[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 193 (Friday, October 4, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80797-80827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22385]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 80797]]
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ACTION: Proposed rule, draft guidance, and draft generic environmental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: [email protected]. For technical questions contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Email comments to: [email protected]. 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:
[email protected], Stacey Imboden, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-2462, email:
[email protected], or Laura Willingham, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-0857, email:
[email protected]. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (1969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 80798]]
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 (Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 (Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Unless 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 no-action
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 Sec. 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 [email protected]. 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
[email protected] 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 [email protected] 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.
[[Page 80799]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Risk-Informed, Technology Inclusive Regulatory Framework for
Advanced Reactors (Docket ID NRC-2019-0062; RIN 3150-AK31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 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, Sec. 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, Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The 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
Sec. 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 Sec. 51.22.
\6\ The 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).
\7\ The terms ``nuclear reactor'' and ``testing facility'' are
defined in Sec. 50.2, ``Definitions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC's regulation at Sec. 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
[[Page 80800]]
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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Each issue corresponds to a specific type of environmental
impact potentially resulting from building, operating, or
decommissioning of a new nuclear reactor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 51.73, ``Request for comments on draft
environmental impact statement.'' Further, as provided in Sec. 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
Sec. 51.91, ``Final environmental impact statement--contents.'' \9\
Pursuant to Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For 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 Sec. 51.92(e) and
will provide an opportunity for public comment on the supplement
pursuant to Sec. 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 Sec. 51.95(b)
and will provide an opportunity for public comment on the supplement
pursuant to Sec. 51.95(a).
\10\ For the issuance of a 10 CFR part 50 operating license
supported by a supplement prepared pursuant to Sec. 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 Sec. 51.103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 80801]]
(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Generic Rulemaking to Improve Nuclear Power Plant
Licensing, Interim Policy Statement (43 FR 58377; December 14,
1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As described in Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 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 project-specific
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Certain 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 51.53(c)
for applicant environmental reports, in Sec. 51.71(d) for the NRC
staff's preparation of the draft SEIS, and in Sec. 51.95(c) for the
NRC staff's preparation of the final SEIS. In accordance with Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec.
2.335(b), such waiver being subject to Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 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
[[Page 80802]]
licensing actions.\20\ Similarly, the NRC's codification of the generic
findings of NUREG-2157 into Sec. 51.23 have been upheld.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (1983).
\16\ Id.
\17\ 10 CFR 51.51(a).
\18\ Baltimore 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.
\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).
\21\ New 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.'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 project-specific
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The 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 Sec.
51.50(c)(1)(iv) that has been used for new reactor combined license
applications that referenced an early site permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 project-specific 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
Sec. 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
project-specific 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
[[Page 80803]]
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 Sec. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Beneficial 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 project-specific evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Section II.B. of this document for a description of the
SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE significance levels used by the NRC in
its EISs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 80804]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The 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 Sec. 51.4,
``Definitions.'' As stated in Sec. 51.45(c) preconstruction is
defined as those activities listed in Sec. 51.4(1)(ii).
\27\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, performance-based
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 project-specific analysis. The applicant will
[[Page 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 project-specific 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 operations-related air
quality impacts from cooling-system 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 project-specific 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 project-specific 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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.
[[Page 80806]]
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 project-specific 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 project-specific
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. Project-specific 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 low-income 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 project-specific
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 Sec. 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 non-LWR 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.
[[Page 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 resource-specific
issues. Rather, they are project-specific 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 Sec. Sec. 51.53(d) a cross-
reference to the license termination provisions under Sec. 52.110,
``Termination of license.'' This change will clarify in Sec. 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
[[Page 80808]]
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 Sec. 51.53(b),
``Post-construction environmental report-operating license stage,''
because this provision already references the requirements of Sec.
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ A 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 Sec. Sec.
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ``Sec. 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 Sec. 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
Sec. 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
[[Page 80809]]
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 Sec. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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., Sec. Sec.
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
[[Page 80810]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
[[Page 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
[email protected]. 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 [email protected] 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
[[Page 80812]]
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, [email protected], 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 ML24176A220.
for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors,'' dated September
2024.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft Guidance Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft Regulatory Guide DG-4032, ``Preparation of ML24176A228.
Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,'' dated
September 2024.
Draft Regulatory Guide DG-4032, ``Preparation of ML24176A229.
Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,''
Redline/Strikeout Version to Support Public Comment, dated
September 2024.
Energy and System Design Mitigation Alternatives White ML21225A754.
Paper Report, dated September 2024.
Recommendations for an Applicant to Calculate Activity Data ML21225A768.
for Greenhouse Gases Estimates White Paper, dated
September 2024.
Draft Interim Staff Guidance, COL-ISG-030, ``Environmental ML24176A231.
Considerations for New Nuclear Reactor Applications that
Reference the Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(NUREG-2249),'' dated September 2024.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft Regulatory Analysis for the 10 CFR Part 51, Generic ML24176A218.
Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New
Nuclear Reactors Proposed Rule, dated September 2024.
Draft Information Collection Clearance Package............. ML21222A060.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Meetings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of November 15 and 20, 2019, Public Meetings to ML19337C862.
Discuss Exploratory Process for Developing an Advanced
Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement,
dated December 10, 2019.
Workshop to Discuss the Environmental Information Needed to ML19347A733.
Develop a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Advanced Nuclear Reactors, dated December 13, 2019.
Summary of May 28, 2020, Advanced Reactor Generic ML20161A339 (package).
Environmental Scoping Meeting, dated June 2, 2020.
Summary of October 1, 2020, Advanced Reactor Stakeholder ML20350B457.
Public Meeting, dated December 22, 2020.
Summary of April 15, 2021, Advanced Reactor Stakeholder ML21232A429.
Public Meeting, dated August 24, 2021.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact ML20260H180 (package).
Statement Scoping Process--Summary Report, dated September
16, 2020.
Notice of Availability of Memorandum of Understanding 73 FR 55546.
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.
NUREG-0586, ``Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement ML023470327 (package).
on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,'' Supplement 1,
Vol. 1, ``Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power
Reactors,'' dated November 30, 2002.
NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for ML24087A133 (package).
License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,'' Revision 2,
dated August 2024.
NUREG-2157, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for ML14198A440 (package).
Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel,'' dated September
30, 2014.
Agency Action Regarding the Exploratory Process for the 84 FR 62559.
Development of an Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic
Environmental Impact Statement, dated November 15, 2019.
Notice to Conduct Scoping and Prepare an Advanced Nuclear 85 FR 24040.
Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement, dated
April 30, 2020.
SECY-20-0020, ``Results of Exploratory Process for ML20052D175.
Developing a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
the Construction and Operation of Advanced Nuclear
Reactors,'' dated February 28, 2020.
SRM-SECY-20-0020, ``Results of Exploratory Process for ML20265A112.
Developing a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
the Construction and Operation of Advanced Nuclear
Reactors,'' dated September 21, 2020.
SECY-21-0098, ``Proposed Rule: Advanced Nuclear Reactor ML21222A044.
Generic Environmental Impact Statement (RIN 3150-AK55; NRC-
2020-0101),'' dated November 29, 2021.
Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)-SECY-21-0098, ML24108A199.
``Proposed Rule: Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (RIN 3150-AK55; NRC-2020-
0101),'' dated April 17, 2024.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 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
0
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)).
0
2. In Sec. 51.50, amend paragraph (a) by adding a new second sentence,
and add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.50 Environmental report--construction permit, early site
permit, or combined license stage.
(a) * * * For non-light-water reactors as defined in Sec. 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
Sec. 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.
Sec. 51.53 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 51.53, amend paragraph (d) by removing the reference
``Sec. 50.82 of this chapter'' and adding in its place the references
``Sec. Sec. 50.82 and 52.110 of this chapter''.
0
4. In Sec. 51.75, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
0
5. Add Sec. 51.96 to read as follows:
Sec. 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
[[Page 80814]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 51.91 and shall be distributed in accordance with Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 51.95(b) and shall be considered a supplement to
NUREG-2249.
0
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 Sec. 51.50(d), and the use by the staff will
be in accordance with Sec. Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 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).
Table C-1--Summary of Findings on Environmental Issues for Issuing a Permit or License for a New Nuclear Reactor
\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant parameter envelope/site
Issue Category Finding \3\ parameter envelope values and
\2\ 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.
[[Page 80815]]
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 1 SMALL....................... The site size is 100 ac (40.5
Farmland. 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 1 SMALL....................... The site is not situated in
the Coastal Zone Management Act any designated coastal zone,
(16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.). 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 1 SMALL....................... The site size is 100 ac (40.5
Vicinity. 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 1 SMALL....................... New offsite ROWs for
Lines. 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:
[[Page 80816]]
Emissions of Criteria Pollutants 1 SMALL....................... The site size is 100 ac (40.5
and Dust During Construction. 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 1 SMALL....................... Greenhouse gases emitted by
Construction. 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 1 SMALL....................... Criteria pollutants emitted
Hazardous Air Pollutants during from vehicles and standby
Operation. 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.
1Greenhouse Gas Emissions During 1 SMALL....................... Greenhouse gases emitted by
Operation. 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 1 SMALL....................... The transmission line voltage
Oxides during Transmission Line would be no higher than 1,200
Operation. kV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
Surface Water Use Conflicts during 1 SMALL....................... Total Plant Water Demand Less
Construction. than or equal to a daily
average of 6,000 gpm (0.379
m\3\/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 1 SMALL....................... The long-term dewatering
Excavation Dewatering. withdrawal rate is less than
or equal to 50 gpm (0.003
m\3\/s) (the initial rate may
be larger). Dewatering
results in negligible
groundwater level drawdown at
the site boundary.
Groundwater Use Conflicts due to 1 SMALL....................... Groundwater withdrawal for all
Construction-Related Groundwater plant uses (excluding
Withdrawals. dewatering) is less than or
equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m\3\/
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.
[[Page 80817]]
Water Quality Degradation due to 1 SMALL....................... The permanent footprint of
Construction-Related Discharges. 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 m\3\/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 1 SMALL....................... The site size is 100 ac (40.5
Inadvertent Spills during ha) or less. The permanent
Construction. 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 1 SMALL....................... Groundwater Withdrawal for
Groundwater Withdrawal. Excavation or Foundation
Dewatering The long-term
dewatering withdrawal rate is
less than or equal to 50 gpm
(0.003 m\3\/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 m\3\/
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 1 SMALL....................... In-water structures (including
Offshore or In-Water Construction intake and discharge
Activities. 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 1 SMALL....................... The amount available from
Municipal Water Demand. 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 1 SMALL....................... Municipal Systems' Available
Plant Effluent Discharges to Capacity to Receive and Treat
Municipal Systems. Plant Effluent accounts for
all existing and reasonably
foreseeable future
discharges. Agreement to
discharge to a municipal
treatment system is
obtainable.
Operation:
1Surface Water Use Conflicts 1 SMALL....................... Total plant water demand is
during Operation due to Water less than or equal to a daily
Withdrawal from Flowing average of 6,000 gpm (0.379
Waterbodies. m\3\/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 1 SMALL....................... Total plant water demand is
Operation due to Water Withdrawal less than or equal to a daily
from Non-flowing Waterbodies. average of 6,000 gpm (0.379
m\3\/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 1 SMALL....................... The long-term dewatering
Building Foundation Dewatering. withdrawal rate is less than
or equal to 50 gpm (0.003
m\3\/s) (the initial rate may
be larger). Dewatering
results in negligible
groundwater level drawdown at
the site boundary.
Groundwater Use Conflicts Due to 1 SMALL....................... Groundwater withdrawal for all
Groundwater Withdrawals for Plant plant uses (excluding
Uses. dewatering) is less than or
equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m\3\/
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 1 SMALL....................... Total plant water demand is
Due to Physical Effects from less than or equal to a daily
Operation of Intake and Discharge average of 6,000 gpm (0.379
Structures. m\3\/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.
[[Page 80818]]
Surface Water Quality Degradation 1 SMALL....................... Total plant water demand is
Due to Changes in Salinity less than or equal to a daily
Gradients Resulting from average of 6,000 gpm (0.379
Withdrawals. m\3\/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 2 Undetermined................ The staff determined that a
Due to Chemical and Thermal generic analysis to determine
Discharges. 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 1 SMALL....................... The plant is outside the
Due to Plant Discharges. 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 1 SMALL....................... Applicable requirements and
Inadvertent Spills and Leaks guidance on spill prevention
during Operation. 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 1 SMALL....................... The long-term dewatering
Groundwater Withdrawals. withdrawal rate is less than
or equal to 50 gpm (0.003
m\3\/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 m\3\/
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 1 SMALL....................... Usage amount is within the
Municipal Water Demand. 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 1 SMALL....................... Municipal Systems' Available
Plant Effluent Discharges to Capacity to Receive and Treat
Municipal Systems. 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, 1 SMALL....................... The permanent footprint of
Conversion, Fragmentation, and disturbance would include 30
Degradation of Habitats. 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.
[[Page 80819]]
Permanent and Temporary Loss and 1 SMALL....................... Applicant would provide a
Degradation of Wetlands. 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 m\3\/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 1 SMALL....................... Noise generation would not
Wildlife. exceed 85 dBA 50 ft (15.2 m)
from the source.
Effects of Vehicular Collisions on 1 SMALL....................... The site size would be 100 ac
Wildlife. (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 1 SMALL....................... The site size would be 100 ac
Structures and Transmission Lines. (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-- 2 Undetermined................ The NRC staff is unable to
Resources Regulated under the determine the significance of
Endangered Species Act of 1973 potential impacts without
(ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 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-- 1 SMALL....................... Applicants would communicate
Other Important Species and with State natural resource
Habitats. or conservation agencies
regarding wildlife and plants
and implement mitigation
recommendations of those
agencies.
Operation:
Permanent and Temporary Loss or 1 SMALL....................... Temporarily disturbed lands
Disturbance of Habitats. 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 1 SMALL....................... Noise generation would not
Wildlife. 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 1 SMALL....................... Noise generation would not
Wildlife. 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 1 SMALL....................... Applicants would demonstrate
to Radionuclides. in their application that any
radiological nonhuman biota
doses would be below
applicable guidelines.
Cooling-Tower Operational Impacts 1 SMALL....................... If needed, cooling towers
on Vegetation. 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 1 SMALL....................... The site size would be 100 ac
Structures and Transmission Lines. (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 1 SMALL....................... New offsite ROWs for
Transmission Lines. 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 1 SMALL....................... Total plant water demand would
Terrestrial Resources. be less than or equal to a
daily average of 6,000 gpm
(0.379 m\3\/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 1 SMALL....................... Vegetation in transmission
Management on Terrestrial line ROWs would be managed
Resources. 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.
[[Page 80820]]
Effects of Electromagnetic Fields 1 SMALL....................... Based on the literature review
on Flora and Fauna. 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-- 2 Undetermined................ The NRC staff is unable to
Resources Regulated under the ESA determine the significance of
of 1973. 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-- 1 SMALL....................... Applicants would communicate
Other Important Species and with State natural resource
Habitats. or conservation agencies
regarding wildlife and plants
and implement mitigation
recommendations of those
agencies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic Ecology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
Runoff and sedimentation from 1 SMALL....................... BMPs would be used for erosion
construction areas. 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 1 SMALL....................... Applicant would obtain
habitats to build intake and approval, if required, under
discharge structures. 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, 1 SMALL....................... If activities regulated under
pipelines, and access roads the CWA are performed, they
across surface waterbodies. 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-- 2 Undetermined................ The NRC staff is unable to
Resources Regulated under the ESA determine the significance of
and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery potential impacts without
Conservation and Management Act consideration of project-
(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). 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-- 1 SMALL....................... Applicants would communicate
Other Important Species and with State natural resource
Habitats. 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 1 SMALL....................... Applicants would demonstrate
radionuclides. in their application that any
radiological nonhuman biota
doses would be below
applicable guidelines.
Effects of refurbishment on 1 SMALL....................... BMPs would be used for
aquatic biota. erosion, sediment control,
and stormwater management.
Exposed soils would be
restored as soon as possible
with regionally indigenous
vegetation.
Effects of maintenance dredging on 1 SMALL....................... If activities regulated under
aquatic biota. 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 1 SMALL....................... Vegetation in transmission
management on aquatic resources. 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 1 SMALL....................... Intakes would comply with
aquatic organisms. 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.
[[Page 80821]]
Other effects of cooling-water 2 Undetermined................ Staff would have to first
discharges on aquatic biota. 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 1 SMALL....................... If needed, cooling towers
resources. 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
m\3\/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-- 2 Undetermined................ The NRC staff is unable to
Resources Regulated under the ESA determine the significance of
and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery potential impacts without
Conservation and Management Act. 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-- 1 SMALL....................... Applicants would communicate
Other Important Species and with State natural resource
Habitats. 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 2 Undetermined................ Impacts on historic and
and cultural resources. 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 2 Undetermined................ Impacts on historic and
cultural resources. 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 1 SMALL....................... For protection against
workers. 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.
[[Page 80822]]
Maximally exposed individual 1 SMALL....................... For protection against
annual doses. 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, 1 SMALL....................... The applicant must adhere to
biological, and physical all applicable Federal,
nonradiological hazards. 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 N/A Uncertain................... Studies of 60 Hz EMFs have not
electromagnetic fields (EMFs). 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, 1 SMALL....................... The applicant must adhere to
biological, and physical all applicable Federal,
nonradiological hazards. 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:
[[Page 80823]]
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 ft\3\ (600
m\3\) and 2,000 Ci (7.4 x
1013 Bq) per year for boiling
water reactors and half that
amount for pressurized water
reactors.
Onsite spent nuclear fuel 1 SMALL....................... Compliance with 10 CFR part
management. 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 1 SMALL....................... For the exclusion area
Radiological Releases. 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 1 SMALL....................... Reactor inventory of a
Hazardous Chemicals. 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 1 SMALL....................... If a cost-screening analysis
Alternatives. 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 1 SMALL....................... The housing vacancy rate in
Infrastructure. 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 shift-change
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
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.
[[Page 80824]]
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
project-specific
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 1 SMALL....................... The housing vacancy rate in
Infrastructure. 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 shift-change
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
project-specific
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 2 Undetermined................ Project-specific analysis
Impacts. 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 2 Undetermined................ Project-specific analysis
Impacts. 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.
[[Page 80825]]
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 1 SMALL....................... Table S-3 is expected to bound
fuel and liquid-fueled molten the impacts for new nuclear
salt). 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 1 SMALL....................... Table S-3 is expected to bound
Radiological Wastes. 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 1 SMALL....................... The maximum annual one-way
Fuel. 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 1 SMALL....................... The maximum annual round-trip
Waste. 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
m\3\/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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 80826]]
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).
\2\ The 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.
[[Page 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.
\3\ A 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.
\4\ Because 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