your answer. 

4. Are there unintended 

consequences? Does the proposed rule 

create conditions that would be contrary 

to this proposed rule’s purpose and 

objectives? If so, what are the 

unintended consequences, and how 

should they be addressed? 

5. Please comment on the NRC’s cost 

and benefit estimates in the draft 

regulatory analysis that supports the 

proposed rule. The draft regulatory 

analysis is available as indicated in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section of 

this document. 

X. Plain Writing 

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. 

L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to 

write documents in a clear, concise, and 

well-organized manner. The NRC has 

written this document to be consistent 

with the Plain Writing Act as well as the 

Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing,’’ 

published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). 

The NRC requests comment on this 

document with respect to the clarity and 

effectiveness of the language used. 

XI. National Environmental Policy Act 

The NRC has determined that this 

proposed rule is the type of action 

described in § 51.22(c)(3), an NRC 

categorical exclusion. Therefore, neither 

an environmental impact statement nor 

environmental assessment has been 

prepared for this proposed rule. This 

action is procedural in nature in that it 

pertains to the type of environmental 

information to be reviewed. 

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains new or 

amended collections of information 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This 

proposed rule has been submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget for 

review and approval of the information 

collections. 

Type of submission: Revision. 

The title of the information collection: 

10 CFR part 51, Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Licensing of New 

Nuclear Reactors. 

The form number if applicable: Not 

applicable. 

How often the collection is required or 

requested: On occasion. 

Who will be required or asked to 

respond: Applicants for new nuclear 

reactors. 

An estimate of the number of annual 

responses: 6. 

The estimated number of annual 

respondents: 6. 

An estimate of the total number of 

hours needed annually to comply with 

the information collection requirement 

or request: A burden reduction of 39,288 

hours. 

Abstract: The NRC is proposing to 

amend the regulations that govern the 

NRC’s environmental reviews of new 

nuclear reactor applications under 

NEPA. The NRC’s regulations in § 51.45, 

‘‘Environmental report,’’ require each 

applicant to prepare and submit an 

environmental report which includes, 

among other things, a description of the 

proposed action, a statement of its 

purposes, a description of the 

environment affected, and a discussion 

of the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action and alternatives. The 

rulemaking would codify the generic 

findings of NUREG–2249, ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors’’ (NR 

GEIS), which presents impact analyses 

for the environmental issues common to 

many new nuclear reactors that can be 

addressed generically, thereby 

eliminating the need to repeatedly 

reproduce the same analyses each time 

a licensing application is submitted. 

The proposed rule would reduce burden 

on an applicant because they would not 

be required to assess the environmental 

impacts of NR GEIS Category 1 issues if: 

(1) the applicant has demonstrated that 

it has met the bounding values and 

assumption of each PPE and SPE 

parameter relevant to that Category 1 

issue, and (2) the applicant has not 

identified any new and significant 

information that would change a 

conclusion related to a Category 1 issue 

in the NR GEIS. If a value or assumption 

is not met, then the applicant may be 

able to limit its analysis to just the 

impact of not meeting the value or 

assumption. Similarly, if the applicant 

identifies new and significant 

information that would change a 

conclusion in the NR GEIS, then the 

applicant may be able to limit its 

analysis to just the impact of the new 

and significant information. To comply 

with NEPA, the NRC uses the 

information in the environmental report 

along other information to conduct an 

independent environmental evaluation. 

The NRC is seeking public comment 

on the potential impact of the 

information collection contained in this 

proposed rule and on the following 

issues: 

1. Is the proposed information 

collection necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

NRC, including whether the information 

will have practical utility? Please 

explain your response. 

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection 

accurate? Please explain your response. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80811 

3. Is there a way to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected? Please 

explain your response. 

4. How can the burden of the 

proposed information collection on 

respondents be minimized, including 

the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology? 

A copy of the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) clearance package 

and proposed rule are available in 

ADAMS as indicated in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section of 

this document or may be viewed free of 

charge by contacting the NRC’s Public 

Document Room reference staff at 1– 

800–397–4209, at 301–415–4737, or by 

email to PDR.resource@nrc.gov. You 

may obtain information and comment 

submissions related to the OMB 

clearance package by searching on 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket ID NRC–2020–0101. 

You may submit comments on any 

aspect of these proposed information 

collections, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden and on the above 

issues, by the following methods: 

• Federal rulemaking website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2020–0101. 

• Mail comments to: FOIA, Library, 

and Information Collections Branch, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

Mail Stop: T6–A10M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001 or by email to 

Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov or to the 

OMB reviewer at: OMB Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(3150–0021), Attn: Desk Officer for the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 725 

17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. 

Submit comments by November 4, 

2024. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the NRC is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless the 

document requesting or requiring the 

collection displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995, Public 

Law 104–113, requires that Federal 

agencies use technical standards that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies unless the 

use of such a standard is inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. In this proposed rule, the 

NRC will amend various provisions of 

10 CFR part 51. This action does not 

constitute the establishment of a 

standard that contains generally 

applicable requirements. 

XIV. Availability of Guidance 

The NRC is issuing for comment two 

draft guidance documents, DG–4032, 

‘‘Preparation of Environmental Reports 

for Nuclear Power Stations,’’ and draft 

interim staff guidance (ISG) document 

COL–ISG–030, ‘‘Environmental 

Considerations Associated with New 

Nuclear Reactor Applications that 

Reference the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement (NUREG–2249)— 

Interim Staff Guidance,’’ to support the 

implementation of the requirements in 

this proposed rulemaking. The guidance 

documents are available as indicated in 

the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section 

of this document. You may submit 

comments on the draft regulatory 

guidance by the methods provided in 

the ADDRESSES section of this document. 

The DG–4032 has been prepared as a 

revision to RG 4.2, ‘‘Preparation of 

Environmental Reports for Nuclear 

Power Stations.’’ The revision updates 

and re-titles Appendix C to the 

regulatory guide, which previously 

provided guidance specifically for small 

modular reactors and non-LWRs and 

makes conforming changes to the body 

of the regulatory guide. The revisions 

provide supplemental guidance for 

applicants to establish a uniform format 

and content acceptable to the NRC staff 

for structuring and presenting the 

environmental information to be 

compiled and submitted by an applicant 

for a new nuclear reactor permit or 

license that will rely on any of the 

findings in the NR GEIS. More 

specifically, the draft regulatory guide 

describes the content of environmental 

information to be included in an 

application for a permit or license for a 

new nuclear reactor, including the 

process for confirming the applicability 

of Category 1 issues, and criteria to 

address appropriate Category 1 and 

Category 2 issues, as specified in the 

proposed amendments to 10 CFR part 

51. To assist the public in providing 

comments on DG–4032, the NRC has 

provided a redline/strikeout version that 

highlights substantial changes which 

can be accessed in ADAMS at Accession 

No. ML24176A229. 

In addition, the NRC is seeking 

comment on two draft documents 

referenced in DG–4032, the ‘‘Energy and 

System Design Mitigation Alternatives 

White Paper’’ (‘‘White Paper’’) and 

‘‘Recommendations for an Applicant to 

Calculate Activity Data for Greenhouse 

Gases Estimates’’ (‘‘GHG Estimates’’). 

The draft White Paper describes the 

potential environmental impacts of 

various energy alternatives to the 

construction and operation of a new 

nuclear reactor, including energy 

alternatives both requiring and not 

requiring new generation capacity. The 

draft GHG Estimates document provides 

guidance to nuclear reactor applicants 

on estimating greenhouse gas emissions. 

The applicant could then rely upon the 

information provided in both the White 

Paper and the GHG Estimates 

documents, as appropriate, in preparing 

its environmental report that is 

submitted with its application. The draft 

White Paper and the draft GHG 

Estimates document can be accessed in 

ADAMS at Accession Nos. 

ML21225A754 and ML21225A768, 

respectively. 

The draft COL–ISG–030 supplements 

NUREG–1555, ‘‘Environmental 

Standard Review Plans,’’ and will be 

incorporated into a future update to the 

NUREG. The ISG provides guidance for 

the NRC staff when performing a 10 CFR 

part 51 environmental review of an 

application for a permit or license for a 

new nuclear reactor that relies on any of 

the findings in the NR GEIS. The plan 

parallels the revisions to RG 4.2. The 

primary purpose of the ISG is to ensure 

that these reviews are focused on the 

significant environmental concerns 

associated with new nuclear reactor 

permitting or licensing as described in 

10 CFR part 51. Specifically, it provides 

guidance to the NRC staff about 

environmental issues that should be 

reviewed and provides acceptance 

criteria to help the reviewer evaluate the 

information submitted as part of the 

permit or license application. It is also 

the intent of this review plan to make 

information about the regulatory process 

available and to improve 

communication between the NRC, 

interested members of the public, and 

the nuclear industry, thereby increasing 

understanding of the review process. 

XV. Public Meetings 

The NRC will conduct three public 

meetings on the proposed rule for the 

purpose of explaining the changes and 

answering questions from the attendees 

to facilitate the development of public 

comments. 

An in-person public meeting will be 

held on November 7, 2024, at NRC 

headquarters in Rockville, MD between 

1 p.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time. 

In addition, the NRC will hold two 

virtual public meetings as online 

webinars. The online webinars will be 

conducted on November 13, 2024, 

between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80812 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

and November 14, 2024, between 6 p.m. 

and 9 p.m. eastern time. 

Persons interested in attending the 

meetings should monitor the NRC’s 

Public Meeting Schedule website at 

https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg for 

additional information and agenda for 

the meetings. Please contact Stacey 

Imboden, 301–415–2462, 

Stacey.Imboden@nrc.gov, no later than 

October 31, 2024, if accommodations or 

special equipment is needed to attend or 

to provide comments, so that the NRC 

can determine whether the request can 

be accommodated. 

XVI. Availability of Documents 

The documents identified in the 

following table are available to 

interested persons through one or more 

of the following methods, as indicated. 

Document ADAMS accession No./ 

Federal Register citation 

Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

Draft NUREG–2249, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors,’’ dated 

September 2024.

ML24176A220. 

Draft Guidance Documents 

Draft Regulatory Guide DG–4032, ‘‘Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,’’ dated September 2024.ML24176A228. 

Draft Regulatory Guide DG–4032, ‘‘Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,’’ Redline/ 

Strikeout Version to Support Public Comment, dated September 2024.

ML24176A229. 

Energy and System Design Mitigation Alternatives White Paper Report, dated September 2024 ............................... ML21225A754. 

Recommendations for an Applicant to Calculate Activity Data for Greenhouse Gases Estimates White Paper, dated 

September 2024.

ML21225A768. 

Draft Interim Staff Guidance, COL–ISG–030, ‘‘Environmental Considerations for New Nuclear Reactor Applications 

that Reference the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG–2249),’’ dated September 2024.

ML24176A231. 

Proposed Rule Documents 

Draft Regulatory Analysis for the 10 CFR Part 51, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New 

Nuclear Reactors Proposed Rule, dated September 2024.

ML24176A218. 

Draft Information Collection Clearance Package ........................................................................................................... ML21222A060. 

Public Meetings 

Summary of November 15 and 20, 2019, Public Meetings to Discuss Exploratory Process for Developing an Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement, dated December 10, 2019.ML19337C862. 

Workshop to Discuss the Environmental Information Needed to Develop a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Advanced Nuclear Reactors, dated December 13, 2019.ML19347A733. 

Summary of May 28, 2020, Advanced Reactor Generic Environmental Scoping Meeting, dated June 2, 2020 ......... ML20161A339 (package). 

Summary of October 1, 2020, Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Public Meeting, dated December 22, 2020 ............... ML20350B457. 

Summary of April 15, 2021, Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Public Meeting, dated August 24, 2021 ........................ ML21232A429. 

Related Documents 

Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process—Summary Report, dated 

September 16, 2020.

ML20260H180 (package). 

Notice of Availability of Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission on Environmental Reviews Related to the Issuance of Authorizations to Construct and 

Operate Nuclear Power Plants, dated September 25, 2008.

73 FR 55546. 

NUREG–0586, ‘‘Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,’’ Supplement 1, Vol. 1, ‘‘Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ dated November 30, 2002.ML023470327 (package). 

NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,’’ Revision 

2, dated August 2024.

ML24087A133 (package). 

NUREG–2157, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel,’’ dated 

September 30, 2014.

ML14198A440 (package). 

Agency Action Regarding the Exploratory Process for the Development of an Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement, dated November 15, 2019.

84 FR 62559. 

Notice to Conduct Scoping and Prepare an Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement, 

dated April 30, 2020.

85 FR 24040. 

SECY–20–0020, ‘‘Results of Exploratory Process for Developing a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Construction and Operation of Advanced Nuclear Reactors,’’ dated February 28, 2020.

ML20052D175. 

SRM–SECY–20–0020, ‘‘Results of Exploratory Process for Developing a Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Construction and Operation of Advanced Nuclear Reactors,’’ dated September 21, 2020.

ML20265A112. 

SECY–21–0098, ‘‘Proposed Rule: Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement (RIN 

3150–AK55; NRC–2020–0101),’’ dated November 29, 2021.

ML21222A044. 

Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)-SECY–21–0098, ‘‘Proposed Rule: Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (RIN 3150–AK55; NRC–2020–0101),’’ dated April 17, 2024.

ML24108A199. 

The NRC may post documents related 

to this rule, including public comments, 

on the Federal rulemaking website at 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket ID NRC–2020–0101. In addition, 

the Federal rulemaking website allows 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80813 

members of the public to receive alerts 

when changes or additions occur in a 

docket folder. To subscribe: (1) navigate 

to the docket folder (NRC–2020–0101); 

(2) click the ‘‘Subscribe’’ link; and (3) 

enter an email address and click on the 

‘‘Subscribe’’ link. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Environmental impact 

statements, Hazardous waste, Nuclear 

energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble and under the authority of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, 

the NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR 

part 51: 

PART 51—ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR 

DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED 

REGULATORY FUNCTIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

secs. 161, 193 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2243); Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 

(42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

4332, 4334, 4335); Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

of 1982, secs. 144(f), 121, 135, 141, 148 (42 

U.S.C. 10134(f), 10141, 10155, 10161, 10168); 

44 U.S.C. 3504 note. Sections 51.20, 51.30, 

51.60, 51.80. and 51.97 also issued under 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 135, 141, 148 

(42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161, 10168). Section 

51.22 also issued under Atomic Energy Act 

sec. 274 (42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act sec. 121 (42 U.S.C. 10141). 

Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 also issued 

under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 114(f) 

(42 U.S.C. 10134(f)). 

■ 2. In § 51.50, amend paragraph (a) by 

adding a new second sentence, and add 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 51.50 Environmental report— 

construction permit, early site permit, or 

combined license stage. 

(a) * * * For non-light-water reactors 

as defined in § 50.2, the environmental 

report shall contain the basis for 

evaluating the contribution of the 

environmental effects of fuel cycle 

activities for the nuclear reactor. * * * 

* * * * * 

(d) Application for a construction 

permit, early site permit, or combined 

license for a nuclear reactor. If an 

application is for a construction permit, 

an early site permit, or a combined 

license that does not reference an early 

site permit for a nuclear reactor, as 

defined in 10 CFR 50.2, and further, if 

the applicant chooses to rely upon the 

findings of one or more of the issues 

identified as Category 1 issues in 

appendix C to subpart A of this part, 

then, in addition to the information and 

analyses required in paragraph (a), (b), 

or (c) of this section, as appropriate, the 

applicant’s environmental report will be 

subject to the following conditions and 

considerations: 

(1) The environmental report must 

contain information to demonstrate that 

the values and assumptions in appendix 

C to subpart A of this part are met, and 

no new and significant information is 

identified in accordance with paragraph 

(d)(5) of this section, for each Category 

1 issue for which the applicant relies on 

the finding for that issue. 

(2) The environmental report is not 

required to contain analyses of the 

environmental impacts of any issue 

identified as a Category 1 issue in 

appendix C to subpart A of this part, 

provided that the environmental report 

contains the information specified in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

(3) The environmental report must 

contain analyses of the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action, 

including the construction, operation, 

and decommissioning of the proposed 

nuclear reactor, for: 

(i) Any Category 1 issue for which the 

values and assumptions are not met or 

for which new and significant 

information is identified in accordance 

with paragraph (d)(5) of this section; 

and 

(ii) Each issue identified as a Category 

2 issue in appendix C to subpart A of 

this part. 

(4) The environmental report must 

contain a consideration of alternatives 

for reducing adverse environmental 

impacts, as required by § 51.45(c), for all 

issues identified as Category 1 issues in 

appendix C to subpart A of this part for 

which the environmental report does 

not contain the information specified in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and for 

all issues identified as Category 2 issues 

in appendix C to subpart A of this part. 

No such consideration is required for 

Category 1 issues in appendix C to 

subpart A of this part that meet the 

applicable values and assumptions as 

specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section. 

(5) The environmental report must 

contain any new and significant 

information of which the applicant is 

aware regarding the environmental 

impacts for all issues identified as 

Category 1 issues in appendix C to 

subpart A of this part for which the 

applicant relies on the findings for those 

issues. 

(6) The environmental report must 

contain a description of the process 

used to identify new and significant 

information regarding the issues 

identified as Category 1 issues in 

appendix C to subpart A of this part for 

which the applicant relies on the 

findings for those issues. 

§ 51.53 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 51.53, amend paragraph (d) by 

removing the reference ‘‘§ 50.82 of this 

chapter’’ and adding in its place the 

references ‘‘§§ 50.82 and 52.110 of this 

chapter’’. 

■ 4. In § 51.75, add paragraph (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 51.75 Draft environmental impact 

statement—construction permit, early site 

permit, or combined license. 

* * * * * 

(d) Construction permit, early site 

permit, or combined license for a 

nuclear reactor. If a draft environmental 

impact statement is being prepared in 

accordance with paragraph (a), (b), or (c) 

of this section, and if applicant’s 

environmental report relied upon the 

findings of one or more of the issues 

identified as Category 1 issues in 

appendix C to subpart A of this part, the 

draft environmental impact statement 

must be prepared as a supplement to 

NUREG–2249, ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Licensing of New 

Nuclear Reactors’’ (September 2024), 

which is available in the NRC’s Public 

Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. In addition, 

the NRC staff must comply with 40 CFR 

1506.6(b)(3) in conducting the 

additional scoping process as required 

by § 51.71(a). The draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement will 

incorporate the conclusions in NUREG– 

2249 for issues identified as Category 1 

for which the applicant has 

demonstrated that the applicable values 

and assumptions have been met and for 

which neither the applicant nor the 

NRC identified any new and significant 

information. The draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement must 

contain an analysis for those issues 

identified as Category 1 for which the 

applicant could not demonstrate that 

the applicable values and assumptions 

were met or for which any new and 

significant information was identified 

by the applicant or the NRC, and for 

those issues identified as Category 2. 

■ 5. Add § 51.96 to read as follows: 

§ 51.96 Final supplemental environmental 

impact statement relying on a generic 

environmental impact statement for 

licensing new nuclear reactors. 

(a) In connection with a construction 

permit, an early site permit, or a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80814 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1The term ‘‘building,’’ as used in the NR GEIS, 

includes the full range of preconstruction (building 

activities not within the NRC’s regulatory 

authority), and construction and installation 

activities (building activities within the NRC’s 

regulatory authority). 

combined license that does not 

reference an early site permit for a 

nuclear reactor, as defined in 10 CFR 

50.2, and for which the NRC staff relied 

on any of the findings in appendix C to 

subpart A of this part in preparing a 

draft supplemental environmental 

impact statement in accordance with 

§ 51.75(d), the NRC shall prepare a final 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the 

Commission’s NUREG–2249, ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors’’ 

(September 2024), and available in the 

NRC’s Public Document Room, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. 

(b) The final supplemental 

environmental impact statement 

required by paragraph (a) of this section 

must contain the NRC staff’s 

recommendation regarding the 

environmental acceptability of 

approving the construction permit, the 

early site permit, or the combined 

license. In order to make 

recommendations and reach a final 

decision on the proposed action, the 

NRC staff, adjudicatory officers, and 

Commission shall integrate: 

(1) The conclusions in NUREG–2249 

for issues designated as Category 1 for 

which the applicant has demonstrated 

that the applicable values and 

assumptions have been met and for 

which neither the applicant nor the 

NRC staff identified any new and 

significant information with 

(2) Information developed for those 

Category 1 issues for which the 

applicant could not demonstrate that 

the applicable values and assumptions 

were met and those Category 2 issues 

applicable to the plant under § 51.50(d) 

and any new and significant 

information. 

(c) The final supplemental 

environmental impact statement 

required by paragraph (a) of this section 

shall address those issues as required by 

§ 51.91 and shall be distributed in 

accordance with § 51.93. 

(d) In connection with a combined 

license that references an early site 

permit for which the NRC staff relied on 

any of the findings in appendix C to 

subpart A of this part in preparing the 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement for that early site permit, the 

NRC shall prepare a supplement to that 

final supplemental environmental 

impact statement. The supplement must 

meet the requirements of § 51.92(e) and 

shall be considered a supplement to 

NUREG–2249. 

(e) In connection with a combined 

license that references an early site 

permit for which the NRC staff relied on 

any of the findings in appendix C to 

subpart A of this part in preparing the 

draft supplemental environmental 

impact statement, the NRC staff shall 

prepare a supplement to the early site 

permit environmental impact statement. 

The supplement must be prepared in 

accordance with § 51.92(e) and shall be 

considered a supplement to NUREG– 

2249. 

(f) In connection with the issuance of 

an operating license for which the NRC 

staff relied on any of the findings in 

appendix C to subpart A of this part in 

preparing the supplemental 

environmental impact statement for the 

construction permit for that nuclear 

reactor, the NRC shall prepare a 

supplement to the final supplemental 

environmental impact statement. The 

supplement must meet the requirements 

of § 51.95(b) and shall be considered a 

supplement to NUREG–2249. 

■ 6. Add appendix C to subpart A of 

part 51 to read as follows: 

Appendix C to Subpart A of Part 51— 

Environmental Effect of Issuing a 

Permit or License for a New Nuclear 

Reactor 

The Commission has assessed the 

environmental impacts associated with 

authorizing the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of a nuclear reactor. Table 

C–1 summarizes the Commission’s generic 

findings on the scope and magnitude of 

environmental impacts of such an 

authorization as required by section 102(2) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended. Table C–1 presents the 

results of the generic analysis of those 

environmental impacts associated with 

building,1 operating, and decommissioning a 

nuclear reactor that the staff has designated 

as Category 1, as well as listing the issues 

that could not be resolved generically, 

designated as Category 2. The use of this 

table by applicants will be in accordance 

with § 51.50(d), and the use by the staff will 

be in accordance with §§ 51.75(d) and 51.96. 

On a 10-year cycle, the Commission intends 

to review the material in this appendix and 

update it if necessary. A scoping notice must 

be published in the Federal Register 

indicating the results of the NRC’s review 

and inviting public comments and proposals 

for other areas that should be updated. 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ISSUING A PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR A NEW

NUCLEAR REACTOR 1

Issue Category 2 Finding 3 Plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope values and assumptions 4

Land Use 

Construction: 

Onsite Land Use .................................. 1 SMALL .............. The proposed project, including any associated land uses, complies with applicable 

NRC siting regulations such as 10 CFR part 100. The site size is 100 ac (40.5 ha) 

or less. The permanent footprint of disturbance includes 30 ac (12 ha) or less of 

vegetated lands, and the temporary footprint of disturbance includes no more than 

an additional 20 ac (8.1 ha) or less of vegetated lands. The proposed project complies with the site’s zoning and is consistent with any relevant land use plans or 

comprehensive plans. The site would not be situated closer than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) to 

existing residential areas or 1.0 mi (1.6 km) to sensitive land uses such as Federal, 

State, or local parks; wildlife refuges; conservation lands; Wild and Scenic Rivers; or 

Natural Heritage Rivers. The site does not have a history of past industrial use capable of leaving a legacy of contamination requiring cleanup to protect human 

health and the environment. The total wetland loss from use of the site, including 

use of any offsite rights-of-way (ROWs), would be no more than 0.5 ac (0.2 ha). 

Best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sediment control, and stormwater 

management would be used. Compliance with any mitigation measures established 

through zoning ordinances, local building permits, site use permits, or other land use 

authorizations. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80815 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ISSUING A PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR A NEW

NUCLEAR REACTOR 1—Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3 Plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope values and assumptions 4

Offsite Land Use .................................. 1 SMALL .............. New offsite ROWs for transmission lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more 

than 100 ft (30.5 m) in width and total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. No new 

offsite ROW would be situated closer than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) to existing residential 

areas or sensitive land uses such as Federal, State, or local parks; wildlife refuges; 

conservation lands; Wild and Scenic Rivers; or Natural Heritage Rivers. No existing 

ROWs in residential areas would be used or widened to accommodate project features. No ROW has a history of past industrial use capable of leaving a legacy of 

contamination requiring cleanup to protect human health and the environment. The 

total wetland loss from use of the entire project, including use of the site and any 

offsite ROWs, would be no more than 0.5 ac (0.2 ha). BMPs for erosion, sediment 

control, and stormwater management would be used. Compliance with any mitigation measures established through zoning ordinances, local building permits, site 

use permits, or other land use authorizations. 

Impacts to Prime and Unique Farmland.1 SMALL ............... The site size is 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. The site does not contain any prime or 

unique farmland or other farmland of statewide or local importance; or the site does 

not abut any agricultural land and is not situated in a predominantly agricultural 

landscape. 

Coastal Zone and Compliance with the 

Coastal Zone Management Act (16 

U.S.C. 1451 et seq.).

1 SMALL ............... The site is not situated in any designated coastal zone, or the applicant can demonstrate that the affected state(s) have or will issue a consistency determination or 

other indication that the project complies with the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

Operation: 

Onsite Land Use .................................. 1 SMALL .............. The proposed project, including any associated land uses, complies with applicable 

NRC siting regulations such as 10 CFR part 100. The site size is 100 ac (40.5 ha) 

or less. If needed, cooling towers would be mechanical draft, not natural draft; less 

than 100 ft (30.5 m) in height; and equipped with drift eliminators. Any makeup 

water for the cooling towers would be fresh water (less than 1 ppt salinity). BMPs 

for erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management would be used. 

Offsite Land Use .................................. 1 SMALL .............. New offsite ROWs for transmission lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more 

than 100 ft (30.5 m) in width and total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. BMPs 

for erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management would be used (wherever land is disturbed during the course of ROW management). 

Visual Resources 

Construction: 

Visual Impacts in Site and Vicinity ....... 1 SMALL ............... The site size is 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. The site would not be situated closer than 

0.5 mi (0.8 km) to existing residential areas or 1 mi (1.6 km) to sensitive land uses 

such as Federal, State, or local parks; wildlife refuges; conservation lands; Wild and 

Scenic Rivers; or Natural Heritage Rivers. The maximum proposed building and 

structure height is no more than 50 ft (15.2 m), except that the maximum height is 

200 ft (61 m) for proposed meteorological towers and 100 ft (30.5 m) for transmission line poles/towers and mechanical draft cooling towers. The proposed project 

structures would not be visible from Federal or State parks or wilderness areas designated as Class 1 under Section 162 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7472); or as a 

Wild and Scenic River, a Natural Heritage River, or a river of similar State designation. 

Visual Impacts from Transmission 

Lines.

1 SMALL ............... New offsite ROWs for transmission lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more 

than 100 ft (30.5 m) in width and total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. No 

transmission line structures (poles or towers) would be over 100 ft (30.5 m) in 

height. The new offsite ROWs would not be situated closer than 1 mi (1.6 km) to existing residential areas or sensitive land uses such as Federal, State, or local parks; 

wildlife refuges; conservation lands; Wild and Scenic Rivers; or Natural Heritage 

Rivers. Any proposed new structures on offsite ROWs would not be visible from 

Federal or State parks or wilderness areas designated as Class 1 under Section 

162 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7472); or as a Wild and Scenic River, a Natural 

Heritage River, or a river of similar State designation. 

Operation: 

Visual Impacts During Operations ....... 1 SMALL .............. The site would not be situated closer than 1 mi (1.6 km) to existing residential areas 

or sensitive land uses such as Federal, State, or local parks; wildlife refuges; conservation lands; Wild and Scenic Rivers; or Natural Heritage Rivers. The maximum 

proposed building and structure height would be no more than 50 ft (15.2 m), except 

that the maximum height would be 200 ft (61 m) for proposed meteorological towers 

and 100 ft (30.5 m) for proposed transmission line poles/towers and proposed mechanical draft cooling towers. The proposed project structures would not be visible 

from Federal or State parks or wilderness areas designated as Class 1 under Section 162 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7472); or as a Wild and Scenic River, a 

Natural Heritage River, or a river of similar State designation. If needed, cooling 

towers would be mechanical draft, not natural draft; less than 100 ft (30.5 m) in 

height; and equipped with drift eliminators. Any makeup water for the cooling towers 

would be fresh water (less than 1 ppt salinity). 

Meteorology and Air Quality 

Construction: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80816 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ISSUING A PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR A NEW

NUCLEAR REACTOR 1—Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3 Plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope values and assumptions 4

Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and 

Dust During Construction.

1 SMALL ............... The site size is 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. The permanent footprint of disturbance is 30 

ac (12 ha) or less of vegetated lands and the temporary footprint of disturbance is 

an additional 20 ac (8.1 ha) or less of vegetated land. New offsite ROWs for transmission lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no longer than 1 mi (1.6 km) and 

have a maximum ROW width of 100 ft (30.5 m). Criteria pollutants emitted from vehicles and standby power equipment during construction are less than Clean Air Act 

de minimis levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if the site 

is located in a nonattainment or maintenance area, or the site is located in an attainment area. The site is not located within 1 mi (1.6 km) of a mandatory Class I Federal area where visibility is an important value. The level of service (LOS) determination for affected roadways does not change. Mitigation necessary to rely on the 

generic analysis includes implementation of BMPs for dust control. Compliance with 

air permits under State and Federal laws that address the impact of air emissions 

during construction. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions During 

Construction.

1 SMALL .............. Greenhouse gases emitted by equipment and vehicles during the 97-year greenhouse 

gas life-cycle period would be equal to or less than 2,534,000 metric tons (MT) of 

carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2(e)). Appendix H of NUREG–2249, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors’’ contains the 

staff’s methodology for developing this value, which includes emissions from construction, operation, and decommissioning. As long as this total value is met, the impacts for the life-cycle of the project and the individual phases of the project are determined to be SMALL. 

Operation: 

Emissions of Criteria and Hazardous 

Air Pollutants during Operation.

1 SMALL ............... Criteria pollutants emitted from vehicles and standby power equipment during operations are less than Clean Air Act de minimis levels set by the EPA if located in a 

nonattainment or maintenance area. The site is not located within 1 mi (1.6 km) of a 

mandatory Class I Federal area where visibility is an important value. The LOS determination for affected roadways does not change. The generic analysis can be relied on without applying any mitigation measures. Compliance with air permits under 

State and Federal laws that address the impact of air emissions. Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions will be within regulatory limits. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions During 

Operation.

1 SMALL .............. Greenhouse gases emitted by equipment and vehicles during the 97-year greenhouse 

gas life-cycle period would be equal to or less than 2,534,000 MT of CO2(e). Appendix H of NUREG–2249, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of 

New Nuclear Reactors’’ contains the staff’s methodology for developing this value, 

which includes emissions from construction, operation, and decommissioning. As 

long as this total value is met, the impacts for the life-cycle of the project and the individual phases of the project are determined to be SMALL. 

Cooling-System Emissions ................... 1 SMALL .............. If needed, cooling towers would be mechanical draft, not natural draft. Cooling towers 

would be equipped with drift eliminators. The site is not located within 1 mi (1.6 km) 

of a mandatory Class I Federal area where visibility is an important value. Mechanical draft cooling towers would be less than 100 ft (30.5 m) tall. Makeup water would 

be fresh (with a salinity less than 1 ppt). Operation of cooling towers is assumed to 

be subject to State permitting requirements. HAP emissions would be within regulatory limits. No existing residential areas within 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of the site. 

Emissions of Ozone and Nitrogen Oxides during Transmission Line Operation.1 SMALL ............... The transmission line voltage would be no higher than 1,200 kV. 

Water Resources 

Construction: 

Surface Water Use Conflicts during 

Construction.

1 SMALL .............. Total Plant Water Demand Less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gpm (0.379 

m3/s). If water is obtained from a flowing water body, then the following plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope (PPE/SPE) parameter and associated assumptions also apply: Average plant water withdrawals do not reduce discharge 

from the flowing water body by more than 3 percent of the 95 percent exceedance 

daily flow and do not prevent the maintenance of applicable instream flow requirements. The 95 percent exceedance flow accounts for existing and planned future 

withdrawals. Water availability is demonstrated by the ability to obtain a withdrawal 

permit issued by State, regional, or Tribal governing authorities. Water rights for the 

withdrawal amount are obtainable, if needed. If water is obtained from a non-flowing 

water body, then the following PPE/SPE parameter and associated value and assumptions also apply: Water availability of the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, 

oceans, estuaries, and intertidal zones exceeds the amount of water required by the 

plant. Water availability is demonstrated by the ability to obtain a withdrawal permit 

issued by State, regional, or Tribal governing authorities. Water rights for the withdrawal amount are obtainable, if needed. The Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination is obtainable, if applicable, for the non-flowing water body. 

Groundwater Use Conflicts due to Excavation Dewatering.1 SMALL .............. The long-term dewatering withdrawal rate is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m3/s) 

(the initial rate may be larger). Dewatering results in negligible groundwater level 

drawdown at the site boundary. 

Groundwater Use Conflicts due to 

Construction-Related Groundwater 

Withdrawals.

1 SMALL .............. Groundwater withdrawal for all plant uses (excluding dewatering) is less than or equal 

to 50 gpm (0.003 m3/s). Withdrawal results in no more than 1 ft (0.3 m) of groundwater level drawdown at the site boundary. Withdrawals are not derived from an 

EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer (SSA), or from any aquifer designated by a 

State, Tribe, or regional authority to have special protections to limit drawdown. 

Withdrawals meet any applicable State or local permit requirements. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80817 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ISSUING A PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR A NEW

NUCLEAR REACTOR 1—Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3 Plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope values and assumptions 4

Water Quality Degradation due to Construction-Related Discharges.1 SMALL .............. The permanent footprint of disturbance includes 30 ac (12 ha) or less of vegetated 

lands, and the temporary footprint of disturbance includes no more than an additional 20 ac (8.1 ha) or less of vegetated lands. Adherence to requirements in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the EPA 

or State permitting program, and any other applicable permits. The long-term 

groundwater dewatering withdrawal rate is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m3/ 

s). Dewatering discharge has minimal effects on the quality of the receiving water 

body (e.g., as demonstrated by conformance with NPDES permit requirements). 

There are no planned discharges to the subsurface (by infiltration or injection), including stormwater discharge. 

Water Quality Degradation due to Inadvertent Spills during Construction.1 SMALL .............. The site size is 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. The permanent footprint of disturbance includes 30 ac (12 ha) or less of vegetated lands, and the temporary footprint of disturbance includes no more than an additional 20 ac (8.1 ha) or less of vegetated 

lands. Applicable requirements and guidance on spill prevention and control are followed, including relevant BMPs and Integrated Pollution Prevention Plans (IPPPs). 

Water Quality Degradation due to 

Groundwater Withdrawal.

1 SMALL .............. Groundwater Withdrawal for Excavation or Foundation Dewatering The long-term 

dewatering withdrawal rate is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m3/s) (the initial 

rate may be larger). Dewatering results in negligible groundwater level drawdown at 

the site boundary. Groundwater Withdrawal for Plant Uses Groundwater withdrawal 

for all plant uses (excluding dewatering) is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m3/ 

s). Withdrawal results in no more than 1 ft (0.3 m) of groundwater level drawdown at 

the site boundary. Withdrawals are not derived from an EPA-designated SSA, or 

from any aquifer designated by a State, Tribe, or regional authority to have special 

protections to limit drawdown. Withdrawals meet any applicable State or local permit 

requirements. 

Water Quality Degradation due to Offshore or In-Water Construction Activities.1 SMALL .............. In-water structures (including intake and discharge structures) are constructed in compliance with provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) 

and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 

et seq.). Adverse effects of building activities controlled and localized using BMPs 

such as installation of turbidity curtains or installation of cofferdams. Construction 

duration would be less than 7 years. 

Water Use Conflict Due to Plant Municipal Water Demand.1 SMALL .............. The amount available from municipal water systems exceeds the amount of municipal 

water required by the plant (gpm). Municipal Water Availability accounts for all existing and planned future uses. An agreement or permit for the usage amount can be 

obtained from the municipality. 

Degradation of Water Quality from 

Plant Effluent Discharges to Municipal Systems.

1 SMALL .............. Municipal Systems’ Available Capacity to Receive and Treat Plant Effluent accounts 

for all existing and reasonably foreseeable future discharges. Agreement to discharge to a municipal treatment system is obtainable. 

Operation: 

Surface Water Use Conflicts during 

Operation due to Water Withdrawal 

from Flowing Waterbodies.

1 SMALL ............... Total plant water demand is less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gpm (0.379 

m3/s). Average plant water withdrawals do not reduce discharge from the flowing 

water body by more than 3 percent of the 95 percent exceedance daily flow and do 

not prevent the maintenance of applicable instream flow requirements. The 95 percent exceedance flow accounts for existing and planned future withdrawals. Water 

availability is demonstrated by the ability to obtain a withdrawal permit issued by 

State, regional, or Tribal governing authorities. Water rights for the withdrawal 

amount are obtainable, if needed. 

Surface Water Use Conflicts during 

Operation due to Water Withdrawal 

from Non-flowing Waterbodies.

1 SMALL ............... Total plant water demand is less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gpm (0.379 

m3/s). Water availability of the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, oceans, estuaries, 

and intertidal zones exceeds the amount of water required by the plant. Water availability is demonstrated by the ability to obtain a withdrawal permit issued by State, 

regional, or Tribal governing authorities. Water rights for the withdrawal amount are 

obtainable, if needed. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et 

seq.) consistency determination is obtainable, if applicable. 

Groundwater Use Conflicts Due to 

Building Foundation Dewatering.

1 SMALL .............. The long-term dewatering withdrawal rate is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m3/s) 

(the initial rate may be larger). Dewatering results in negligible groundwater level 

drawdown at the site boundary. 

Groundwater Use Conflicts Due to 

Groundwater Withdrawals for Plant 

Uses.

1 SMALL ............... Groundwater withdrawal for all plant uses (excluding dewatering) is less than or equal 

to 50 gpm (0.003 m3/s). Withdrawal results in no more than 1 ft (0.3 m) of groundwater level drawdown at the site boundary. Withdrawals are not derived from an 

EPA-designated SSA, or from any aquifer designated by a State, Tribe, or regional 

authority to have special protections to limit drawdown. Withdrawals meet any applicable State or local permit requirements. 

Surface Water Quality Degradation 

Due to Physical Effects from Operation of Intake and Discharge Structures.

1 SMALL .............. Total plant water demand is less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gpm (0.379 

m3/s). Adhere to best available technology requirements of CWA 316(b) (33 U.S.C. 

1326). Operated in compliance with CWA Section 316 (b) and 40 CFR 125.83, including compliance with monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 

125.87 and 40 CFR 125.88, respectively (40 CFR part 125). Best available technologies are employed in the design and operation of intake and discharge structures to minimize alterations due to scouring, sediment transport, increased turbidity, 

and erosion. Adherence to requirements in NPDES permits issued by the EPA or a 

given state. If water is obtained from a flowing water body, then the following PPE/ 

SPE parameter and associated value also apply: The average rate of plant withdrawal does not exceed 3 percent of the 95 percent exceedance daily flow for the 

water body. If water is obtained from a non-flowing water body, then the following 

PPE/SPE parameters and associated values and assumptions also apply: Water 

availability of the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, oceans, estuaries, and intertidal 

zones exceeds the amount of water required by the plant. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80818 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ISSUING A PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR A NEW

NUCLEAR REACTOR 1—Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3 Plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope values and assumptions 4

Surface Water Quality Degradation 

Due to Changes in Salinity Gradients Resulting from Withdrawals.

1 SMALL ............... Total plant water demand is less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gpm (0.379 

m3/s). If water is obtained from a flowing water body, then the following PPE/SPE 

parameter and associated assumptions also apply: Average plant water withdrawals 

do not reduce discharge from the flowing water body by more than 3 percent of the 

95 percent exceedance daily flow and do not prevent the maintenance of applicable 

instream flow requirements. The 95 percent exceedance flow accounts for existing 

and planned future withdrawals. Water availability is demonstrated by the ability to 

obtain a withdrawal permit issued by State, regional, or Tribal governing authorities. 

Water rights for the withdrawal amount are obtainable, if needed. If withdrawals are 

from an estuary or intertidal zone, then changes to salinity gradients are within the 

normal tidal or seasonal movements that characterize the water body. If water is obtained from a non-flowing water body, then the following PPE/SPE parameter and 

associated values and assumptions also apply: Water availability of the Great 

Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, oceans, estuaries, and intertidal zones exceeds the 

amount of water required by the plant. Water availability is demonstrated by the ability to obtain a withdrawal permit issued by State, regional, or Tribal governing authorities. Water rights for the withdrawal amount are obtainable, if needed. If withdrawals are from an estuary or intertidal zone, then changes to salinity gradients are 

within the normal tidal or seasonal movements that characterize the water body. 

Surface Water Quality Degradation 

Due to Chemical and Thermal Discharges.

2 Undetermined .... The staff determined that a generic analysis to determine operational impacts on surface water quality due to chemical and thermal discharges was not possible because (1) some States may impose effluent constituent limitations more stringent 

that those required by the EPA, (2) limitations imposed on effluent constituents may 

vary among States, and (3) the establishment of a mixing zone may be required. 

Because all of these issues related to degradation of surface water quality from 

chemical and thermal discharges require consideration of project-specific information, a project-specific assessment should be performed in the supplemental environmental impact statement. 

Groundwater Quality Degradation Due 

to Plant Discharges.

1 SMALL .............. The plant is outside the recharge area for any EPA-designated SSA, or any aquifer 

designated to have special protections by a State, Tribal, or regional authority. The 

plant is outside the wellhead protection area or designated contributing area for any 

public water supply well. There are no planned discharges to the subsurface (by infiltration or injection). 

Water Quality Degradation due to Inadvertent Spills and Leaks during 

Operation.

1 SMALL ............... Applicable requirements and guidance on spill prevention and control are followed, including relevant BMPs and IPPPs. There are no planned discharges to the subsurface (by infiltration or injection), including stormwater discharge. A groundwater 

protection program conforming to currently applicable industry guidance is established and followed. The site size is 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. Use of BMPs for soil 

erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management. Adherence to requirements 

in NPDES permits issued by the EPA or a given State, and any other applicable 

permits. 

Water Quality Degradation due to 

Groundwater Withdrawals.

1 SMALL .............. The long-term dewatering withdrawal rate is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m3/s) 

(the initial rate may be larger). Dewatering results in negligible groundwater level 

drawdown at the site boundary. Groundwater withdrawal for all plant uses (excluding 

dewatering) is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m3/s). Withdrawal results in no 

more than 1 ft (0.3 m) of groundwater level drawdown at the site boundary. Withdrawals are not derived from an EPA-designated SSA, or from any aquifer designated by a State, Tribe, or regional authority to have special protections to limit 

drawdown. Withdrawals meet any applicable State or local permit requirements. 

Water Use Conflict from Plant Municipal Water Demand.1 SMALL .............. Usage amount is within the existing capacity of the system(s), accounting for all existing and planned future uses. An agreement or permit for the usage amount can be 

obtained from the municipality. 

Degradation of Water Quality from 

Plant Effluent Discharges to Municipal Systems.

1 SMALL .............. Municipal Systems’ Available Capacity to Receive and Treat Plant Effluent accounts 

for all existing and reasonably foreseeable future discharges. Agreement to discharge to a municipal treatment system is obtainable. 

Terrestrial Ecology 

Construction: 

Permanent and Temporary Loss, Conversion, Fragmentation, and Degradation of Habitats.1 SMALL .............. The permanent footprint of disturbance would include 30 ac (12 ha) or less of vegetated lands, and the temporary footprint of disturbance would include no more than 

an additional 20 ac (8.1 ha) or less of vegetated lands. Temporarily disturbed lands 

would be revegetated using regionally indigenous vegetation once the lands are no 

longer needed to support building activities. New offsite ROWs for transmission 

lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more than 100 ft (30.5 m) in width and 

total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. The footprint of disturbance (permanent 

and temporary) would contain no ecologically sensitive features such as floodplains, 

shorelines, riparian vegetation, late-successional vegetation, land specifically designated for conservation, or habitat known to be potentially suitable for one or more 

Federal or State threatened or endangered species. Total wetland impacts from use 

of the site and any offsite ROWs would be no more than 0.5 ac (0.2 ha). Applicants 

would demonstrate an effort to minimize fragmentation of terrestrial habitats by 

using existing ROWs, or widening existing ROWs, to the extent practicable. BMPs 

would be used for erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80819 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ISSUING A PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR A NEW

NUCLEAR REACTOR 1—Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3 Plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope values and assumptions 4

Permanent and Temporary Loss and 

Degradation of Wetlands.

1 SMALL ............... Applicant would provide a delineation of potentially impacted wetlands, including wetlands not under CWA jurisdiction. Total wetland impacts from use of the site and 

any offsite ROWs would be no more than 0.5 ac (0.2 ha). If activities regulated 

under the CWA are performed, those activities would receive approval under one or 

more nationwide permits (NWPs) (33 CFR part 330) or other general permits recognized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Temporary groundwater withdrawals for 

excavation or foundation dewatering would not exceed a long-term rate of 50 gpm 

(0.003 m3/s). Applicants would be able to demonstrate that the temporary groundwater withdrawals would not substantially alter the hydrology of wetlands connected 

to the same groundwater resource. Any required state or local permits for wetland 

impacts would be obtained. Any mitigation measures indicated in the NWPs or other 

permits would be implemented. BMPs would be used for erosion, sediment control, 

and stormwater management. 

Effects of Building Noise on Wildlife .... 1 SMALL .............. Noise generation would not exceed 85 dBA 50 ft (15.2 m) from the source. 

Effects of Vehicular Collisions on Wildlife.1 SMALL .............. The site size would be 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. The permanent footprint of disturbance would include 30 ac (12 ha) or less of vegetated lands, and the temporary 

footprint of disturbance would include no more than an additional 20 ac (8.1 ha) or 

less of vegetated lands. There would be no decreases in the LOS designation for 

affected roadways. The licensee would communicate with Federal and State wildlife 

agencies and implement mitigation actions recommended by those agencies to reduce potential for vehicular injury to wildlife. 

Bird Collisions and Injury from Structures and Transmission Lines.1 SMALL .............. The site size would be 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. New offsite ROWs for transmission 

lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more than 100 ft (30.5 m) in width and 

total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. No transmission line structures (poles or 

towers) would be more than 100 ft (30.5 m) in height. Licensees would implement 

common mitigation measures. 

Important Species and Habitats—Resources Regulated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

2 Undetermined .... The NRC staff is unable to determine the significance of potential impacts without consideration of project-specific factors, including the specific species and habitats affected and the types of ecological changes potentially resulting from each specific licensing action. 

Important Species and Habitats—Other 

Important Species and Habitats.

1 SMALL .............. Applicants would communicate with State natural resource or conservation agencies 

regarding wildlife and plants and implement mitigation recommendations of those 

agencies. 

Operation: 

Permanent and Temporary Loss or 

Disturbance of Habitats.

1 SMALL .............. Temporarily disturbed lands would be revegetated using regionally indigenous vegetation once the lands are no longer needed to support building activities. The total 

wetland loss from site disturbance over the operational life of the plant would be no 

more than 0.5 ac (0.2 ha). Any State or local permits for wetland impacts would be 

obtained. Any mitigation measures indicated in the NWPs or other wetland permits 

would be implemented. BMPs would be used for erosion, sediment control, and 

stormwater management. 

Effects of Operational Noise on Wildlife 1 SMALL .............. Noise generation would not exceed 85 dBA 50 ft (15.2 m) from the source. There 

would be no decreases in the LOS designation for affected roadways. The licensee 

would communicate with Federal and State wildlife agencies and implement mitigation actions recommended by those agencies to reduce potential for vehicular injury 

to wildlife. 

Effects of Vehicular Collisions on Wildlife.1 SMALL .............. Noise generation would not exceed 85 dBA 50 ft (15.2 m) from the source. There 

would be no decreases in the LOS designation for affected roadways. The licensee 

would communicate with Federal and State wildlife agencies and implement mitigation actions recommended by those agencies to reduce potential for vehicular injury 

to wildlife. 

Exposure of Terrestrial Organisms to 

Radionuclides.

1 SMALL ............... Applicants would demonstrate in their application that any radiological nonhuman biota 

doses would be below applicable guidelines. 

Cooling-Tower Operational Impacts on 

Vegetation.

1 SMALL ............... If needed, cooling towers would be mechanical draft, not natural draft; less than 100 ft 

(30.5 m) in height; and equipped with drift eliminators. Any makeup water for the 

cooling towers would be fresh water (less than 1 ppt salinity). 

Bird Collisions and Injury from Structures and Transmission Lines.1 SMALL .............. The site size would be 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. New offsite ROWs for transmission 

lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more than 100 ft (30.5 m) in width and 

total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. No transmission line structures (poles or 

towers) would be more than 100 ft (30.5 m) in height. Licensees would implement 

common mitigation measures. 

Bird Electrocutions from Transmission 

Lines.

1 SMALL ............... New offsite ROWs for transmission lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more 

than 100 ft (30.5 m) in width and total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. Common mitigation measures would be implemented. 

Water Use Conflicts with Terrestrial 

Resources.

1 SMALL .............. Total plant water demand would be less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gpm 

(0.379 m3/s). If water is withdrawn from flowing water bodies, average plant water 

withdrawals would not reduce flow by more than 3 percent of the 95 percent exceedance daily flow and would not prevent maintenance of applicable instream flow 

requirements. Any water withdrawals would be in compliance with any EPA or State 

permitting requirements. Applicants would be able to demonstrate that hydroperiod 

changes are within historical or seasonal fluctuations. 

Effects of Transmission Line ROW 

Management on Terrestrial Resources.

1 SMALL ............... Vegetation in transmission line ROWs would be managed following a plan consisting 

of integrated vegetation management practices. All ROW maintenance work would 

be performed in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Herbicides 

would be applied by licensed applicators, and only if in compliance with applicable 

manufacturer label instructions. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80820 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ISSUING A PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR A NEW

NUCLEAR REACTOR 1—Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3 Plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope values and assumptions 4

Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on 

Flora and Fauna.

1 SMALL .............. Based on the literature review in the License Renewal Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement (GEIS), the staff determined that this is a Category 1 issue and impacts 

would be SMALL regardless of the length, location, or size of the transmission lines. 

The staff did not recommend any mitigation in the License Renewal GEIS; hence, 

none is needed here. The staff did not rely on any PPE and SPE values or assumptions in reaching this conclusion. 

Important Species and Habitats—Resources Regulated under the ESA of 

1973.

2 Undetermined .... The NRC staff is unable to determine the significance of potential impacts without consideration of project-specific factors, including the specific species and habitats affected and the types of ecological changes potentially resulting from each specific licensing action. 

Important Species and Habitats—Other 

Important Species and Habitats.

1 SMALL .............. Applicants would communicate with State natural resource or conservation agencies 

regarding wildlife and plants and implement mitigation recommendations of those 

agencies. 

Aquatic Ecology 

Construction: 

Runoff and sedimentation from construction areas.1 SMALL .............. BMPs would be used for erosion and sediment control. Temporarily disturbed lands 

would be revegetated using regionally indigenous vegetation once the lands are no 

longer needed to support building activities. 

Dredging and filling aquatic habitats to 

build intake and discharge structures.

1 SMALL .............. Applicant would obtain approval, if required, under NWP 7 in 33 CFR part 330. Applicant would implement any mitigation required under NWP 7 in 33 CFR part 330. Applicant would minimize any temporarily disturbed shoreline and riparian lands needed to build the intake and discharge structures and restore those areas with regionally indigenous vegetation suited to those landscape settings once the disturbances 

are no longer needed. BMPs would be used for erosion and sediment control. 

Building transmission lines, pipelines, 

and access roads across surface 

waterbodies.

1 SMALL .............. If activities regulated under the CWA are performed, they would receive approval 

under one or more NWPs (33 CFR part 330) or other general permits recognized by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Pipelines would be extended under (or over) surface through directional drilling without physically disturbing shorelines or bottom 

substrate. Access roads would span streams and other surface waterbodies with a 

bridge or ford, and any fords would include placement and maintenance of matting 

to minimize physical disturbance of shorelines and bottom substrates. No access 

roads would be extended across stream channels over 10 ft (3 m) in width (at ordinary high water). Any bridges or fords would be removed once no longer needed, 

and any exposed soils or substrate would be revegetated using regionally indigenous vegetation appropriate to the landscape setting. Any mitigation measures indicated in the NWPs or other permits would be implemented. BMPs would be used 

for erosion and sediment control. 

Important Species and Habitats—Resources Regulated under the ESA 

and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

2 Undetermined .... The NRC staff is unable to determine the significance of potential impacts without consideration of project-specific factors, including the specific species and habitats affected and the types of ecological changes potentially resulting from each specific licensing action. Furthermore, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq.) require consultations for each licensing action that may affect regulated resources. 

Important species and habitats—Other 

Important Species and Habitats.

1 SMALL ............... Applicants would communicate with State natural resource or conservation agencies 

regarding aquatic fish, wildlife, and plants and implement mitigation recommendation 

of those agencies. 

Operation: 

Stormwater runoff ................................. 1 SMALL ............... Preparation, approval by applicable regulatory agencies, and implementation of a 

stormwater management plan. Obtaining and compliance with any required permits 

for the storage and use of hazardous materials issued by Federal and State agencies under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). BMPs would be used 

for stormwater management. 

Exposure of aquatic organisms to 

radionuclides.

1 SMALL .............. Applicants would demonstrate in their application that any radiological nonhuman biota 

doses would be below applicable guidelines. 

Effects of refurbishment on aquatic 

biota.

1 SMALL .............. BMPs would be used for erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management. Exposed soils would be restored as soon as possible with regionally indigenous vegetation. 

Effects of maintenance dredging on 

aquatic biota.

1 SMALL ............... If activities regulated under the CWA are performed, those activities would receive approval under one or more NWPs (33 CFR part 330) or other general permits recognized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Any mitigation measures indicated in 

the NWPs or other permits would be implemented. BMPs would be used for erosion 

and sediment control. 

Impacts of transmission line ROW 

management on aquatic resources.

1 SMALL ............... Vegetation in transmission line ROWs would be managed following a plan consisting 

of integrated vegetation management practices. All ROW maintenance work would 

be performed in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Herbicides 

would be applied by licensed applicators, and only if in compliance with applicable 

manufacturer label instructions. BMPs would be used for erosion and sediment control. 

Impingement and entrainment of 

aquatic organisms.

1 SMALL ............... Intakes would comply with regulatory requirements established by EPA in 40 CFR 

125.84 to be protective of fish and shellfish. Best available control technology would 

be employed in the design of intakes to minimize entrainment and impingement, 

such as use of screens and intake rates recognized to minimize effects. 

Thermal impacts on aquatic biota ........ 2 Undetermined .... Staff would have to first review the discharge plume analysis (as described in Section 

3.4) and the aquatic biota potentially present before being able to reach a conclusion regarding the possible significance of impacts to that biota. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80821 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ISSUING A PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR A NEW

NUCLEAR REACTOR 1—Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3 Plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope values and assumptions 4

Other effects of cooling-water discharges on aquatic biota.2 Undetermined .... Staff would have to first review the discharge plume analysis (as described in Section 

3.4) and the aquatic biota potentially present before being able to reach a conclusion regarding the possible significance of impacts to that biota. 

Water use conflicts with aquatic resources.1 SMALL .............. If needed, cooling towers would be mechanical draft, not natural draft; less than 100 ft 

(30.5 m) in height; and equipped with drift eliminators. Any makeup water for the 

cooling towers would be fresh water (less than 1 ppt salinity). Total plant water demand would be less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gpm (0.379 m3/s). If 

water is withdrawn from flowing waterbodies, average plant water withdrawals would 

not reduce flow by more than 3 percent of the 95 percent exceedance daily flow and 

would not prevent maintenance of applicable instream flow requirements. Any water 

withdrawals would be in compliance with any EPA or State permitting requirements. 

Applicants would be able to demonstrate that hydroperiod changes are within historical or seasonal fluctuations. 

Important Species and Habitats—Resources Regulated under the ESA 

and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act.

2 Undetermined .... The NRC staff is unable to determine the significance of potential impacts without consideration of project-specific factors, including the specific species and habitats affected and the types of ecological changes potentially resulting from each specific licensing action. Furthermore, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq.) require consultations for each licensing action that may affect regulated resources. 

Important species and habitats—Other 

Important Species and Habitats.

1 SMALL ............... Applicants would communicate with State natural resource or conservation agencies 

regarding aquatic fish, wildlife, and plants and implement mitigation recommendations of those agencies. 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

Construction: 

Construction impacts on historic and 

cultural resources.

2 Undetermined .... Impacts on historic and cultural resources are analyzed on a project-specific basis. 

The NRC will perform a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and a 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 analysis, in accordance with 

36 CFR part 800, in its preparation of the supplemental environmental impact statement. The NHPA Section 106 analysis includes consultation with the State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, American Indian Tribes, and other interested parties. 

Operation: 

Operation impacts on historic and cultural resources.2 Undetermined .... Impacts on historic and cultural resources are analyzed on a project-specific basis. 

The NRC will perform a NEPA analysis and a NHPA Section 106 analysis, in accordance with 36 CFR part 800, in its preparation of the supplemental environmental impact statement. The NHPA Section 106 analysis includes consultation with 

the State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, American Indian Tribes, and 

other interested parties. 

Environmental Hazards—Radiological Environment 

Construction: 

Radiological dose to construction workers.1 SMALL .............. For protection against radiation, the applicant must meet the regulatory requirements 

of: 10 CFR 20.1101 Radiation Protection Programs if issued a license 10 CFR 

20.1201 Occupational dose limits for adults 10 CFR 20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public Appendix B to 10 CFR part 20 Annual Limits on Intake 

(ALIs) and Derived Air Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage Applicable 

NRC radiation protection regulations, such as: 10 CFR 50.34a Design objectives for 

equipment to control releases of radioactive material in effluents—nuclear power reactors 10 CFR 50.36a Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors Application contains sufficient technical information for the staff to complete 

the detailed technical safety review. Application will be found to be in compliance by 

the staff with the above regulations through a radiation protection program and an 

effluent release monitoring program. 

Operation: 

Occupational doses to workers ............ 1 SMALL .............. For protection against radiation, the applicant must meet the regulatory requirements 

of: 10 CFR 20.1101 Radiation Protection Programs if issued a license 10 CFR 

20.1201 Occupational dose limits for adults Appendix B to 10 CFR part 20 Annual 

Limits on Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for 

Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to 

Sewerage Applicable radiation protection regulations, such as: 10 CFR 50.34 a Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in 

effluents—nuclear power reactors 10 CFR 50.36 a Technical specifications on 

effluents from nuclear power reactors Application contains sufficient technical information for the staff to complete the detailed technical safety review Application will 

be found to be in compliance by the staff with the above regulations through a radiation protection program and an effluent release monitoring program. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80822 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ISSUING A PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR A NEW

NUCLEAR REACTOR 1—Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3 Plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope values and assumptions 4

Maximally exposed individual annual 

doses.

1 SMALL ............... For protection against radiation, the applicant must meet the regulatory requirements 

of: 10 CFR 20.1101 Radiation Protection Programs if issued a license 10 CFR 

20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public Appendix B to 10 CFR part 

20 Annual Limits on Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage Applicable radiation protection regulations, such as: 10 CFR 

50.34a Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in 

effluents—nuclear power reactors 10 CFR 50.36a Technical specifications on 

effluents from nuclear power reactors Application contains sufficient technical information for the staff to complete the detailed technical safety review Application will 

be found to be in compliance by the staff with the above regulations through a radiation protection program and an effluent release monitoring program. 

Total population annual doses ............. 1 SMALL .............. For protection against radiation, the applicant must meet the regulatory requirements 

of: 10 CFR 20.1101 Radiation Protection Programs if issued a license 10 CFR 

20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public Appendix B of 10 CFR part 

20 Annual Limits on Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage Applicable radiation protection regulations, such as: 10 CFR 

50.34a Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in 

effluents—nuclear power reactors 10 CFR 50.36a Technical specifications on 

effluents from nuclear power reactors Application contains sufficient technical information for the staff to complete the detailed technical safety review Application will 

be found to be in compliance by the staff with the above regulations through a radiation protection program and an effluent release monitoring program. 

Nonhuman biota doses ........................ 1 SMALL .............. Applicants would demonstrate in their application that any radiological nonhuman biota 

doses would be below applicable guidelines. 

Environmental Hazards—Nonradiological Environment 

Construction: 

Building impacts of chemical, biological, and physical nonradiological 

hazards.

1 SMALL ............... The applicant must adhere to all applicable Federal, State, local or Tribal regulatory 

limits and permit conditions for chemical hazards, biological hazards, and physical 

hazards. The applicant will follow nonradiological public and occupational health 

BMPs and mitigation measures, as appropriate. 

Building impacts of electromagnetic 

fields (EMFs).

N/A Uncertain ........... Studies of 60 Hz EMFs have not uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects 

with field exposures. Because the state of the science is currently inadequate, no 

generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible. If, in the future, the Commission finds that a general agreement has been reached by appropriate Federal 

health agencies that there are adverse health effects from EMFs, the Commission 

will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part 

of their application. Until such time, applicants are not required to submit information 

about this issue. 

Operation: 

Operation impacts of chemical, biological, and physical nonradiological 

hazards.

1 SMALL .............. The applicant must adhere to all applicable Federal, State, local or Tribal regulatory 

limits and permit conditions for chemical hazards, biological hazards, and physical 

hazards. The applicant will follow nonradiological public and occupational health 

BMPs and mitigation measures, as appropriate. 

Operation impacts of EMFs ................. N/A Uncertain ........... Studies of 60 Hz EMFs have not uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects 

with field exposures. Because the state of the science is currently inadequate, no 

generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible. If, in the future, the Commission finds that a general agreement has been reached by appropriate Federal 

health agencies that there are adverse health effects from EMFs, the Commission 

will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part 

of their application. Until such time, applicants are not required to submit information 

about this issue. 

Noise 

Construction: 

Construction-related noise ................... 1 SMALL .............. The noise level would be no more than 65 dBA at site boundary, unless a relevant 

State or local noise abatement law or ordinance sets a different threshold, which 

would then be the presumptive threshold for PPE purposes. If an applicant cannot 

meet the 65 dBA threshold through mitigation, then the applicant must obtain a various or exception with the relevant State or local regulator. The project would implement BMPs, including such as modeling, foliage planting, construction of noise buffers, and the timing of construction and/or operation activities. 

Operation: 

Operation-related noise ........................ 1 SMALL .............. The noise level would be no more than 65 dBA at site boundary, unless a relevant 

State or local noise abatement law or ordinance sets a different threshold, which 

would then be the presumptive threshold for PPE purposes. If an applicant cannot 

meet the 65 dBA threshold through mitigation, then the applicant must obtain a various or exception with the relevant State or local regulator. The project would implement BMPs, including such as modeling, foliage planting, construction of noise buffers, and the timing of construction and/or operation activities. 

Waste Management—Radiological Waste Management 

Operation: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80823 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ISSUING A PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR A NEW

NUCLEAR REACTOR 1—Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3 Plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope values and assumptions 4

Low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) .... 1 SMALL .............. Applicants must meet the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR part 20 (e.g., 10 CFR 

20.1406 and subpart K), 10 CFR part 61, 10 CFR part 71, and 10 CFR part 72. 

Quantities of LLRW generated at a new nuclear reactor would be less than the 

quantities of LLRW generated at existing nuclear power plants, which generate an 

average of 21,200 ft3 (600 m3) and 2,000 Ci (7.4 × 1013 Bq) per year for boiling 

water reactors and half that amount for pressurized water reactors. 

Onsite spent nuclear fuel management 1 SMALL .............. Compliance with 10 CFR part 72. 

Mixed waste ......................................... 1 SMALL .............. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Small Quantity Generator for Mixed 

Waste. 

Waste Management—Nonradiological Waste Management 

Construction: 

Construction nonradiological waste ..... 1 SMALL .............. The applicant must meet all the applicable permit conditions, regulations, and BMPs 

related to solid, liquid, and gaseous waste management. For hazardous waste generation, applicants must meet conformity with hazardous waste quantity generation 

levels in accordance with RCRA. For sanitary waste, applicants must dispose of 

sanitary waste in a permitted process. For mitigation measures, the applicant would 

perform mitigation measures to the extent practicable, such as recycling, process 

improvements, or the use of a less hazardous substance. 

Operation: 

Operation nonradiological waste .......... 1 SMALL ............... The applicant must meet all the applicable permit conditions, regulations, and BMPs 

related to solid, liquid, and gaseous waste management. For hazardous waste generation, applicants must meet conformity with hazardous waste quantity generation 

levels in accordance with RCRA. For sanitary waste, applicants must dispose of 

sanitary waste in a permitted process. For mitigation measures, the applicant would 

perform mitigation measures to the extent practicable, such as recycling, process 

improvements, or the use of a less hazardous substance. 

Postulated Accidents 

Operation: 

Design Basis Accidents Involving Radiological Releases.1 SMALL .............. For the exclusion area boundary, the maximum total effective dose equivalent for any 

2-hour period during the radioactivity release should be calculated. For the low-population zone, the total effective dose equivalent should be calculated for the duration 

of the accident release (i.e., 30 days, or other duration as justified). The above calculations should demonstrate that the design basis accident doses satisfy the dose 

criteria given in regulations related to the application (e.g., 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1), 10 

CFR 52.17(a)(1), and 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)), standard review plans (e.g., standard review plan criteria, Table 1 in standard review plan Section 15.0.3 of NUREG–0800), 

and Regulatory Guides, (e.g., Regulatory Guide 1.183), as applicable. 

Accidents Involving Releases of Hazardous Chemicals.1 SMALL ............... Reactor inventory of a regulated substance is less than its Threshold Quantity. 

Threshold Quantities are found in 40 CFR 68.130, Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4; and Reactor inventory of an extremely hazardous substance is less than its Threshold Planning Quantity. Threshold Planning Quantities are found in 40 CFR part 355, Appendices A and B. 

Severe Accidents ................................. 2 Undetermined .... Based on the analysis in the Final Safety Analysis Report/Preliminary Safety Analysis 

Report regarding severe accidents, if a reactor design has severe accident progressions with radiological or hazardous chemical releases, then an environmental risk 

evaluation must be performed. 

Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives.1 SMALL .............. If a cost-screening analysis determines that the maximum benefit for avoiding an accident is so small that a severe accident mitigation design alternative analysis is not 

justified based on a minimum cost to design an appropriate severe accident mitigation design alternative. 

Acts of Terrorism .................................. 1 SMALL .............. The environmental impacts of acts of terrorism and sabotage only need to be addressed if a reactor facility is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit. 

Socioeconomics 

Construction: 

Community Services and Infrastructure 1 SMALL .............. The housing vacancy rate in the affected economic region does not change by more 

than 5 percent, or at least 5 percent of the housing stock remains available after accounting for in-migrating construction workers. Student:teacher ratios in the affected 

economic region do not exceed locally mandated levels after including the school 

age children of the in-migrating worker families. 

Transportation Systems and Traffic ..... 1 SMALL .............. The LOS determination for affected roadways does not change. Mitigation measures 

may include implementation of traffic flow management, management of shiftchange timing, and encouragement of ride-sharing and use of public transportation 

options, such that LOS values can be maintained with the increased volumes. 

Economic Impacts ................................ 1 Beneficial ........... The economic impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear reactor are expected to be beneficial; therefore, this is a Category 1 issue. If, during the projectspecific environmental review, the NRC staff determines a detailed analysis of economic costs and benefits is needed for analysis of the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation, the staff may require further information from the applicant. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80824 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ISSUING A PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR A NEW

NUCLEAR REACTOR 1—Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3 Plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope values and assumptions 4

Tax Revenue Impacts .......................... 1 Beneficial ........... The tax revenue impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear reactor are 

expected to be beneficial; therefore, this is a Category 1 issue. If, during the projectspecific environmental review, the NRC staff determines a detailed analysis of tax 

revenue costs and benefits is needed for analysis of the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation, the staff may require further information from the 

applicant. 

Operation: 

Community Services and Infrastructure 1 SMALL .............. The housing vacancy rate in the affected economic region does not change by more 

than 5 percent, or at least 5 percent of the housing stock remains available after accounting for in-migrating construction workers. Student:teacher ratios in the affected 

economic region do not exceed locally mandated levels after including the school 

age children of the in-migrating worker families. 

Transportation Systems and Traffic ..... 1 SMALL .............. The LOS determination for affected roadways does not change. Mitigation measures 

may include implementation of traffic flow management, management of shiftchange timing, and encouragement of ride-sharing and use of public transportation 

options, such that LOS values can be maintained with the increased volumes. 

Economic Impacts ................................ 1 Beneficial ........... The economic impacts of construction and operation of a nuclear reactor are expected 

to be beneficial; therefore, this is a Category 1 issue. If, during the project-specific 

environmental review, the NRC staff determines a detailed analysis of economic 

costs and benefits is needed for analysis of the range of alternatives considered or 

relevant to mitigation, the staff may require further information from the applicant. 

Tax Revenue Impacts .......................... 1 Beneficial ........... The tax revenue impacts of construction and operation of a nuclear reactor are expected to be beneficial; therefore, this is a Category 1 issue. If, during the projectspecific environmental review, the NRC staff determines a detailed analysis of tax 

revenue costs and benefits is needed for analysis of the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation, the staff may require further information from the 

applicant. 

Environmental Justice 

Construction: 

Construction Environmental Justice Impacts.2 Undetermined .... Project-specific analysis would be necessary, including analysis of the presence and 

size of specific minority or low-income populations, impact pathways derived from 

the plant design, layout, or site characteristics, or other community characteristics 

affecting specific minority or low-income populations. In performing its environmental 

justice analysis, the NRC staff will be guided by the NRC’s ‘‘Policy Statement on the 

Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions,’’ which was published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2004 (69 FR 

52040). 

Operation: 

Operation Environmental Justice Impacts.2 Undetermined .... Project-specific analysis would be necessary, including analysis of the presence and 

size of specific minority or low-income populations, impact pathways derived from 

the plant design, layout, or site characteristics, or other community characteristics 

affecting specific minority or low-income populations. In performing its environmental 

justice analysis, the NRC staff will be guided by the NRC’s ‘‘Policy Statement on the 

Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions,’’ which was published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2004 (69 FR 

52040). 

Fuel Cycle 

Operation: 

Uranium Recovery ................................ 1 SMALL ............... Table S–3 as codified in 10 CFR 51.51 is expected to bound the impacts for new nuclear reactor fuels, because of uranium fuel cycle changes since WASH–1248, including: Increasing use of in situ leach uranium mining has lower environmental impacts than traditional mining and milling methods. Current light-water reactors 

(LWRs) are using nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher levels of fuel burnup resulting in less demand for mining and milling activities. Less reliance on coal-fired 

electrical generation plants is resulting in less gaseous effluent releases from electrical generation sources supporting mining and milling activities. Must satisfy the 

regulatory requirements of 10 CFR part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material 

and 10 CFR part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material. 

Uranium Conversion ............................. 1 SMALL ............... Table S–3 is expected to bound the impacts for new nuclear reactor fuels because of 

uranium fuel cycle changes since WASH–1248, including: Current LWRs are using 

nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher levels of fuel burnup resulting in less demand for conversion activities. Less reliance on coal-fired electrical generation 

plants is resulting in less gaseous effluent releases from electrical generation 

sources supporting conversion activities. Must satisfy the regulatory requirements of 

10 CFR part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material and 10 CFR part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material, and 10 CFR part 73, Physical 

Protection of Plants and Materials. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80825 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ISSUING A PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR A NEW

NUCLEAR REACTOR 1—Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3 Plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope values and assumptions 4

Enrichment ........................................... 1 SMALL .............. Table S–3 is expected to bound the impacts for new nuclear reactor fuels, because of 

uranium fuel cycle changes since WASH–1248, including: Transitioning of U.S. uranium enrichment technology from gaseous diffusion to gas centrifugation, which requires less electrical usage per separative work unit. Current LWRs are using nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher levels of fuel burnup resulting in less demand for enrichment activities. Less reliance on coal-fired electrical generation 

plants is resulting in less gaseous effluent releases from electrical generation 

sources supporting enrichment activities. Must satisfy the regulatory requirements of 

10 CFR part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material, 10 CFR part 70, Domestic 

Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, 10 CFR part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material, and 10 CFR part 73, Physical Protection of Plants 

and Materials. 

Fuel Fabrication (excluding metal fuel 

and liquid-fueled molten salt).

1 SMALL .............. Table S–3 is expected to bound the impacts for new nuclear reactor fuels, because of 

uranium fuel cycle changes since WASH–1248, including: Current LWRs are using 

nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher levels of fuel burnup resulting in fewer 

discharged fuel assemblies to be fabricated each year and due to longer time periods between refueling. Less reliance on coal-fired electrical generation plants is resulting in less gaseous effluent releases from electrical generation sources supporting fabrication. Must satisfy the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material, 10 CFR part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special 

Nuclear Material, 10 CFR part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material, and 10 CFR part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials. 

Reprocessing ........................................ 1 SMALL ............... Table S–3 is expected to bound the impacts for new nuclear reactor fuels, because of 

uranium fuel cycle changes since WASH–1248, including: Current LWRs are using 

nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher levels of fuel burnup resulting in fewer 

discharged fuel assemblies to be reprocessed each year. Less reliance on coal-fired 

electrical generation plants is resulting in less gaseous effluent releases from electrical generation sources supporting reprocessing. Reprocessing capacity up to 900 

MTU/yr Must satisfy the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material, 10 CFR part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and 

Utilization Facilities,10 CFR part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, 

10 CFR part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material, 10 CFR part 

72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Fuel, High-Level 

Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-related Greater Than Class C Waste, and 10 CFR 

part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials. 

Storage and Disposal of Radiological 

Wastes.

1 SMALL ............... Table S–3 is expected to bound the impacts for new nuclear reactor fuels, because of 

uranium fuel cycle changes since WASH–1248, including: Current LWRs are using 

nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher levels of fuel burnup resulting in fewer 

discharged fuel assemblies to be stored and disposed. Less reliance on coal-fired 

electrical generation plants is resulting in less gaseous effluent releases from electrical generation sources supporting storage and disposal. Waste and spent fuel inventories, as well as their associated certified spent fuel shipping and storage containers, are not significantly different from what has been considered for LWR evaluations in NUREG–2157. Must satisfy the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR part 

40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material, 10 CFR part 70, Domestic Licensing of 

Special Nuclear Material, 10 CFR part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material, 10 CFR part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-related Greater 

Than Class C Waste, and 10 CFR part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials. 

Transportation of Fuel and Waste 

Operation: 

Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel ..... 1 SMALL .............. The maximum annual one-way shipment distance does not exceed 36,760 mi (59,160 

km). The annual shipments associated with the one-way shipment distance have 

been normalized to a net electrical output of 880 MW(e), i.e., 1,100 MW(e) with an 

80 percent capacity factor from WASH–1238. The maximum annual round-trip shipment distance does not exceed 73,520 mi (118,320 km). The annual shipments associated with the round-trip shipment distance have been normalized to a net electrical output of 880 MW(e), i.e., 1,100 MW(e) with an 80 percent capacity factor from 

WASH–1238. 

Transportation of Radioactive Waste ... 1 SMALL ............... The maximum annual round-trip shipment distance does not exceed 182,152 mi 

(293,145 km). The annual shipments associated with the round-trip shipment distance have been normalized to a net electrical output of 880 MW(e), i.e., 1,100 

MW(e) with an 80 percent capacity factor and a shipment volume of 2.34 m3/shipment from WASH–1238. 

Transportation of Irradiated Fuel .......... 1 SMALL ............... The maximum annual one-way shipment distance does not exceed 314,037 mi 

(505,393 km). The annual shipments associated with the one-way shipment distance have been normalized to a net electrical output of 880 MW(e), i.e., 1,100 

MW(e) with an 80 percent capacity factor and a shipment capacity of 0.5 MTU/shipment from WASH–1238. The maximum annual round-trip shipment distance does 

not exceed 628,073 mi (1,010,786 km). The annual shipments associated with the 

round-trip shipment distance have been normalized to a net electrical output of 880 

MW(e), i.e., 1,100 MW(e) with an 80 percent capacity factor and a shipment capacity of 0.5 MTU/shipment from WASH–1238. A maximum peak rod burnup of 62 

GWd/MTU for UO2 fuel and peak pellet burnup of 133 GWd/MTU for TRi-structural 

ISOtropic (TRISO) fuel. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80826 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ISSUING A PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR A NEW

NUCLEAR REACTOR 1—Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3 Plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope values and assumptions 4

Decommissioning: 

Decommissioning ................................. 1 SMALL ............... The environmental impacts for the following resource areas were generically addressed in NUREG–0586, Supplement 1, would be limited to operational areas, 

would not be detectable or destabilizing and are expected to have a negligible effect 

on the impacts of terminating operations and decommissioning: 

—Onsite Land Use. 

—Water Use. 

—Water Quality. 

—Air Quality. 

—Aquatic Ecology within the operational area. 

—Terrestrial Ecology within the operational area. 

—Radiological. 

—Radiological Accidents (non-spent-fuel-related). 

—Occupational Issues. 

—Socioeconomic. 

—Onsite Cultural and Historic Resources for plants where the disturbance of lands beyond the operational areas is not anticipated. 

—Aesthetics. 

—Noise. 

—Transportation. 

—Irretrievable Resource. 

The following issues were not addressed in NUREG–0586, Supplement 1, but have 

been determined to be Category 1 issues: 

—Non-radiological waste. 

—-Greenhouse Gases. 

Decommissioning ........................................ 2 Undetermined .... The following two issues were identified in NUREG–0586, Supplement 1, as requiring 

a project-specific review: 

—Environmental justice. 

—Threatened and endangered species. 

Four conditionally project-specific issues identified in NUREG–0586, Supplement 1, 

will require a project-specific review if present: 

—Land use involving offsite areas to support decommissioning activities. 

—Aquatic ecology for activities beyond the licensed operational area. 

—Terrestrial ecology for activities beyond the licensed operational area. 

—Historic and cultural resources (archaeological, architectural, structural, historic) for 

activities within and beyond the licensed operational area with no current (i.e., at the 

time of decommissioning) evaluation of resources for National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) eligibility. 

Additionally, the following two environmental resource areas are additional decommissioning impacts that require project-specific review: 

—Climate Change: the effects of climate change are location-specific and cannot, 

therefore, be evaluated generically (see Section 1.4.3.2.2, Category 2 Issues Applying Across Resources, of NUREG–2249, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors’’). 

—Cumulative: must be considered on a project-specific basis where impacts would 

depend on regional resource characteristics, the resource specific impacts of the 

project, and the cumulative significance of other factors affecting the resource. (see 

Section 1.4.3.2.2, Category 2 Issues Applying Across Resources, of NUREG–2249, 

‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors’’). 

Issues Applying Across Resources 

Climate Change ........................................... 2 Undetermined .... The effects of climate change are location-specific and cannot, therefore, be evaluated 

generically. For example, while climate change may cause many areas to receive 

less than average annual precipitation, other areas may see an increase in average 

annual precipitation. Therefore, applicants and staff would address the effects of climate change in the environmental documents for new nuclear reactor licensing. 

Cumulative Impacts ..................................... 2 Undetermined .... Applications must individually consider the cumulative impacts from past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions known to occur at specific sites for proposed 

new nuclear reactors, and briefly present those considerations in supplemental 

NEPA documentation. The staff would explain whether these individualized evaluations of potential cumulative impacts alter any of the generic analyses and conclusions relied upon for Category 1 issues. The individualized cumulative impact analyses may also identify opportunities where staff might rely upon the generic analyses for some Category 1 issues for which certain of the PPE or SPE values and 

assumptions might be exceeded. 

Non-Resource Related Issues 

Purpose and Need ...................................... 2 Undetermined .... Must be described in the environmental report associated with a given application. 

Need for Power ........................................... 2 Undetermined .... Must be described in the environmental report associated with a given application. 

Site Alternatives ........................................... 2 Undetermined .... Must be described in the environmental report associated with a given application. 

Energy Alternatives ..................................... 2 Undetermined .... Must be described in the environmental report associated with a given application. 

System Design Alternatives ........................ 2 Undetermined .... Must be described in the environmental report associated with a given application. 

1 Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG–2249, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors’’ (September 2024). 

2The categories are defined as follows: 

Category 1 issues—environmental issues for which the NRC has been able to make a generic finding of SMALL adverse environmental impacts, or beneficial impacts, provided that the applicant’s proposed reactor facility and site meet or are bounded by relevant values and assumptions in the PPE and SPE that support the 

generic finding for that Category issue. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80827 

Category 2 issues—Environmental issues for which a generic finding regarding the environmental impacts cannot be reached because the issue requires the consideration of project-specific information that can only be evaluated once the proposed site is identified. The impact significance (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or 

LARGE) for these issues will be determined in a project-specific evaluation. 

N/A—Issues related to exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) for which there is no national scientific agreement regarding adverse health effects. 

3A finding of SMALL impacts means that 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 as the term is used in this table. For issues where probability is a key consideration (i.e., accident consequences), probability was a factor in determining significance. 4Because the Category 2 issues require a project-specific review, there are no associated values and assumptions of the plant parameter envelope and site parameter envelope. A brief summary explanation for the designation of the Category 2 issues is provided in lieu of values and assumptions. 

Dated: September 25, 2024. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Carrie Safford, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22385 Filed 10–3–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2024–1287; Project 

Identifier AD–2023–00992–T] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to supersede Airworthiness Directive 

(AD) 2012–07–06. AD 2012–07–06 

applies to certain The Boeing Company 

Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, –300ER, 

and 777F series airplanes. This action 

revises the NPRM by proposing to 

require revising the existing 

maintenance or inspection program, as 

applicable, to incorporate new or more 

restrictive airworthiness limitations. 

The FAA is proposing this AD to 

address the unsafe condition on these 

products. Since these actions would 

impose an additional burden over those 

in the NPRM, the FAA is requesting 

comments on this SNPRM. 

DATES: The FAA must receive comments 

on this SNPRM by November 18, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

regulations.gov. Follow the instructions 

for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

AD Docket: You may examine the AD 

docket at regulations.gov under Docket 

No. FAA–2024–1287; or in person at 

Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains the NPRM, this SNPRM, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The street address for 

Docket Operations is listed above. 

Material Incorporated by Reference: 

• For Boeing material in this 

proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: 

Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 

2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, 

Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone 

562–797–1717; website 

myboeingfleet.com. 

• You may view this material at the 

FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 

216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

It is also available at regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FAA–2024–1287. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Cortez-Muniz, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, 

WA 98198; phone: 206–231–3958; 

email: Luis.A.Cortez-Muniz@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites you to send any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments about this proposal. Send 

your comments to an address listed 

under the ADDRESSES section. Include 

‘‘Docket No. FAA–2024–1287; Project 

Identifier AD–2023–00992–T’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. The most 

helpful comments reference a specific 

portion of the proposal, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include supporting data. The FAA 

will consider all comments received by 

the closing date and may again revise 

this proposal because of those 

comments. 

Except for Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) as described in the 

following paragraph, and other 

information as described in 14 CFR 

11.35, the FAA will post all comments 

received, without change, to 

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. The agency 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact received 

about this proposed AD. 

Confidential Business Information 

CBI is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt 

from public disclosure. If your 

comments responsive to this SNPRM 

contain commercial or financial 

information that is customarily treated 

as private, that you actually treat as 

private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this SNPRM, it is 

important that you clearly designate the 

submitted comments as CBI. Please 

mark each page of your submission 

containing CBI as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA 

will treat such marked submissions as 

confidential under the FOIA, and they 

will not be placed in the public docket 

of this SNPRM. Submissions containing 

CBI should be sent to: Luis CortezMuniz, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 

2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 

98198; phone: 206–231–3958; email: 

Luis.A.Cortez-Muniz@faa.gov. Any 

commentary that the FAA receives that 

is not specifically designated as CBI will 

be placed in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Background 

The FAA issued AD 2012–07–06, 

Amendment 39–17012 (77 FR 21429, 

April 10, 2012) (AD 2012–07–06), for 

The Boeing Company Model 777–200, 

200LR, –300, –300ER, and 777F series 

airplanes with an original airworthiness 

certificate or original export certificate 

of airworthiness issued before 

September 1, 2010. AD 2012–07–06 

requires revising the maintenance 

program to update inspection 

requirements to detect fatigue cracking 

of principal structural elements (PSEs). 

The FAA issued AD 2012–07–06 to 

ensure that fatigue cracking of various 

PSEs is detected and corrected; such 

fatigue cracking could adversely affect 

the structural integrity of these 

airplanes. 

The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 

14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS