SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

The NRC is considering issuance of exemptions from the requirements in paragraphs 50.82(a)(8)(i), 50.82(a)(8)(ii), and 50.75(h)(1)(iv) of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) to the licensee for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, NPF-66, NPF-11, and NPF-18 for Braidwood, Byron, and LaSalle, respectively. By letter dated November 7, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25311A143), and pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” the licensee requested exemptions to allow the licensee to transfer certain earnings from the Braidwood, Byron, and LaSalle NDTs to subaccounts within the NDTs that could then be used for activities related to the larger decommissioning process (not just to radiological decommissioning activities) and during operations, including spent fuel management activities associated with the onsite independent spent fuel storage installations under the general licenses in 10 CFR part 72.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21 and 10 CFR 51.30, the NRC prepared the following EA that analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed action. Based on the results of this EA, which is provided in section II of this document, and in accordance with 10 CFR 51.31(a), the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action and is issuing a FONSI.

II. Environmental Assessment

Description of the Proposed Action

Exemptions from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i) and 10 CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv) would allow the licensee to use funds from the NDT subaccounts for activities that are not exclusively consistent with the NRC's definition of decommissioning in 10 CFR 50.2, such as spent fuel management and site restoration. Exemptions from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(ii) would allow the licensee to use these funds for these activities prior to the facilities' permanent cessations of operations. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated November 7, 2025. The NRC determination of whether to approve the proposed action will be documented separately from this assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed action.

Need for the Proposed Action

As required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i), NDTs may be used by licensees if, in part, the withdrawals are for expenses for legitimate decommissioning activities consistent with the definition of decommissioning in 10 CFR 50.2. These activities are referred to as “radiological decommissioning” activities and have to do with removing a facility or site safely from service and reducing residual radioactivity and do not include other parts of the larger decommissioning process, such as spent fuel management and site restoration. Similarly, the regulation at 10 CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv) restricts NDT disbursements (other than for payment of ordinary administrative costs and other incidental expenses of the trust in connection with the operation of the trust) to radiological decommissioning expenses until final radiological decommissioning has been completed. The provisions of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(ii) generally restrict the use of NDTs until after the permanent cessation of operations. Therefore, partial exemptions from these regulations would be needed to allow the licensee to transfer certain earnings from the Braidwood, Byron, and LaSalle NDTs to subaccounts within the NDTs that could then be used for activities related to the larger decommissioning process (not just to radiological decommissioning activities) and during operations.

In its exemption request, the licensee stated that the ability to use excess NDT earnings for activities related to the larger decommissioning process and during operations would help reduce overall decommissioning costs and would minimize long-term risks and uncertainties. Thus, the exemptions ( printed page 21329) would not impact the principal required to provide reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available for the radiological decommissioning of the facilities while also enabling overall more efficient, timely, and cost-effective site decommissioning and restoration.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

The proposed action involves exemptions from regulatory requirements that are of a financial nature and that do not have an impact on the environment. The proposed action does not introduce new operational activities at Braidwood, Byron, or LaSalle beyond actions covered under the current licensing bases and the current environmental impact statements. The proposed action would only allow the licensee to transfer certain earnings from the NDTs into subaccounts within the NDTs that could then be used for activities related to the larger decommissioning process and during operations, while maintaining the required principal for radiological decommissioning activities. Therefore, there would be no decrease in safety or environmental protection as a result of the proposed action, and the adequacy of radiological decommissioning funding would not be affected. Section 50.75 of 10 CFR requires a licensee to certify that radiological decommissioning financial assurance has been provided in the required amount, to adjust that amount annually, and to cover that amount. Since the proposed action would allow the licensee to use funds from the Braidwood, Byron, and LaSalle NDTs that are in excess of those required for radiological decommissioning and for activities that are part of the larger decommissioning process, the adequacy of the funds dedicated to the decommissioning process would not be affected by the proposed action.

Due to the proposed action being financial in nature, it would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of radiological accidents and would have no direct radiological impacts. The proposed action would not authorize any changes to plant operations or physical structures, systems, or components, and would not affect the types or amounts of radiological effluents that may be released from the site. Therefore, there would be no change in occupational or public radiation exposure as a result of the proposed action. No new materials or chemicals would be introduced, and the operation of waste processing systems would remain unchanged. The design and function of all structures, systems, and components that limit or monitor effluent releases would not be altered and would continue to meet applicable requirements. As such, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential non-radiological environmental impacts, the proposed action would have no direct impacts on land use or water resources, including terrestrial and aquatic biota, as it involves no new construction or modification of plant operational systems. There would be no changes to the quality or quantity of non-radiological effluents. In addition, there would be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region, no air quality impacts, and no impacts to historic and cultural resources from the proposed action. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action ( i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the proposed action would result in the licensee either (1) postponing non-radiological decommissioning activities until the completion of radiological decommissioning activities, or (2) using other funding sources for non-radiological decommissioning activities prior to the completion of radiological decommissioning activities. In either case, there would be no change in the environmental impacts as compared to the proposed action, since the proposed action does not authorize any physical changes or new site activities. Therefore, the no-action alternative would have similar environmental impacts to those of the proposed action.

Alternative Use of Resources

There are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources under the proposed action.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

No additional agencies or persons were consulted regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

The exemptions from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i), 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(ii), and 10 CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv) would allow the licensee to transfer certain earnings from the Braidwood, Byron, and LaSalle NDTs to subaccounts within the NDTs that could then be used for activities related to the larger decommissioning process and during operations. The proposed action would not significantly affect plant safety, would not have a significant adverse effect on the probability of an accident occurring, and would not have any significant radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts. The proposed action involves exemptions from requirements that are of a financial nature and that would not have an impact on the human environment. Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC conducted an EA for the proposed action, and this FONSI incorporates by reference the EA included in section II of this document. Therefore, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have significant effects on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

Other than the licensee's letter dated November 7, 2025, there are no other environmental documents associated with this review.

Previous considerations regarding the environmental impacts of operating Braidwood, Byron, and LaSalle are described in: (1) NUREG-1437, Supplement 55, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Report,” dated November 2015 (ML15314A814); (2) NUREG-1026, “Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2,” dated June 1984 (ML14090A132); (3) NUREG-1437, Supplement 54, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Report,” dated July 2015 (ML15196A263); (4) NUREG-0848, “Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2,” dated April 1982 (ML13269A184); (5) NUREG-1437, Supplement 57, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Report,” dated August 2016 (ML16238A029); and (6) NUREG-0486, “Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,” dated November 1978 (ML14353A388).

Authority:42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.

91 FR 21328