Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants—Final Report (NUREG-1437, Revision 1)
On this page:
Download complete document
- NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Revision 1 – Main Report (PDF - 9.94 MB)
- NUREG-1437, Volume 2, Revision 1 – Public Comments (PDF - 2.10 MB)
- NUREG-1437, Volume 3, Revision 1 – Appendices (PDF - 30.29 MB)
Manuscript Completed: May 2013
Date Published: June 2013
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations allow for the renewal of commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses. To support the license renewal environmental review process, the NRC published the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) in 1996. The proposed action considered in the GEIS is the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses.
Since publication of the GEIS, approximately 40 plant sites (70 reactor units) have applied for license renewal and undergone environmental reviews, the results of which were published as supplements to the 1996 GEIS. This GEIS revision reviews and reevaluates the issues and findings of the 1996 GEIS. Lessons learned and knowledge gained during previous license renewal reviews provide a significant source of new information for this assessment. In addition, new research, findings, public comments, and other information were considered in evaluating the significance of impacts associated with license renewal.
The intent of the GEIS is to determine which issues would result in the same impact at all nuclear power plants and which issues could result in different levels of impact at different plants and thus require a plant-specific analysis for impact determinations. The GEIS revision identifies 78 environmental impact issues for consideration in license renewal environmental reviews, 59 of which have been determined to be generic to all plant sites. The GEIS also evaluates a full range of alternatives to the proposed action. For most impact areas, the proposed action would have impacts that would be similar to or less than impacts of the alternatives, in large part because most alternatives would require new power plant construction, whereas the proposed action would not.