10 C.F.R. Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant
Title 10 - Energy
The Commission has assessed the environmental impacts associated with granting a renewed operating license for a nuclear power plant to a licensee who holds either an operating license or construction permit as of June 30, 1995. Table B–1 summarizes the Commission's findings on the scope and magnitude of environmental impacts of renewing the operating license for a nuclear power plant as required by section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. Table B–1, subject to an evaluation of those issues identified in Category 2 as requiring further analysis and possible significant new information, represents the analysis of the environmental impacts associated with renewal of any operating license and is to be used in accordance with §51.95(c). 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 [61 FR 66546, Dec. 18, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 59276, Nov. 3, 1997; 64 FR 48507, Sept. 3, 1999; 66 FR 39278, July 30, 2001]
Title 10: Energy
PART 51—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
Subpart A—National Environmental Policy Act—Regulations Implementing Section 102(2)
Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant
Table B-1_Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants \1\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Category Issue \2\ Findings \3\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Impacts of refurbishment on surface water 1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be negligible during quality. refurbishment because best management practices are expected to be employed to control soil erosion and spills.Impacts of refurbishment on surface water 1 SMALL. Water use during refurbishment will not use. increase appreciably or will be reduced during plant outage.Altered current patterns at intake and 1 SMALL. Altered current patterns have not been found to discharge structures. be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Altered salinity gradients................. 1 SMALL. Salinity gradients have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Altered thermal stratification of lakes.... 1 SMALL. Generally, lake stratification has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Temperature effects on sediment transport 1 SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a capacity. problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 1 SMALL. Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power plants and has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Eutrophication............................. 1 SMALL. Eutrophication has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Discharge of chlorine or other biocides.... 1 SMALL. Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor 1 SMALL. Effects are readily controlled through NPDES chemical spills. permit and periodic modifications, if needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Discharge of other metals in waste water... 1 SMALL. These discharges have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. They are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Water use conflicts (plants with once- 1 SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a through cooling systems). problem at operating nuclear power plants with once- through heat dissipation systems.Water use conflicts (plants with cooling 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. The issue has been a concern at ponds or cooling towers using make-up nuclear power plants with cooling ponds and at plants water from a small river with low flow). with cooling towers. Impacts on instream and riparian communities near these plants could be of moderate significance in some situations. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aquatic Ecology (for all plants)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Refurbishment.............................. 1 SMALL. During plant shutdown and refurbishment there will be negligible effects on aquatic biota because of a reduction of entrainment and impingement of organisms or a reduced release of chemicals.Accumulation of contaminants in sediments 1 SMALL. Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern or biota. at a few nuclear power plants but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes with those of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Entrainment of phytoplankton and 1 SMALL. Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton zooplankton. has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Cold shock................................. 1 SMALL. Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with once-through cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations or been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds, and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish.... 1 SMALL. Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Distribution of aquatic organisms.......... 1 SMALL. Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to effect the larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms.Premature emergence of aquatic insects..... 1 SMALL. Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating nuclear power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease)... 1 SMALL. Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear power plants with once- through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge...... 1 SMALL. Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Losses from predation, parasitism, and 1 SMALL. These types of losses have not been found to be disease among organisms exposed to a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are sublethal stresses. not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Stimulation of nuisance organisms (e.g., 1 SMALL. Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been shipworms). satisfactorily mitigated at the single nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it was a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aquatic Ecology (for plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of entrainment life stages. are small at many plants but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and cooling- pond cooling systems. Further, ongoing efforts in the vicinity of these plants to restore fish populations may increase the numbers of fish susceptible to intake effects during the license renewal period, such that entrainment studies conducted in support of the original license may no longer be valid. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).Impingement of fish and shellfish.......... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of impingement are small at many plants but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and cooling- pond cooling systems. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).Heat shock................................. 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Because of continuing concerns about heat shock and the possible need to modify thermal discharges in response to changing environmental conditions, the impacts may be of moderate or large significance at some plants. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aquatic Ecology (for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early 1 SMALL. Entrainment of fish has not been found to be a life stages. problem at operating nuclear power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Impingement of fish and shellfish.......... 1 SMALL. The impingement has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Heat shock................................. 1 SMALL. Heat shock has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground-water Use and Quality----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Impacts of refurbishment on ground-water 1 SMALL. Extensive dewatering during the original use and quality. construction on some sites will not be repeated during refurbishment on any sites. Any plant wastes produced during refurbishment will be handled in the same manner as in current operating practices and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Ground-water use conflicts (potable and 1 SMALL. Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected service water; plants that use <100 to cause any ground-water use conflicts. gpm).Ground-water use conflicts (potable and 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Plants that use more than service water, and dewatering; plants that 100 gpm may cause ground-water use conflicts with use >100 gpm). nearby ground-water users. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C).Ground-water use conflicts (plants using 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Water use conflicts may cooling towers withdrawing make-up water result from surface water withdrawals from small from a small river). water bodies during low flow conditions which may affect aquifer recharge, especially if other ground- water or upstream surface water users come on line before the time of license renewal. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).Ground-water use conflicts (Ranney wells).. 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Ranney wells can result in potential ground-water depression beyond the site boundary. Impacts of large ground-water withdrawal for cooling tower makeup at nuclear power plants using Ranney wells must be evaluated at the time of application for license renewal. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C).Ground-water quality degradation (Ranney 1 SMALL. Ground-water quality at river sites may be wells). degraded by induced infiltration of poor-quality river water into an aquifer that supplies large quantities of reactor cooling water. However, the lower quality infiltrating water would not preclude the current uses of ground water and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Ground-water quality degradation (saltwater 1 SMALL. Nuclear power plants do not contribute intrusion). significantly to saltwater intrusion.Ground-water quality degradation (cooling 1 SMALL. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds may ponds in salt marshes). degrade ground-water quality. Because water in salt marshes is brackish, this is not a concern for plants located in salt marshes.Ground-water quality degradation (cooling 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Sites with closed-cycle ponds at inland sites). cooling ponds may degrade ground-water quality. For plants located inland, the quality of the ground water in the vicinity of the ponds must be shown to be adequate to allow continuation of current uses. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D).---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Terrestrial Resources----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Refurbishment impacts...................... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Refurbishment impacts are insignificant if no loss of important plant and animal habitat occurs. However, it cannot be known whether important plant and animal communities may be affected until the specific proposal is presented with the license renewal application. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).Cooling tower impacts on crops and 1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or ornamental vegetation. increased humidity associated with cooling tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Cooling tower impacts on native plants..... 1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with cooling tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Bird collisions with cooling towers........ 1 SMALL. These collisions have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial 1 SMALL. Impacts of cooling ponds on terrestrial resources. ecological resources are considered to be of small significance at all sites.Power line right-of-way management (cutting 1 SMALL. The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on and herbicide application). wildlife are expected to be of small significance at all sites.Bird collision with power lines............ 1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be of small significance at all sites.Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora 1 SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, fields on terrestrial flora and fauna have been honeybees, wildlife, livestock). identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.Floodplains and wetland on power line right 1 SMALL. Periodic vegetation control is necessary in of way. forested wetlands underneath power lines and can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No significant impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Threatened or Endangered Species (for all plants)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Threatened or endangered species........... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are not expected to adversely affect threatened or endangered species. However, consultation with appropriate agencies would be needed at the time of license renewal to determine whether threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air Quality----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Air quality during refurbishment (non- 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Air quality impacts from attainment and maintenance areas). plant refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small. However, vehicle exhaust emissions could be cause for concern at locations in or near nonattainment or maintenance areas. The significance of the potential impact cannot be determined without considering the compliance status of each site and the numbers of workers expected to be employed during the outage. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F).Air quality effects of transmission lines.. 1 SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Land Use----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Onsite land use............................ 1 SMALL. Projected onsite land use changes required during refurbishment and the renewal period would be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and would involve land that is controlled by the applicant.Power line right of way.................... 1 SMALL. Ongoing use of power line right of ways would continue with no change in restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of small significance.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Human Health----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Radiation exposures to the public during 1 SMALL. During refurbishment, the gaseous effluents refurbishment. would result in doses that are similar to those from current operation. Applicable regulatory dose limits to the public are not expected to be exceeded.Occupational radiation exposures during 1 SMALL. Occupational doses from refurbishment are refurbishment. expected to be within the range of annual average collective doses experienced for pressurized-water reactors and boiling-water reactors. Occupational mortality risk from all causes including radiation is in the mid-range for industrial settings.Microbiological organisms (occupational 1 SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be health). controlled by continued application of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures.Microbiological organisms (public 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. These organisms are not health)(plants using lakes or canals, or expected to be a problem at most operating plants cooling towers or cooling ponds that except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, discharge to a small river). or canals that discharge to small rivers. Without site-specific data, it is not possible to predict the effects generically. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G).Noise...................................... 1 SMALL. Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not expected to be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term.Electromagnetic fields, acute effects 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Electrical shock resulting (electric shock). from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures have not been found to be a problem at most operating plants and generally are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of the electric shock potential at the site. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H).Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects \5\ \4\ NA UNCERTAIN. Biological and physical studies of 60-Hz electromagnetic fields have not found consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. However, research is continuing in this area and a consensus scientific view has not been reached.\5\Radiation exposures to public (license 1 SMALL. Radiation doses to the public will continue at renewal term). current levels associated with normal operations.Occupational radiation exposures (license 1 SMALL. Projected maximum occupational doses during the renewal term). license renewal term are within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Socioeconomics----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Housing impacts............................ 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Housing impacts are expected to be of small significance at plants located in a medium or high population area and not in an area where growth control measures that limit housing development are in effect. Moderate or large housing impacts of the workforce associated with refurbishment may be associated with plants located in sparsely populated areas or in areas with growth control measures that limit housing development. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).Public services: public safety, social 1 SMALL. Impacts to public safety, social services, and services, and tourism and recreation. tourism and recreation are expected to be of small significance at all sites.Public services: public utilities.......... 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. An increased problem with water shortages at some sites may lead to impacts of moderate significance on public water supply availability. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).Public services, education (refurbishment). 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Most sites would experience impacts of small significance but larger impacts are possible depending on site- and project-specific factors. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).Public services, education (license renewal 1 SMALL. Only impacts of small significance are term). expected.Offsite land use (refurbishment)........... 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. Impacts may be of moderate significance at plants in low population areas. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).Offsite land use (license renewal term).... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Significant changes in land use may be associated with population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).Public services, Transportation............ 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Transportation impacts (level of service) of highway traffic generated during plant refurbishment and during the term of the renewed license are generally expected to be of small significance. However, the increase in traffic associated with additional workers and the local road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large significance at some sites. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J).Historic and archaeological resources...... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are expected to have no more than small adverse impacts on historic and archaeological resources. However, the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Federal agency to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine whether there are properties present that require protection. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K).Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment).......... 1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during refurbishment.Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term)... 1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines 1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during the (license renewal term). license renewal term.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postulated Accidents----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Design basis accidents..................... 1 SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of design basis accidents are of small significance for all plants.Severe accidents........................... 2 SMALL. The probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L).---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Offsite radiological impacts (individual 1 SMALL. Off-site impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have effects from other than the disposal of been considered by the Commission in Table S-3 of spent fuel and high level waste). this part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases including radon-222 and technetium-99 are small.Offsite radiological impacts (collective 1 The 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. effects). population from the fuel cycle, high level waste and spent fuel disposal excepted, is calculated to be about 14,800 person rem, or 12 cancer fatalities, for each additional 20-year power reactor operating term. Much of this, especially the contribution of radon releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses summed over large populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be extended to include many tiny doses over additional thousands of years as well as doses outside the U. S. The result of such a calculation would be thousands of cancer fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny doses have some statistical adverse health effect which will not ever be mitigated (for example no cancer cure in the next thousand years), and that these doses projected over thousands of years are meaningful. However, these assumptions are questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility that there will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For perspective, the doses are very small fractions of regulatory limits, and even smaller fractions of natural background exposure to the same populations. Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective effects of the fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel 1 For the high level waste and spent fuel disposal and high level waste disposal). component of the fuel cycle, there are no current regulatory limits for offsite releases of radionuclides for the current candidate repository site. However, if we assume that limits are developed along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, ``Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,'' and that in accordance with the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository can and likely will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits, peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem per year or less. However, while the Commission has reasonable confidence that these assumptions will prove correct, there is considerable uncertainty since the limits are yet to be developed, no repository application has been completed or reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models used to evaluate possible pathways to the human environment. The NAS report indicated that 100 millirem per year should be considered as a starting point for limits for individual doses, but notes that some measure of consensus exists among national and international bodies that the limits should be a fraction of the 100 millirem per year. The lifetime individual risk from 100 millirem annual dose limit is about 3 x 10-3. Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously compromise the integrity of a deep geologic repository were evaluated by the Department of Energy in the ``Final Environmental Impact Statement: Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste,'' October 1980. The evaluation estimated the 70-year whole-body dose commitment to the maximum individual and to the regional population resulting from several modes of breaching a reference repository in the year of closure, after 1,000 years, after 100,000 years, and after 100,000,000 years. Subsequently, the NRC and other federal agencies have expended considerable effort to develop models for the design and for the licensing of a high level waste repository, especially for the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain. More meaningful estimates of doses to population may be possible in the future as more is understood about the performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Such estimates would involve very great uncertainty, especially with respect to cumulative population doses over thousands of years. The standard proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The relationship of potential new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS report, and cumulative population impacts has not been determined, although the report articulates the view that protection of individuals will adequately protect the population for a repository at Yucca Mountain. However, EPA's generic repository standards in 40 CFR part 191 generally provide an indication of the order of magnitude of cumulative risk to population that could result from the licensing of a Yucca Mountain repository, assuming the ultimate standards will be within the range of standards now under consideration. The standards in 40 CFR part 191 protect the population by imposing ``containment requirements'' that limit the cumulative amount of radioactive material released over 10,000 years. Reporting performance standards that will be required by EPA are expected to result in releases and associated health consequences in the range between 10 and 100 premature cancer deaths with an upper limit of 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide for a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository. Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue is considered Category 1.Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel 1 SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle. cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating license for any plant are found to be small.Low-level waste storage and disposal....... 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the environment will remain small during the term of a renewed license. The maximum additional on-site land that may be required for low-level waste storage during the term of a renewed license and associated impacts will be small. Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of low-level waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient low-level waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.Mixed waste storage and disposal........... 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants. License renewal will not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.On-site spent fuel......................... 1 SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated on site with small environmental effects through dry or pool storage at all plants if a permanent repository or monitored retrievable storage is not available.Nonradiological waste...................... 1 SMALL. No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Facilities and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at all plants.Transportation............................. 1 SMALL. The impacts of transporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235 with average burnup for the peak rod to current levels approved by NRC up to 62,000 MWd/MTU and the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste to a single repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada are found to be consistent with the impact values contained in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Summary Table S-4_Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor. If fuel enrichment or burnup conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an assessment of the implications for the environmental impact values reported in § 51.52.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decommissioning----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Radiation doses............................ 1 SMALL. Doses to the public will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless of which decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses would increase no more than 1 man-rem caused by buildup of long-lived radionuclides during the license renewal term.Waste management........................... 1 SMALL. Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate no more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in the quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected.Air quality................................ 1 SMALL. Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at the end of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term.Water quality.............................. 1 SMALL. The potential for significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no greater whether decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license renewal period or after the original 40-year operation period, and measures are readily available to avoid such impacts.Ecological resources....................... 1 SMALL. Decommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year license renewal period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts.Socioeconomic impacts...................... 1 SMALL. Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The impacts would not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a 20-year relicense period, but they might be decreased by population and economic growth.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Environmental Justice----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Environmental justice \6\.................. \4\ NA NONE. The need for and the content of an analysis of environmental justice will be addressed in plant- specific reviews.\6\----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\ Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (May 1996) and NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report Section 6.3_`Transportation,' Table 9.1 `Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,' Final Report'' (August 1999).\2\ The numerical entries in this column are based on the following category definitions:Category 1: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown:(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristic;(2) A single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for collective off site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high level waste and spent fuel disposal); and(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.The generic analysis of the issue may be adopted in each plant-specific review.Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown that one or more of the criteria of Category 1 cannot be met, and therefore additional plant-specific review is required.\3\ The impact findings in this column are based on the definitions of three significance levels. Unless the significance level is identified as beneficial, the impact is adverse, or in the case of ``small,'' may be negligible. The definitions of significance follow:SMALL_For the issue, 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.MODERATE_For the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.LARGE_For the issue, 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 was a factor in determining significance.\4\ NA (not applicable). The categorization and impact finding definitions do not apply to these issues.\5\ If, in the future, the Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields, the Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part of their license renewal applications. Until such time, applicants for license renewal are not required to submit information on this issue.\6\ Environmental Justice was not addressed in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' because guidance for implementing Executive Order 12898 issued on February 11, 1994, was not available prior to completion of NUREG-1437. This issue will be addressed in individual license renewal reviews.
