51.23—Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operation—generic determination of no significant environmental impact.

(a) The Commission has made a generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations. Further, the Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-first century, and sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-level waste and spent fuel originating in such reactor and generated up to that time.

(b) Accordingly, as provided in §§ 51.30(b), 51.53, 51.61, 51.80(b), 51.95, and 51.97(a), and within the scope of the generic determination in paragraph (a) of this section, no discussion of any environmental impact of spent fuel storage in reactor facility storage pools or independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI) for the period following the term of the reactor operating license or amendment, reactor combined license or amendment, or initial ISFSI license or amendment for which application is made, is required in any environmental report, environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or other analysis prepared in connection with the issuance or amendment of an operating license for a nuclear power reactor under parts 50 and 54 of this chapter, or issuance or amendment of a combined license for a nuclear power reactor under parts 52 and 54 of this chapter, or the issuance of an initial license for storage of spent fuel at an ISFSI, or any amendment thereto.

(c) This section does not alter any requirements to consider the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage during the term of a reactor operating license or combined license, or a license for an ISFSI in a licensing proceeding.

Code of Federal Regulations

[49 FR 34694, Aug. 31, 1984, as amended at 55 FR 38474, Sept. 18, 1990; 72 FR 49509, Aug. 28, 2007]

Code of Federal Regulations

§ 51.23 , Nt.

Code of Federal Regulations

Effective Date Note: At 75 FR 81037, December 23, 2010, § 51.23 was amended by revising paragraph (a), effective Jan. 24, 2011. For the convenience of the user, the revised text is set forth as follows: § 51.23 Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operation—generic determination of no significant environmental impact. (a) The Commission has made a generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 60 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor in a combination of storage in its spent fuel storage basin and at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations. Further, the Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mined geologic repository capacity will be available to dispose of the commercial high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel generated in any reactor when necessary.

Code of Federal Regulations 17

determinations to prepare environmental impact statements, environmental assessments or findings of no significant impact, and related procedures scoping environmental assessment finding of no significant impact Environmental Reports and Information—Requirements Applicable to Applicants and Petitioners for Rulemaking general environmental reports—general requirements environmental reports—production and utilization facilities environmental reports—materials licenses environmental reports—rulemaking Environmental Impact Statements draft environmental impact statements—general requirements draft environmental impact statements—production and utilization facilities draft environmental impact statements—materials licenses draft environmental impact statements—rulemaking legislative environmental impact statements—proposals for legislation final environmental impact statements—general requirements final environmental impact statements—production and utilization facilities final environmental impact statements—materials licenses final environmental impact statements—rulemaking NEPA Procedure and Administrative Action general production and utilization facilities materials licenses rulemaking Public Notice of and Access to Environmental Documents Commenting Responsible Official Pt. 51, Subpt. A, App. A Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51 —Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental Impact Statements 1. General

Code of Federal Regulations 58

2. Cover sheet 3. Summary 4. Purpose of and need for action 5. Alternatives including the proposed action 6. Affected environment 7. Environmental consequences and mitigating actions 8. List of preparers 9. Appendices 1. General. (a) The Commission will use a format for environmental impact statements which will encourage good analysis and clear presentation of the alternatives including the proposed action. The following standard format for environmental impact statements should be followed unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise: (1) Cover sheet* (2) Summary* (3) Table of Contents (4) Purpose of and Need for Action* (5) Alternatives including the proposed action* (6) Affected Environment* (7) Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions* (8) List of Preparers* (9) List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the Statement are Sent (10) Substantive Comments Received and NRC Staff Responses (11) Index (12) Appendices (if any)* If a different format is used, it shall include paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (8), (9), (10), and (11) of this section and shall include the substance of paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), and (12) of this section, in any appropriate format. Additional guidance on the presentation of material under the format headings identified by an asterisk is set out in sections 2.-9. of this appendix. (b) The techniques of tiering and incorporation by reference described respectively in 40 CFR 1502.20 and 1508.28and 40 CFR 1502.21 1 of CEQ's NEPA regulations may be used as appropriate to aid in the presentation of issues, eliminate repetition or reduce the size of an environmental impact statement. In appropriate circumstances, draft or final environmental impact statements prepared by other Federal agencies may be adopted in whole or in part in accordance with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 1506.3 2 of CEQ's NEPA regulations. In final environmental impact statements, material under the following format headings will normally be presented in less than 150 pages: Purpose of and Need for Action, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, Affected Environment, and Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions. For proposals of unusual scope or complexity, the material presented under these format headings may extend to 300 pages.

Footnote(s): 1 Tiering— 40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28; Incorporation by reference—40 CFR 1502.21 .

Footnote(s): 2 Adoption—40 CFR 1506.3 .

2. Cover sheet. The cover sheet will not exceed one page. It will include: (a) The name of the NRC office responsible for preparing the statement and a list of any cooperating agencies. (b) The title of the proposed action that is the subject of the statement with a list of the states, counties or municipalities where the facility or other subject of the action is located, as appropriate. (c) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual in NRC who can supply further information. (d) A designation of the statement as a draft or final statement, or a draft or final supplement. (e) A one paragraph abstract of the statement. (f) For draft environmental impact statements, the date by which comments must be received. This date may be specified in the form of the following or a substantially similar statement: “Comments should be filed no later than 3 days after the date on which the Environmental Protection Agency notice stating that the draft environmental impact statement has been filed with EPA is published in the Federal Register. Comments received after the expiration of the comment period will be considered if it is practical to do so but assurance of consideration of late comments cannot be given.”

Footnote(s): 3 The number of days in the comment period should be inserted. The minimum comment period is 45 days (see § 51.73 .)

3. Summary. Each environmental impact statement will contain a summary which adequately and accurately summarizes the statement. The summary will stress the major issues considered. The summary will discuss the areas of controversy, will identify any remaining issues to be resolved, and will present the major conclusions and recommendations. The summary will normally not exceed 15 pages. 4. Purpose of and need for action. The statement will briefly describe and specify the need for the proposed action. The alternative of no action will be discussed. In the case of nuclear power plant construction or siting, consideration will be given to the potential impact of conservation measures in determining the demand for power and consequent need for additional generating capacity.

Code of Federal Regulations 59

5. Alternatives including the proposed action. This section is the heart of the environmental impact statement. It will present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form. Where important to the comparative evaluation of alternatives, appropriate mitigating measures of the alternatives will be discussed. All reasonable alternatives will be identified. The range of alternatives discussed will encompass those proposed to be considered by the ultimate decisionmaker. An otherwise reasonable alternative will not be excluded from discussion solely on the ground that it is not within the jurisdiction of the NRC. 4 The discussion of alternatives will take into accounts, without duplicating, the environmental information and analyses included in sections, 4., 6. and 7. of this appendix.

Footnote(s): 4 With respect to limitations on NRC's NEPA authority and responsibility imposed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, see §§ 51.10(c), 51.22(c)(17) and 51.71(d) .

In the draft environmental impact statement, this section will either include a preliminary recommendation on the action to be taken, or identify the alternatives under consideration. In the final environmental impact statement, this section will include a final recommendation on the action to be taken. 6. Affected environment. The environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 7. Environmental consequences and mitigating actions. This section discusses the environmental consequences of alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for sound decisionmaking. The discussion will include any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the alternative be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the alternative should it be implemented. This section will include discussions of: (a) Direct effects and their significance. (b) Indirect effects and their significance. (c) Possible conflicts between the alternative and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned. (d) Means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. 8. List of preparers. The environmental impact statement will list the names and qualifications (expertise, experience, professional disciplines), of the persons who were primarily responsible for preparing the environmental impact statement or significant background papers. Persons responsible for making an independent evaluation of information submitted by the applicant or petitioner for rulemaking or others will be included in the list. Where possible, the persons who are responsible for a particular analysis, including analyses in background papers, will be identified. 9. Appendices. An appendix to an environmental impact statement will: (a) Consist of material prepared in connection with an environmental impact statement (as distinct from material which is not so prepared and which is incorporated by reference (40 CFR 1502.21 )). (b) Normally consist of material which substantiates any analysis fundamental to the impact statement. Discussion of methodology used may be placed in an appendix. (c) Normally be analytic. (d) Be relevant to the decision to be made. (e) Be circulated with the environmental impact statement or be readily available on request. Discussion of Footnotes 1. Tiering. 40 CFR 1502.20 states: “Agencies are encouraged to tier their environmental impact statements to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review (§ 1508.28 ). Whenever a broad environmental impact statement has been prepared (such as a program or policy statement) and a subsequent statement or environmental assessment is then prepared on an action included within the entire program or policy (such as a site specific action) the subsequent statement or environmental assessment need only summarize the issues discussed in the broader statement and incorporate discussions from the broader statement by reference and shall concentrate on the issues specific to the subsequent action. The subsequent document shall state where the earlier document is available. Tiering may also be appropriate for different stages of actions. (Sec. 1508.28 ).”

Code of Federal Regulations 60

40 CFR 1508.28 states: “ ‘Tiering’ refers to the coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements (such as national program or policy statements) with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses (such as regional or basinwide program statements or ultimately site-specific statements) incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of statements or analyses is: “(a) From a program, plan, or policy environmental impact statement to a program, plan, or policy statement or analysis of lesser scope or to a site-specific statement or analysis. “(b) From an environmental impact statement on a specific action at an early stage (such as need and site selection) to a supplement (which is preferred) or a subsequent statement or analysis at a later stage (such as environmental mitigation). Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the lead agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe.” Incorporation by reference. 40 CFR 1502.21 states: “Agencies shall incorporate material into an environmental impact statement by reference when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review of the action. The incorporated material shall be cited in the statement and its content briefly described. No material may be incorporated by reference unless it is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested persons within the time allowed for comment. Material based on proprietary data which is itself not available for review and comment shall not be incorporated by reference.” 2. Adoption. 40 CFR 1506.3 states: “(a) An agency may adopt a Federal draft or final environmental impact statement or portion thereof provided that the statement or portion thereof meets the standards for an adequate statement under these regulations. “(b) If the actions covered by the original environmental impact statement and the proposed action are substantially the same, the agency adopting another agency's statement is not required to recirculate it except as a final statement. Otherwise the adopting agency shall treat the statement as a draft and recirculate it (except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section). “(c) A cooperating agency may adopt without recirculating the environmental impact statement of a lead agency when, after an independent review of the statement, the cooperating agency concludes that its comments and suggestions have been satisfied. “(d) When an agency adopts a statement which is not final within the agency that prepared it, or when the action it assesses is the subject of a referral under part 1504 , or when the statement's adequacy is the subject of a judicial action which is not final, the agency shall so specify.” [49 FR 9381, Mar. 12, 1984, as amended at 61 FR 28490, June 5, 1996; 61 FR 66546, Dec. 18, 1996] Pt. 51, Subpt. A, App. B Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51 —Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant 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 Federal Register indicating the results of the NRC's review and inviting public comments and proposals for other areas that should be updated.

Code of Federal Regulations 61

Table B-1—Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 1

Tips

Issue	Category 2	Findings 3
Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants)
Impacts of refurbishment on surface water quality	1	SMALL. Impacts are expected to be negligible during refurbishment because best management practices are expected to be employed to control soil erosion and spills.
Impacts of refurbishment on surface water use	1	SMALL. Water use during refurbishment will not increase appreciably or will be reduced during plant outage.
Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures	1	SMALL. Altered current patterns 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 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 capacity	1	SMALL. These effects 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.
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 chemical spills	1	SMALL. Effects are readily controlled through NPDES 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-through cooling systems)	1	SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with once-through heat dissipation systems.
Water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using make-up water from a small river with low flow)	2	SMALL OR MODERATE. The issue has been a concern at nuclear power plants with cooling ponds and at plants 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 or biota	1	SMALL. Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern 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 zooplankton	1	SMALL. Entrainment of phytoplankton and 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.
Code of Federal Regulations 62
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 disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses	1	SMALL. These types of losses 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.
Stimulation of nuisance organisms (e.g., shipworms)	1	SMALL. Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been 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 life stages	2	SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of entrainment 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 life stages	1	SMALL. Entrainment of fish 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.
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 use and quality	1	SMALL. Extensive dewatering during the original 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 service water; plants that use <100 gpm)	1	SMALL. Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any ground-water use conflicts.
Ground-water use conflicts (potable and service water, and dewatering; plants that use >100 gpm)	2	SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Plants that use more than 100 gpm may cause ground-water use conflicts with nearby ground-water users. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C) .
Ground-water use conflicts (plants using cooling towers withdrawing make-up water from a small river)	2	SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Water use conflicts may result from surface water withdrawals from small 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) .
Code of Federal Regulations 63
Ground-water quality degradation (Ranney wells)	1	SMALL. Ground-water quality at river sites may be 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 intrusion)	1	SMALL. Nuclear power plants do not contribute significantly to saltwater intrusion.
Ground-water quality degradation (cooling ponds in salt marshes)	1	SMALL. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds may 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 ponds at inland sites)	2	SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Sites with closed-cycle 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 ornamental vegetation	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.
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 resources	1	SMALL. Impacts of cooling ponds on terrestrial ecological resources are considered to be of small significance at all sites.
Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application)	1	SMALL. The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on 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 and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock)	1	SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
Floodplains and wetland on power line right of way	1	SMALL. Periodic vegetation control is necessary in 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