[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22394-22425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08015]
[[Page 22393]]
Vol. 91
Friday,
No. 79
April 24, 2026
Part III
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 51
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear
Reactors; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2026 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 22394]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations that govern the NRC's environmental reviews of new nuclear
reactor applications under the National Environmental Policy Act. The
rulemaking codifies the generic findings of the NRC's Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors.
The 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 is also issuing revision 4
to regulatory guide 4.2, ``Preparation of Environmental Reports for
Nuclear Power Stations,'' and COL-ISG-030, ``Environmental
Considerations Associated with New Nuclear Reactor Applications that
Reference the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-2249).''
This rulemaking is separate from NRC's comprehensive review and reform
of its regulations, including those governing environmental review, in
accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, ``Ordering the Reform of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.''
DATES: This final rule is effective May 26, 2026.
ADDRESSES: 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. 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.
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 ``ADAMS Public Search.'' For
problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email
to [email protected]. For the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS
accession numbers are provided in the ``Availability of Documents''
section of this document.
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Soly I. Soto Lugo, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-7528, email:
[email protected], Stacey Imboden, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-2462, email:
[email protected], or Robert Hoffman, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-1107, 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) has revised its
regulations to codify the findings of NUREG-2249, ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors''
(NR GEIS). The 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
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. The NRC may 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. This final rule codifies 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 are 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule is separate from NRC's ongoing review and reform of
its regulations in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 14300,
``Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission'' (90 FR
22587; May 29, 2025). The rulemakings associated with that effort will
comprehensively reexamine NRC's NEPA implementing regulations in 10 CFR
part 51 for conformance with E.O. 14300, the Fiscal Responsibility Act
(Pub. L. 118-5, 137 Stat. 10) (FRA), and the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle
County, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025). While there could be additional
revisions to the NR GEIS as a result of these future rulemakings, the
NRC is moving forward with publication at this time because it is a
deregulatory action of high interest for new reactor applicants that
was in progress before the issuance of E.O. 14300. This final rule will
simplify the environmental compliance process for qualifying applicants
and save the NRC and applicants significant resources, while subsequent
revisions to 10 CFR part 51 are being considered.
B. Major Provisions
Major provisions of this rule and guidance 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
[[Page 22395]]
material in this appendix and update if necessary.
2. Changes to the regulations for the preparation of environmental
reports for new reactors (Sec. 51.49, ``Environmental report--limited
work authorization,'' and Sec. 51.50, ``Environmental report--
construction permit, early site permit, or combined license stage'') to
provide the applicant with the option to reference 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'', and Sec. 51.76, ``Draft
environmental impact statement--limited work authorization'') 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 a generic environmental
impact statement for licensing new nuclear reactors'') to provide the
NRC staff with directions on the preparation of final EISs that
reference the NR GEIS.
5. Revisions to regulatory guide (RG) 4.2, ``Preparation of
Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,'' to provide guidance
to applicants regarding the use of the NR GEIS. In addition,
preparation of an interim staff guidance document, COL-ISG-030,
``Environmental Considerations Associated with New Nuclear Reactor
Applications that Reference the Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors (NUREG-2249),'' to provide
guidance to the NRC staff regarding the use of the NR GEIS.
C. Costs and Benefits
The NRC prepared a regulatory analysis to determine the expected
quantitative costs and benefits of this final rule and associated
guidance. Assuming 45 applications over the next decade, the regulatory
analysis concluded that, compared to the no-action alternative, the
final rule alternative and associated guidance would result in total
net averted costs for the NRC and applicants up to $37.7 million, using
a 7 percent discount rate if the NR GEIS is fully utilized. The
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 final 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. As described in the regulatory
flexibility analysis in section V of this document, the NRC is
currently aware of no known small entities as defined in Sec. 2.810,
``NRC size standards,'' that are planning to apply for a limited work
authorization, a new nuclear reactor construction permit or operating
license under 10 CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and
Utilization Facilities,'' or an early site permit or combined license
under 10 CFR part 52, ``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for
Nuclear Power Plants,'' which would be impacted by this final rule. For
more information, please see the regulatory analysis (available as
indicated in section XVI, ``Availability of Documents,'' of this
document).
Table of Contents
I. 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
II. Discussion
III. Opportunities for Public Participation
IV. Public Comment Analysis
V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VI. Regulatory Analysis
VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
VIII. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
IX. Plain Writing
X. National Environmental Policy Act
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
XII. Regulatory Planning and Review
XIII. Congressional Review Act
XIV. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XV. Availability of Guidance
XVI. Availability of Documents
I. 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.\2\ 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 rulemakings to adopt
improvements to the licensing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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 final rule to adopt the generic
environmental conclusions of the NR GEIS in 10 CFR part 51 will be
available for use in
[[Page 22396]]
conjunction with either of these two licensing processes. Additionally,
the NRC has issued a rulemaking that provides a new framework for
licensing reactors in 10 CFR part 53.\3\ The NR GEIS would be available
for use with this new 10 CFR part 53 licensing process for new nuclear
reactors; however, this final rule does not address part 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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,\4\ (2) an environmental
assessment,\5\ 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 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.\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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.
\5\ 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).
\6\ 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
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 limited work authorization (LWA), 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 currently 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. In preparing the draft EIS, the NRC staff will analyze
the potential environmental impacts regarding 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,\7\ the NRC assigns one of the following three significance
levels to describe its evaluation of those impacts on that issue:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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.
In assessing the significance of environmental impacts for some
environmental resources (e.g., federally protected ecological resources
and historic properties that require interagency consultation with
Federal agencies or Indian Tribes,\8\) the NRC assigns the appropriate
impact level (other than SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) in accordance with
the terminology used in the relevant statutes and their implementing
regulations. The NRC conducts consultations under specific statutes, as
appropriate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Per 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii), the agency official will consult
with any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches
religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may
be affected by an undertaking. The term ``Indian Tribes'' refers to
Federally recognized Tribes as acknowledged by the Secretary of the
Interior pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act
of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a).
\9\ See Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1801 et seq.), National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et
seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 300101 et
seq.). See also NRC Tribal Policy Statement (82 FR 2402).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC will document its environmental review and analysis
[[Page 22397]]
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.'' \10\
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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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).
\11\ 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: \12\ (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 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 (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Generic Rulemaking to Improve Nuclear Power Plant
Licensing, Interim Policy Statement (43 FR 58377; December 14,
1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NR GEIS provides generic findings with respect to many
environmental issues. The NRC is codifying 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 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.\13\ As such, these
applicants are not required to conduct their own analysis of these
impacts in their environmental reports and the NRC can likewise rely
upon these findings when preparing its EISs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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 subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, ``Environmental Effect of
Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant,'' 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
[[Page 22398]]
reactor license, served 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 63 plants. In NUREG-1437, the NRC determined that those
issues that were common, or generic, to all nuclear reactors were
identified as Category 1. Further, the NRC determined that the vast
majority of the Category 1 issues were of a SMALL significance
level.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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
regulation authorizing use of the findings in appendix B 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 authority to use appendix B and 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.\15\ 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 application of the regulation
pursuant to Sec. 2.335(b), such waiver being subject to Commission
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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.\16\ 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.'' \17\ 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.'' \18\ The Court held that ``the generic method
chosen by the [NRC] is clearly an appropriate method of conducting the
hard look required by NEPA.'' \19\ 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.'' \20\ Lower Federal
courts have applied the Baltimore Gas holding to the NRC's reliance on
NUREG-1437 for operating power license renewal licensing actions.\21\
Similarly, the NRC's codification of the generic findings of NUREG-2157
into Sec. 51.23 have been upheld.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (1983).
\17\ Id.
\18\ 10 CFR 51.51(a).
\19\ 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.
\20\ Id. at 101.
\21\ 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 to subpart A of
10 CFR part 51).
\22\ 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) (stating
``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. 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. Following the
direction from the Commission, the GEIS and rule were revised to 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 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.
II. Discussion
A. Amendments
The amendments to 10 CFR part 51 establish new requirements for
environmental reviews of applications for an early site or construction
permit, a limited work authorization, or an operating or a combined
license for new nuclear reactors.
Specifically, the amendments codify the generic conclusions of the
NR GEIS for those issues for which a generic conclusion regarding the
potential
[[Page 22399]]
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 have been determined to be
beneficial or have a SMALL impact or significance level. 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 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, 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 to focus future environmental review efforts on issues that
only can be resolved once a site and facility are identified.
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,\23\ then the
applicant cannot adopt the conclusions of that Category 1 finding and
the applicant would then have to prepare a project-specific analysis
for that issue in its environmental report. Likewise, in preparing its
draft SEIS, the NRC staff would rely upon those Category 1 findings for
which the applicant has demonstrated meeting or being bounded by the
underlying values and assumptions and would likewise not be required to
include a project-specific analysis within the draft SEIS, unless the
NRC became aware of new and significant information regarding that
Category 1 issue. The Category 1 findings in table C-1 to appendix C,
``Summary of Findings on Environmental Issues for Issuing a Permit or
License for a New Nuclear Reactor,'' to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51,
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The 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
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 rule
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 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 not 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 uncertain, no generic conclusion on human health
impacts is possible for these issues. If, in the future, the Commission
finds scientific information sufficient to draw conclusions about
potential human health impacts, the Commission may require applicants
to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part of
their application. The 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.
After the final rule is 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 and the ADVANCE Act of 2024
The NRC acknowledges recent amendments to NEPA in the FRA and the
Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy
Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act) (Pub. L. 118-67, 138 Stat. 1448). The NR GEIS
and this rule are consistent with the requirements of the ADVANCE Act,
which is intended to facilitate efficient, timely, and predictable
environmental reviews of nuclear reactor license applications.
Similarly, the NR GEIS and this rule is intended to streamline and
expedite the NEPA review process, as required by the FRA.
The FRA added to NEPA a new section 107(e), which establishes page
limits for environmental impact statements, including a 300-page limit
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) of the NEPA 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 NR GEIS is less than 300
pages and therefore complies with the NEPA page limits.
Separate from this effort, in accordance with E.O. 14300, the NRC
is undertaking a review of its regulations and guidance, which will
include revisions to the NRC's NEPA implementing regulations and
guidance to align with recent amendments to
[[Page 22400]]
NEPA, and direction in the FRA and the ADVANCE Act.
C. Environmental Impacts Review
In the NR GEIS, the NRC has 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.
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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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) \25\ for these
issues will be determined in a project-specific evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See section II.B, ``The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
and the ADVANCE Act of 2024,'' 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 uncertain, and no generic conclusion
on human health impacts is possible.
In the NR GEIS, the NRC identifies a total of 119 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 may rely on the generic finding for
each Category 1 issue, as codified in proposed table C-1 to subpart A
of 10 CFR part 51, 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 17 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,
in the SEIS, using project-specific information. For example, the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires every Federal agency to
consult with the ``Service'' \26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 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 uncertain, no
generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible. If, in the
future, the Commission finds scientific information sufficient to draw
conclusions about potential human health impacts, the Commission may
require applicants to submit plant-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 NR GEIS presents impact analyses for the environmental issues
common to many new nuclear reactors that can be addressed generically.
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 has
concluded in the 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 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.\27\ Further, for purposes of the NR GEIS, the NRC 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.\28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 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).
\28\ 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 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 developed a set of site-related parameters
termed the
[[Page 22401]]
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 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.
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 15 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, 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 15
environmental resource areas, the NRC considered climate change,
cumulative impacts, purpose and need, need for power, site
alternatives, energy alternatives, and system design alternatives. Each
of the 119 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.
In its environmental report, the applicant would have to supply the
requisite information necessary for the NRC 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 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 whether 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).
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.
1. Land Use
The NRC evaluated the potential impacts to onsite and offsite land
use for both construction and operation. In addition, the NRC
considered the impacts of the project in accordance with the Coastal
Zone Management Act and the Farmland Protection Policy Act, if
applicable. The NRC concluded that all identified issues can be
classified as Category 1 issues.
2. Visual Resources
The NRC evaluated the potential visual impacts in the site and
vicinity and along the transmission lines for both construction and
operation. The NRC concluded that all identified issues can be
classified as Category 1 issues.
3. Meteorology and Air Quality
The NRC 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 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
concluded that all identified issues can be classified as Category 1
issues.
4. Water Resources
The NRC evaluated the potential impacts to water use and water
quality for both surface water and groundwater for both construction
and operation. The NRC concluded that all identified issues can be
classified as Category 1 issues, with one exception. The NRC 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 evaluated the potential impacts to terrestrial wildlife,
habitats, and wetlands for both construction and operation. The NRC
concluded that all identified issues can be classified as Category 1
issues, with two exceptions. The NRC determined that the potential
impacts to wildlife, including designated ``critical habitat,''
regulated under the ESA could not be generically resolved for either
construction or operations because the NRC 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.
[[Page 22402]]
6. Aquatic Ecology
The NRC evaluated the potential impacts to aquatic wildlife and
habitats for both construction and operation. The NRC concluded that
all identified issues can be classified as Category 1 issues, with four
exceptions. The NRC 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 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 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 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.
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 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 evaluated the potential impacts of
environmental hazards for both construction and operation. The NRC
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 determined
that because the state of the science regarding the human health
impacts of EMFs is currently uncertain, no generic conclusion on those
impacts is possible, and thus these issues are classified as N/A. If,
in the future, the Commission finds scientific information sufficient
to draw conclusions about potential human health impacts, the
Commission may 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 evaluated the potential impacts of noise for both
construction and operation. The NRC 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 evaluated the potential operational impacts of radiological waste
management. In addition, the NRC evaluated the potential impacts of
nonradiological waste management for both construction and operation.
The NRC concluded that all identified issues can be classified as
Category 1 issues.
11. Postulated Accidents
The NRC evaluated the potential operational impacts of postulated
accidents (because these impacts occur only during operations). In the
proposed rule, the NRC concluded that all identified issues can be
classified as Category 1 issues, with one exception. In the proposed
rule and draft GEIS, the NRC identified severe accidents as a Category
2 issue. Subsequently, based on public comments received on the
proposed rule and draft GEIS, the NRC has updated severe accidents to
be a Category 1 issue, and has developed associated PPE/SPE values. The
NRC agreed with public comments received on the rule that the Severe
Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives category should be merged with
the Severe Accident issue because, if the Severe Accident PPE/SPE
values and assumptions are met, then mitigation is addressed and does
not need to be separately assessed.
12. Socioeconomics
The NRC evaluated the potential impacts of socioeconomics for both
construction and operation. The NRC concluded that these two issues can
be classified as Category 1 issues.
13. Fuel Cycle
The NRC evaluated the potential operational impacts of the fuel
cycle (because these impacts do not occur during construction). The NRC
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 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, ``Licensing Requirements for the
Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive
Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste.''
14. Transportation
The NRC 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 concluded
that all identified issues can be classified as Category 1 issues.
15. Decommissioning
The NRC has previously evaluated the environmental impacts of the
decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. This evaluation was
documented in the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement on
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities'' (Decommissioning GEIS, NUREG-
0586, Supplement 1). The NRC 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.
[[Page 22403]]
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 (see table C-
1, Decommissioning) 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. The Category 1 and Category 2 issues associated with
decommissioning are presented in table C-1, below.
16. Issues Applying Across Resources
The NRC determined that the impacts related to climate change
impacts on environmental resources 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.
17. 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'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 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 did not have
sufficient information available to resolve issues generically. Based
on the results of the exploratory process, the NRC 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 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 has added in Sec. 51.53(d) a cross-reference to the
license termination provisions under Sec. 52.110, ``Termination of
license.'' This change clarifies in Sec. 51.53(d) that NRC's
requirements at 10 CFR part 52 also include license termination
provisions.
H. Revisions to the Rule Due to Policy Changes
Based on policy changes issued after the publication of the Draft
GEIS and proposed rule, the NRC has made the following revisions to the
Final GEIS and rule:
Executive Order 14154 and Rescinding of CEQ NEPA Regulations.
Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, ``Unleashing American Energy,'' ordered
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to propose rescinding
regulations for the implementation of the procedural provisions of
NEPA. The CEQ published an interim final rule removing the CEQ NEPA
regulations on February 25, 2025 (90 FR 10610), with an effective date
of this removal on April 11, 2025. Accordingly, the NRC has removed
references to the CEQ NEPA regulations in the rule, GEIS, and
supporting documents.
Environmental Justice. Effective April 30, 2025, the Commission
withdrew its policy statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice
Matters in NRC
[[Page 22404]]
Regulatory and Licensing Actions (Environmental Justice Policy
Statement) and its Environmental Justice Strategy (90 FR 17887). This
action was taken in response to E.O. 14173, ``Ending Illegal
Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,'' which rescinded
E.O. 12898, ``Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.'' In staff
requirements memorandum COMSECY-25-0007, ``Withdrawing the
Environmental Justice Policy Statement and Environmental Justice
Strategy,'' signed April 10, 2025, the Commission directed the staff to
``take a comprehensive review of the NRC's environmental regulations,
guidance, and training materials to remove references to environmental
justice (EJ)'' and ``to refrain from explicitly addressing EJ in its
[NEPA] reviews. . . .'' Therefore, EJ will no longer be addressed in
new reactor environmental reviews, and the NRC removed the two EJ
Category 2 issues identified in the proposed rule and draft GEIS.
III. Opportunities for Public Participation
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on October
4, 2024, for a 75-day comment period (89 FR 80797). An editorial
correction to the notice was issued on October 17, 2024 (89 FR 83632).
The public comment period closed on December 18, 2024. During the
comment period, the NRC conducted 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 was held on November 7, 2024, at NRC
headquarters in Rockville. Two virtual public meetings were held as
online webinars on November 13, 2024, and November 14, 2024. The
meeting summaries and official transcripts are available as indicated
in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of this document. The
public comments informed the development of this final rule.
IV. Public Comment Analysis
A. Overview
Appendix E of the NR GEIS (NUREG-2249) is the NRC's analysis of and
response to public comments received on the proposed rule (see section
XVI ``Availability of Documents,'' of this document). The NRC received
39 comment submissions during the public comment period that ended on
December 18, 2024. A comment submission is a communication or document
submitted to the NRC by an individual or entity, with one or more
individual comments addressing a subject or issue. A total of 208
unique comments were received during the comment period and three
public meetings.
The public comment submittals are available on the Federal
rulemaking website under Docket ID NRC-2020-0101. NRC's response to the
public comments, including a summary of how NRC revised the proposed
rule in response to public input, can be found in appendix E of the NR
GEIS. The following sections summarize the major issues that resulted
in substantive changes to this final rule and other issues raised for
which no changes were made to this final rule.
B. Specific Requests for Comment
In the proposed rule, the NRC requested specific comments and
supporting rationale from the public on the following issues. In this
final rule, these issues are identified along with how they were
resolved.
1. Plant parameter envelope and site parameter envelope values and
assumptions: The proposed rule requested comment on whether the NRC
staff is using an inappropriate value to result in a SMALL impact
(either too restrictive, or not restrictive enough), and asked
commenters to explain the basis for that position and provide an
alternative proposed parameter value. Many comments generally supported
the NRC's PPE/SPE approach and stated that appropriate values to reach
SMALL impacts had been identified. One comment requested that the NRC
clarify the process for how these bounding values were developed.
NRC Response: Based on these comments, no reason was found to make
changes to the PPE/SPE values or further clarify the process to develop
the values. The process used to develop the PPE/SPE values is explained
in section 1.3.1 of the NR GEIS, with the details for a given value or
assumption discussed for each resource area in chapter 3 of the NR
GEIS. The NRC did not make any changes in the NR GEIS, final rule, or
guidance documents, finding that the use of the PPE/SPE assumptions and
values presented in the GEIS establish an appropriate approach to
support the generic findings of Category 1 impacts.
2. Environmental issues evaluated: The proposed rule requested
comment on whether there are 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. One comment stated that no additional issues
had been identified that should have been included, while another
comment stated that the NR GEIS should accurately address the no-action
alternative and replacement energy alternatives as issues so that the
NR GEIS fully evaluates the environmental and societal impacts of
forgoing nuclear power for other energy alternatives.
NRC Response: Both the impacts associated with the no-action
alternative, including the implications of forgoing nuclear energy, and
replacement energy alternatives were identified as Category 2 issues in
the NR GEIS, which must be addressed during project-specific reviews.
Based on these comments, the NRC did not make any changes in the NR
GEIS, final rule, or guidance documents, finding that the NR GEIS
addressed appropriate issues.
3. Categorization of issues: The proposed rule requested comment on
whether the environmental issues are categorized appropriately. In
other words, were there Category 1 issues that should be Category 2, or
Category 2 issues that should be Category 1? Some comments requested
that the NRC recategorize certain Category 1 issues to Category 2. For
example, one comment requested that socioeconomics be changed to a
Category 2 issue because of the specific conditions of reactors
relating to their surrounding environment. Other comments requested
that certain Category 2 issues be recategorized as Category 1. For
example, a number of comments requested that Severe Accidents be
changed to a Category 1 issue due to the existence of relevant generic
analyses. A number of comments requested that the Category 2 non-
resource related issues such as Purpose and Need, Need for Power, and
Alternatives should be either eliminated as issues or changed to
Category 1. One comment suggested clearer criteria should be published
for classifying an issue as Category 1 or Category 2. One comment
stated that staff should consider whether all issues could be treated
as Category 1 issues for certain situations.
NRC Response: The NRC's justification for and determination of
SMALL impacts for each Category 1 issue is contingent on an individual
proposed reactor project meeting the PPE and SPE values identified for
the issue; if the project cannot meet these values for a Category 1
issue or if new and significant information exists, then a project-
specific analysis for that issue must be developed, similar to the
process for Category 2 issues. Criteria for defining an issue as
Category 1 is discussed in chapter 3 of the NR GEIS,
[[Page 22405]]
which discusses how the PPE and SPE values and assumptions for each
Category 1 issue were developed. NRC disagrees that Category 2 issues
could be treated as Category 1 issues for certain reactor designs or
certain types of sites because impacts of Category 2 issues are, by
their nature, project and site specific. Based on these comments, the
NRC considered whether certain issues could be treated generically and
recategorized severe accidents as a Category 1 issue and combined the
existing Category 1 SAMDA issue into the new Category 1 severe
accidents issue (see section IV.C, ``Summary of Comments Resulting in
Substantive Changes to the Proposed Rule,'' of this document for more
detail). The NRC did not change the categorization of the non-resource
related issues, as many of these requested changes relate to the Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2023 and the ADVANCE Act of 2024. Because the NRC
is developing proposed changes to its NEPA procedures related to these
acts, including consideration of new approaches to address non-resource
related issues as part of the implementation of E.O. 14300, the
suggested changes are outside the scope of the NR GEIS and rule. The
suggested changes may be made in the future through other NRC actions.
4. Scope of proposed rule changes and GEIS: The proposed rule
requested comment on whether the applicability of the GEIS to new
reactors (which includes advanced nuclear reactors) is 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? Certain comments requested that NRC apply the findings from
the NR GEIS to environmental assessments or categorical exclusions.
Other comments requested that the NRC better articulate the
applicability of the NR GEIS to all new nuclear reactors, including
advanced reactors and research and test reactors. One comment suggested
that NRC staff rely on the NR GEIS findings for all new reactor
applications, even if the application does not reference the NR GEIS.
NRC Response: Existing NRC regulations at 10 CFR 51.20(b)(1)
require the preparation of an EIS for the types of new reactor
licensing actions covered by the rule (i.e., issuance of a limited work
authorization, construction permit, operating license, early site
permit, or combined license). If and until these regulations are
amended, the NRC cannot assume that the NR GEIS could be used to
support development of either an environmental assessment or
categorical exclusion. The NR GEIS and associated rule were written to
support licensing actions for any new reactors, including advanced
research and test reactors, that require an environmental impact
statement. NRC disagrees with using the NR GEIS for applications that
do not reference the NR GEIS, as applicants may prefer to provide a
project-specific analysis of all issues rather than relying on the NR
GEIS. The rule allows for voluntary use of the NR GEIS by applicants.
Based on these comments, the NRC did not make any changes in the NR
GEIS, final rule, or guidance documents.
5. Guidance for applicants: The proposed rule requested comment on
whether the methods described in the draft revision to RG 4.2 for
demonstrating values and assumptions are appropriate. Some comments
stated that the methods described in RG 4.2 were appropriate. Certain
comments requested that NRC align this guidance with the ADVANCE Act's
legislative intent, while other comments stated that RG 4.2 did not
provide clear and practical methods for demonstrating PPE and SPE
values.
NRC Response: NRC reviewed RG 4.2 in response to these comments,
and generally determined that the methods described were appropriate
for providing guidance on demonstrating PPE and SPE values and
assumptions for Category 1 issues. Based on these comments, the NRC did
not make any changes in the NR GEIS, final rule, or guidance documents.
6. Limited Work Authorizations: The proposed rule requested comment
on whether the NRC should expand the NR GEIS and the rule to include
NRC approval of LWAs for new nuclear reactor applications. All comments
received on this question requested that the NRC specifically allow for
use of the NR GEIS with LWAs.
NRC Response: As described in section IV.C of this document, and
consistent with the comments, the NRC has expanded the scope of the
final NR GEIS and rule to clarify that the NR GEIS can be used for
LWAs, to the extent applicable.
C. Summary of Comments Resulting in Substantive Changes to the Proposed
Rule
Several issues were raised during the public comment period that
resulted in substantive changes to the proposed rule; these comments
and NRC's changes are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.
Limited Work Authorizations. As discussed in section IV.B,
``Specific Requests for Comment,'' of this document, the NRC asked the
public, ``Should the NRC expand the NR GEIS and the rule to include NRC
approval of limited work authorizations (LWAs) for new nuclear reactor
applications?'' Several commenters suggested that LWAs should be
included as a logical extension within the GEIS framework, because the
LWA would by definition be part of the larger project impact.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comments, determining that
expansion of the GEIS and rule to include NRC approval of LWAs is a
logical extension of the GEIS, particularly because activities
conducted under an LWA are a subset of the activities associated with
construction of a new nuclear reactor. Based on input received during
the public comment period, the NRC is adding rule language allowing for
use of the NR GEIS with LWAs. The NRC is amending 10 CFR 51.49,
``Environmental report--limited work authorization'' and 10 CFR 51.76,
``Draft environmental impact statement--limited work authorization.''
The NRC made conforming changes to section 1.4 of the NR GEIS as well
as RG 4.2, appendix C to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 and ISG-030 that
are part of the rulemaking package.
Postulated Accidents. The NRC received several comments on the
proposed NR GEIS regarding Postulated Accidents. Several comments
suggested that there is sufficient technical basis for finding Severe
Accidents to be a Category 1 issue in the NR GEIS, and that mitigation
for new reactors should be driven by the Severe Accident issue finding
and should not be a separate issue to be evaluated. These comments
suggested that the 1996 LR GEIS analysis of severe accidents, as
augmented and updated by the 2013 and 2024 LR GEISs, would bound the
frequency-weighted consequences of postulated severe accidents for new
reactors, thereby providing the meaningful generic analysis needed to
support a Category 1 finding. One comment suggested that the NR GEIS
failed to present sufficient bases or technical analysis information
for Design Basis Accidents Involving Radiological Releases to be a
Category 1 issue and suggested that it should be a Category 2 issue due
to the range of new reactor technology and designs.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees in part with the comments regarding
Severe Accidents and mitigation. Based on these comments, the NRC has
updated Severe Accidents to be a Category 1 issue and has developed
associated PPE/SPE values based on
[[Page 22406]]
new information (e.g., the 2024 LR GEIS) made available since the NR
GEIS proposed rule package was originally sent to the Commission (SECY-
21-0098). However, the NRC disagrees that the 2024 LR GEIS analysis of
severe accidents may be generically applied to all new reactor designs
(e.g., non-light-water reactors) and sites without adaptation. The NRC
also agrees the Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives category
should be merged with the severe accident issue because, if the Severe
Accident PPE/SPE values and assumptions are met, then mitigation is
addressed and does not need to be separately assessed. To support these
changes from the proposed rule to the final rule, the NR GEIS has been
updated to provide a more thorough meaningful generic analysis as a
technical basis for designating the Severe Accident issue as Category
1. The NRC disagrees that Design Basis Accidents Involving Radiological
Releases should be a Category 2 issue. Design basis accidents involving
the release of radioactive material must meet safety regulatory
requirements in either 10 CFR part 50 or 10 CFR part 52, and the PPE/
SPE are based on these regulatory requirements. An applicant must
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.
If the applicant cannot demonstrate that it meets the PPE/SPE, a
project-specific analysis is needed.
The proposed rule included a total of 122 environmental issues.
That total number of issues changed in the final rule as a result of
public comments and changes in NRC policy. Based on the changes
previously described to EJ and Postulated Accidents, the final rule has
been updated to address 119 total issues. Of the 119 issues, 100 are
Category 1 issues, 17 are Category 2 issues, and two issues are
undetermined.
Tribal/Historic Resources Consultation. The NRC received certain
comments from a Federal agency and an organization representing Tribal
interests requesting that additional information on National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) consultations be included in the NR GEIS.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comments. The NRC added a
discussion (section 1.4.7, Consultations) to chapter 1 of the NR GEIS
and a new section (Tribal Policy Statement) to section 1 of COL-ISG-30,
``Environmental Considerations for New Nuclear Reactor Applications
that Reference the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-
2249),'' as a result of the comments. Additionally, section I.B,
``Environmental Review--Current 10 CFR part 51 Regulations,'' of this
final rule has been revised to reference consultations conducted under
the ESA and NHPA which require interagency consultation with Federal
agencies or Indian Tribes and to reference the NRC's Tribal Policy
Statement.
Climate Change Impacts on Environmental Resources. Comments on this
issue generally conflated two issues that were considered separately in
the NR GEIS, specifically (1) the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions
of a new reactor (a Category 1 issue), and (2) how the project's
environmental impacts would increase, decrease, or remain the same
based upon climate change.
NRC Response: Based on this comment, the NRC revised the name of
the Category 2 issue `Climate Change' to `Climate Change Impacts on
Environmental Resources' to clarify that this issue addresses changes
to the affected environment independent of a new nuclear reactor
project and how the project's environmental impacts would increase,
decrease, or remain the same under a baseline that is altered by
climate change. The revised name also distinguishes this issue from the
two Category 1 issues of greenhouse gas emissions, which discuss the
potential climate impacts of construction and operation of the new
nuclear reactor project on the environment.
D. Summary of Other Public Comments
The NRC received comments on a variety of topics, including
resource-related comments on meteorology and air quality, surface water
and groundwater hydrology, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, historic
and cultural resources, radiological health, radiological waste,
postulated accidents, environmental justice, uranium fuel cycle,
climate change, and cumulative impacts. Additional comments related to
the GEIS's purpose and need, non-resource related issues, general
environmental concerns, the rulemaking and NEPA processes, the specific
requests for comment discussed in section IV.B of this document, public
participation, the relationship to other plans, regulations, and
processes, and monitoring and adaptive management. Comments were
received on supporting documents such as the regulatory analysis and
the greenhouse gas and energy and system design alternative white
papers. Other comments provided general support or opposition, were
editorial in nature, or were determined to be outside the scope of this
rulemaking. Some of the more frequently mentioned issues and concerns
in public comments, as well as the NRC's responses to those comments
and any changes made in the final NR GEIS, are summarized in the
following paragraphs. These summaries and responses are not intended to
be comprehensive of the detailed comments and responses contained in
appendix E of the NR GEIS.
Non-Resource Related Issues: A number of comments were received on
non-resource related issues, mostly requesting that these either be
recategorized as Category 1 issues or removed as issues altogether.
Many of these comments stated that the NRC is not legally mandated to
analyze need for power under either NEPA or the Atomic Energy Act, and
determinations as to whether the power is needed would have already
been analyzed by the applicant prior to submitting their application.
Other comments stated that the NRC does not need to analyze site and
energy alternatives because the NRC does not have the authority to
implement such alternatives. Because many of the suggested changes
relate to the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 and the ADVANCE Act of
2024, which the NRC is addressing as a separate activity from the NR
GEIS, the suggested changes are outside the scope of the NR GEIS and
rule. The suggested changes may be considered through other NRC
actions. For example, in accordance with E.O. 14300, the NRC is
undertaking a review of its regulations and guidance. Pursuant to E.O.
14300 Section 5(c), this will include proposed revisions to the NRC's
NEPA implementing regulations and alignment with the FRA amendments to
NEPA, which could include further revisions to this rule and GEIS.
Relationship to Other Plans/Regulations/Processes: Many comments
were received on the relationship of this rulemaking and NR GEIS to
relevant laws such as the FRA and ADVANCE Act, requesting in some cases
that the NRC include a fuller analysis of how the requirements and
expectations for these acts have been addressed in the GEIS and in the
rule. The NRC added language in the rule to reflect consistency with
these acts, and updated appendix F of the NR GEIS as appropriate.
Rulemaking--Process and Authority: One comment stated that the
proposed rule was overly restrictive in its approach to challenges to
the generic findings and therefore exceeded the NRC's authority. The
NRC disagrees and has determined that codifying the
[[Page 22407]]
findings of the NR GEIS in 10 CFR part 51 is consistent with the
approach used for license renewal of nuclear power plants--a long-
established approach that balances regulatory stability with the
ability to raise new information. If the findings from the NR GEIS are
codified, then it is true that a direct challenge to any of the
findings during the review of a specific project application would
require a waiver of the rule through 10 CFR 2.335. However, built into
the process for the review of each new reactor application is a
requirement for the applicant and the staff to identify any new and
significant information that would change a finding for a Category 1
issue in the NR GEIS. Likewise, members of the public can identify such
information, for example through petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR
2.802. If new and significant information is identified for an issue,
then an analysis of that issue is required (see 10 CFR 51.75(d)).
Resource Analyses: Many comments were received on the resource
analyses in chapter 3 of the NR GEIS. The NRC agreed with many of these
comments and disagreed with others. In many cases, the comment response
cited specific sections of the NR GEIS adequately addressing the issue,
and therefore no changes were required in the NR GEIS, final rule, or
guidance documents as a result of the comment. In response to certain
other comments, the NRC made a number of non-substantive updates to the
NR GEIS and supporting documents to clarify and/or better address these
issues and the rationale for their Category 1 or Category 2 finding.
For example, a new citation was added to the NR GEIS to better address
regulatory requirements for new facilities with cooling-water intakes
(section 3.4.1). New language was added to the NR GEIS to address the
Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act and its effect on the uranium
fuel cycle, as were references regarding impacts associated with HALEU
(3.14.2). Standards defining de minimis levels for air emissions were
added to the NR GEIS and clarified (section 3.3.1).
V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, 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 (SBA'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 of 10 CFR 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 five
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 not aware of any known small entities as
defined in Sec. 2.810 that are planning to apply for a limited work
authorization, 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 final
rule. Based on this finding, the NRC has preliminarily determined that
the final 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 commercial
nuclear plant rated 8 megawatts electric (MWe) or less could
conceivably qualify as small entities as defined by 10 CFR 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 $8.0 million, assuming a 90 percent capacity factor
and the June 2021 Department of Energy's (DOE's) Energy Information
Administration U.S. average price of electricity to the ultimate
customer for all sectors of 11.3 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Although the NRC is not aware of any small entities that would be
affected by the final rule, there is a possibility that future
applications for a commercial nuclear plant permit or license could be
submitted by small entities who plan to own and operate a commercial
nuclear plant rated 8 MWe or less. Commercial nuclear plants that are
rated 8 MWe or less would most likely be used to support electrical
demand for military bases or small remote towns and would provide
process heat, so they would not directly compete with a larger
commercial nuclear plant that would 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.
Therefore, the NRC concludes that this final rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
VI. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has prepared a final regulatory analysis on this
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the
alternatives considered by the NRC. The regulatory analysis is
available as indicated in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of
this document.
VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
The final rule codifies in 10 CFR part 51 certain environmental
issues identified in the NR GEIS. The final 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 final rule
requires 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 final 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 final rule will not constitute backfitting for applicants for
[[Page 22408]]
construction permits or operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50 and
will 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
final rule will have no effect on a construction permit held by an
applicant for a 10 CFR part 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 final rule, the exceptions to
the general principle do not apply.
VIII. 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; (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; (6) publication of the
proposed rule on October 4, 2024 (89 FR 80797; 89 FR 83632) for
comments; and (7) three public meetings conducted on November 7, 2024,
November 13, 2024, and November 14, 2024, to receive comments on the
proposed rule and associated guidance.
IX. 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).
X. National Environmental Policy Act
The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action
described in Sec. 51.22(c)(3), an NRC categorical exclusion for
amendments to parts of NRC regulations that relate to procedures for
filing and reviewing applications for licenses or construction permits
or early site permits. The NRC did not identify any special
circumstances that would have required an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement. Therefore, neither an environmental
impact statement nor environmental assessment has been prepared for
this final rule. This action is procedural in nature in that it
pertains to the type of environmental information to be reviewed.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains a new or amended collection of information
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). The collection of information was approved by the Office of
Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0279.
The burden to the public for the information collection is
estimated on average to be a reduction of 8.028 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the information collection.
The information collection is being conducted to fulfill the
requirements of a future applicant that submits a new reactors license
application. 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 information will be used by
the NRC to fulfill its responsibilities in the licensing review of new
reactors applications. Responses to this collection of information are
mandatory under the NRC's environmental protection regulations in 10
CFR part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.'' As a Federal agency, the
NRC is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
as amended. The regulations in 10 CFR part 51 identify the issuance of
a nuclear power plant limited work authorization, construction permit,
operating license, early site permit, or combined license as major
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. As such, an environmental impact statement is required for
these actions in accordance with NEPA. Confidential and proprietary
information submitted to the NRC is protected in accordance with NRC
regulations at 10 CFR 9.17(a) and 10 CFR 2.390(b).
You may submit comments on any aspect of the information
collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, 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:
T-6 A10M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001
or to the OMB reviewer at OMB Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (3150-0279), Attention: Desk Officer for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
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.
XII. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has
determined that this final rule is a significant regulatory action.
Accordingly, NRC submitted this final rule to OIRA for review. NRC is
required to conduct an economic analysis in accordance with section
6(a)(3)(B) of E.O. 12866. More can be found in
[[Page 22409]]
section VI, ``Regulatory Analysis,'' of this document.
Review Under E.O.s 14154, 14192, 14215, and 14300
NRC has examined this final rule and has determined that it is
consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154,
``Unleashing American Energy,'' E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation,'' E.O. 14215 ``Ensuring Accountability for All
Agencies,'' and E.O. 14300, ``Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.'' This final rule is considered an E.O. 14192
deregulatory action. Details on the estimated costs of this final rule
can be found in section VI, ``Regulatory Analysis,'' of this document.
XIII. Congressional Review Act
This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget
has found that it does not meet the criteria at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
XIV. 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 final 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.
XV. Availability of Guidance
The NRC is issuing both new and revised guidance, revision 4 to RG
4.2, ``Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power
Stations,'' and 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,'' for the implementation of the
requirements in this rulemaking. The guidance is available in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML25043A345 and ML25043A341, respectively.
Revision 4 to RG 4.2 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 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.
In addition, the NRC has issued two documents referenced in
revision 4 to RG 4.2, 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 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 GHG Estimates document provides guidance to nuclear reactor
applicants on estimating greenhouse gas emissions. The applicant can
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 White Paper and the
GHG Estimates document can be accessed in ADAMS at Accession Nos.
ML25044A472 and ML21225A768, respectively.
The 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.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final NUREG-2249, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement ML25324A130.
for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors,'' dated April 2026.
Regulatory Analysis for the 10 CFR Part 51, Generic ML25323A459.
Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New
Nuclear Reactors Final Rule, dated April 2026.
Supporting Statement for Information Collections Contained ML25044A477.
in the Final Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidance Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Regulatory Guide 4.2, ``Preparation of Environmental ML25043A345.
Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,'' Revision 4, dated
April 2026.
Final Interim Staff Guidance, COL-ISG-030, ``Environmental ML25043A341.
Considerations for New Nuclear Reactor Applications that
Reference the Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(NUREG-2249),'' dated April 2026.
Energy and System Design Mitigation Alternatives White ML25044A472.
Paper Report, April 2026.
[[Page 22410]]
Recommendations for an Applicant to Calculate Activity Data ML21225A768.
for Greenhouse Gases Estimates White Paper, dated
September 2024.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft NUREG-2249, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement ML24176A220.
for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors,'' dated September
2024.
Federal Register Notice--Proposed Rule, ``Generic 89 FR 80797.
Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New
Nuclear Reactors,'' dated October 4, 2024.
Federal Register Notice--Proposed Rule, Correction, 89 FR 83632.
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of
New Nuclear Reactors,'' dated October 17, 2024.
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.
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.
OMB Supporting Statement for the Advanced Nuclear Reactor ML21222A060.
Generic Environment Impact Statement, Proposed Rule, dated
September 12, 2024.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Official Transcript of November 7, 2024: Rockville, MD-- ML24284A344.
Public Meeting on Draft New Reactor Generic Environmental
Impact Statement and Proposed Rule.
Official Transcript of November 13, 2024: Online--Public ML24284A349.
Meeting on Draft New Reactor Generic Environmental Impact
Statement and Proposed Rule.
Official Transcript of November 14, 2024: Online--Public ML24284A354.
Meeting on Draft New Reactor Generic Environmental Impact
Statement and Proposed Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Interim Final Rule, ``Removal of National Environmental 90 FR 10610.
Policy Act Implementing Regulations,'' dated February 25,
2025.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including
public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2020-0101. In addition, the
Federal rulemaking
[[Page 22411]]
website allows 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 amends 10
CFR part 51 as follows:
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. Amend Sec. 51.49 by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(4).
0
b. Revising paragraph (b).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(4), (d)(6), and (e)(3).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 51.49 Environmental report--limited work authorization.
(a) * * *
(4) If the application for the construction permit or combined
license will rely on any of the findings in appendix C to subpart A of
this part in its environmental report, then the environmental report
for the limited work authorization may implement the process in Sec.
51.50(d) to determine whether it can rely on any of the findings in
appendix C to subpart A of this part.
(b) Phased application for limited work authorization and
construction permit or combined license. If the construction permit or
combined license application is filed in accordance with Sec.
2.101(a)(9) of this chapter, then the environmental report for part one
of the application may be limited to a discussion of the activities
proposed to be conducted under the limited work authorization. If the
scope of the environmental report for part one is so limited, then:
(1) Part two of the application must include the information
required by Sec. 51.50, as applicable; and
(2) If part two of the application will rely on any of the findings
in appendix C to subpart A of this part in its environmental report,
then the environmental report for part one may implement the process in
Sec. 51.50(d) to determine whether it can rely on any of the findings
in appendix C to subpart A of this part.
(c) * * *
(4) If the application for the early site permit will rely on any
of the findings in appendix C to subpart A of this part in its
environmental report, then the environmental report for the limited
work authorization may implement the process in Sec. 51.50(d) to
determine whether it can rely on any of the findings in appendix C to
subpart A of this part.
(d) * * *
(6) If the environmental impact statement for the early site permit
relied on any of the findings in appendix C to subpart A of this part
in its environmental report, then the environmental report for the
limited work authorization may implement the process in Sec. 51.50(d)
to determine whether it can rely on any of the findings in appendix C
to subpart A of this part for issues that were not resolved in the
environmental impact statement for the early site permit.
(e) * * *
(3) If the environmental impact statement for the construction
permit relied on any of the findings in appendix C to subpart A of this
part in its environmental report, then the environmental report for the
limited work authorization may implement the process in Sec. 51.50(d)
to determine whether it can rely on any of the findings in appendix C
to subpart A of this part.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 51.50, amend paragraph (a) by adding a new second sentence,
and adding 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 of
this chapter, 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 Sec. 50.2 of this chapter, 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
[[Page 22412]]
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
4. In Sec. 51.53, amend paragraph (d) by removing the reference
``Sec. 50.82 or Sec. 53.1080 of this chapter'' and adding in its
place the references ``Sec. 50.82, Sec. 52.110, or Sec. 53.1080 of
this chapter''.
0
5. 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.'' In addition,
the NRC staff will conduct scoping in accordance with Sec. 51.26(a)
and (b). 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
6. In Sec. 51.76, revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.76 Draft environmental impact statement--limited work
authorization.
* * * * *
(f) Draft environmental impact statement. A draft environmental
impact statement prepared under this section must separately evaluate
the environmental impacts and proposed alternatives attributable to the
activities proposed to be conducted under the limited work
authorization. However, if the ``Applicant's Environmental Report--
Limited Work Authorization Stage,'' also contains the information
required to be submitted in the environmental report required under
Sec. 51.50, then the environmental impact statement must address the
impacts of construction and operation for the proposed facility
(including the environmental impacts attributable to the limited work
authorization), and discuss the overall costs and benefits balancing
for the underlying proposed action, in accordance with Sec. 51.71, and
Sec. 51.75(a) or (c), as applicable. For any draft environmental
impact statement prepared under this section, if the 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.'' In addition, the NRC staff
will conduct scoping in accordance with Sec. 51.26(a) and (b). 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
7. Add Sec. 51.96 under the undesignated center heading ``Final
Environmental Impact Statements--Production and Utilization
Facilities'' 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 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.''
(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.
(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
[[Page 22413]]
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
8. 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 NRC 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 NRC
siting regulations in 10 CFR
part 100. The site size is
100 acres [ac] (40.5 hectares
[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 miles [mi]
(0.8 kilometers [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.
Offsite Land Use.................. 1 SMALL....................... New offsite ROWs for
transmission lines,
pipelines, or access roads
would be no more than 100
feet [ft] (30.5 meters [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 (40.5 ha) or
Farmland. 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 NRC
siting regulations in 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
part per trillion [ppt]
salinity). BMPs for erosion,
sediment control, and
stormwater management would
be used.
[[Page 22414]]
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:
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 (12.1 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 NRC'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. 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.
[[Page 22415]]
Greenhouse 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
contains the NRC'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. kilovolts [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 gallons per
minute [gpm] (0.379 cubic
meters per second [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
America, 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.
Water Quality Degradation due to 1 SMALL....................... The permanent footprint of
Construction-Related Discharges. disturbance includes 30 ac
(12.1 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 (12.1 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.
[[Page 22416]]
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:
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 Flowing Waterbodies. average of 6,000 gpm (0.379
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 America, 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 America,
oceans, estuaries, and
intertidal zones exceeds the
amount of water required by
the plant.
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 America,
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 NRC 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.
[[Page 22417]]
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 (12.1 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.
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 A-weighted decibels
[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 (12.1 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 such as those
provided by the American Bird
Conservancy for buildings, by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for towers, and
by the Avian Power Line
Interaction Committee (APLIC)
for transmission lines.
Important Species and Habitats-- 2 Undetermined................ The NRC is unable to determine
Resources Regulated under the the significance of potential
Endangered Species Act of 1973 impacts without consideration
(ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). of project-specific factors,
including the specific
species and habitats affected
and the types of ecological
changes potentially resulting
from each specific licensing
action.
[[Page 22418]]
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
International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) and National
Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements
(NCRP) 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 such as those
provided by the American Bird
Conservancy for buildings, by
the FWS for towers, and by
the APLIC for transmission
lines.
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, such as those
recommended by APLIC, 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.
Effects of Electromagnetic Fields 1 SMALL....................... Based on the literature review
on Flora and Fauna. in the License Renewal
Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (LR GEIS), the NRC
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 NRC did not recommend any
mitigation in the LR GEIS;
hence, none is needed here.
The NRC did not rely on any
PPE and SPE values or
assumptions in reaching this
conclusion.
Important Species and Habitats-- 2 Undetermined................ The NRC is unable to determine
Resources Regulated under the ESA the significance of potential
of 1973. 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.
[[Page 22419]]
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 is unable to determine
Resources Regulated under the ESA the significance of potential
and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery impacts without consideration
Conservation and Management Act of project-specific factors,
(16 U.S.C.1801 et seq.). 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 IAEA and
NCRP 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................ The NRC 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.
Other effects of cooling-water 2 Undetermined................ The NRC 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 is unable to determine
Resources Regulated under the ESA the significance of potential
and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery impacts without consideration
Conservation and Management Act. 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:
[[Page 22420]]
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 consultation as
required, in accordance with
36 CFR part 800, including
consultation with the State
and Tribal Historic
Preservation Officers, 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 National
Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) analysis and a
National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA)
Section 106 consultation as
required, in accordance with
36 CFR part 800, including
consultation with the State
and Tribal Historic
Preservation Officers, 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
--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 NRC
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 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
--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 NRC
with the above regulations
through a radiation
protection program and an
effluent release monitoring
program.
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 of 10 CFR part 20
ALIs and DACs of
Radionuclides for
Occupational Exposure;
Effluent Concentrations;
Concentrations for Release to
Sewerage
--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 NRC
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
ALIs and DACs of
Radionuclides for
Occupational Exposure;
Effluent Concentrations;
Concentrations for Release to
Sewerage
--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 NRC
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 IAEA and
NCRP guidelines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Hazards--Nonradiological Environment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
[[Page 22421]]
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 hertz [Hz] EMFs
electromagnetic fields (EMFs). have not uncovered consistent
evidence linking harmful
effects with field exposures.
Because the state of the
science is currently
uncertain, no generic
conclusion on human health
impacts is possible. If, in
the future, the Commission
finds scientific information
sufficient to draw
conclusions about potential
human health impacts, the
Commission may 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 uncertain, no
generic conclusion on human
health impacts is possible.
If, in the future, the
Commission finds scientific
information sufficient to
draw conclusions about
potential human health
impacts, the Commission may
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 variance or
exception with the relevant
State or local regulator. The
project would implement BMPs,
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 variance or
exception with the relevant
State or local regulator. The
project would implement BMPs,
such as modeling, foliage
planting, construction of
noise buffers, and the timing
of construction and/or
operation activities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management--Radiological Waste Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation:
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 cubic feet
[ft\3\] (600 cubic meters
[m\3\]) and 2,000 curies [Ci]
(7.4 x 1013 becquerels [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....................... 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:
[[Page 22422]]
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 would
compare the design basis
accident doses with 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., RG
1.183), as applicable.
Accidents Involving Releases of 1 SMALL....................... Reactor inventory of a
Hazardous Chemicals. regulated substance is less
than its Threshold Quantity
(TQ). TQs 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
(TPQ). TPQs are found in 40
CFR part 355, appendices A
and B.
Severe Accidents.................. 1 SMALL....................... Within the maximum population
dose risk 95th confidence
bounding value of 9.727 x
10\3\ person-rem per reactor
year (i.e., Indian Point
Energy Center Units 2 and 3)
specified in the 1996 LR GEIS
and demonstrating the
utilization of 10 CFR 50.155
or diverse and flexible
coping strategies (FLEX) to
address mitigation of beyond-
design-basis events; or
Within the maximum 10- and
150-mile Exposure Index at
the 95th confidence bounding
value of 1.896 x 10\4\ and
2.864 x 10\6\, respectively
(i.e., Indian Point Energy
Center Units 2 and 3)
specified in the 1996 LR GEIS
and demonstrating the
utilization of 10 CFR 50.155
or FLEX to address mitigation
of beyond-design-basis
events; or Utilizing the
source term from 10 CFR
50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D), or the
equivalent 10 CFR 52
regulation, with a non-intact
containment or confinement
for population density
assessments under 10 CFR
100.21(h) to demonstrate a
calculated total effective
dose equivalent (TEDE) of no
greater than 1 rem over a
period of 30 days and that no
further mitigation is
necessary because health
effects are shown not to be
significant or a new reactor
that is co-located with an
existing LWR may compare its
source terms to demonstrate
that the LWR's severe
accident risks bounds the new
reactor's risks; or Utilizing
10 CFR 50.33(g)(2) to
demonstrate there is no plume
exposure pathway emergency
planning zone where the
projected total effective
dose equivalent exceeds 1 rem
over 96 hours (i.e., 10 CFR
50.33(g)(2)(i)(A)) and no
further mitigation is
necessary because health
effects are shown not to be
significant.
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
determines a detailed
analysis of economic costs
and benefits is needed for
analysis of the range of
alternatives considered or
relevant to mitigation, the
NRC may require further
information from the
applicant.
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
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
NRC 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
determines a detailed
analysis of economic costs
and benefits is needed for
analysis of the range of
alternatives considered or
relevant to mitigation, the
NRC may require further
information from the
applicant.
[[Page 22423]]
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
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
NRC may require further
information from the
applicant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation:
Uranium Recovery.................. 1 SMALL....................... Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51 is
expected to bound the impacts
for new 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 of 10 CFR 51.51 is
expected to bound the impacts
for new 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.
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 metric tons of uranium
[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.
[[Page 22424]]
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 59,160 km (36,760 mi).
The annual shipments
associated with the one-way
shipment distance have been
normalized to a net
electrical output of 880
megawatts electric [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 118,320 km
(73,520 mi). 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 293,145 km (182,152
mi). 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 505,393 km (314,037
mi). 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 1,010,786 km
(628,073 mi). 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 assembly
averaged burnup of 80
gigawatt-days [GWd]/MTU for
UO2 fuel and peak pellet
burnup of 133 GWd/MTU for TRi-
structural ISOtropic (TRISO)
fuel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
--Nonradiological waste
--Greenhouse Gases
Decommissioning....................... 2 Undetermined................ Threatened and endangered
species was an issue
identified in NUREG-0586,
Supplement 1, as requiring a
project-specific review.
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
[[Page 22425]]
--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
1.3.3.2.2, Category 2 Issues
Applying Across Resources, of
NUREG-2249)
--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
1.3.3.2.2, Category 2 Issues
Applying Across Resources, of
NUREG-2249).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues Applying Across Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Change Impacts on 2 Undetermined................ The effects of climate change
Environmental Resources. on environmental resources
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 the
NRC would address the effects
of climate change on
environmental resources 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
actions known to occur at
specific sites for proposed
new nuclear reactors and
briefly present those
considerations in
supplemental NEPA
documentation. The staff
would address 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 NRC 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.''
\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.
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.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated: April 22, 2026.
Carrie Safford,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2026-08015 Filed 4-23-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P