Forum for Nuclear Cooperation in Asia

Environmental Impact
Assessment for Nuclear-Related
Activities
Stephen G. Burns
Commissioner
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office: +1 301-415-8430
Stephen.Burns@nrc.gov

The NRC
Mission:To license and regulate the Nation's civilian
use of radioactive materials to provide
reasonable assurance of adequate
protection of public health and safety, and topromote the common defense and security,and to protect the environment.

• Established by Congress under the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974.
• The Act divided the former Atomic Energy Commission’sresponsibilities between the NRC and what is now theDepartment of Energy.
• Need for separation between the regulation of nuclear
energy and the promotion of nuclear energy.
• Adequate protection does not equal “zero risk”.
2The NRC at a GlanceRadioactive materials
for medical, industrial
and academic use

Commercial
power reactors, researchand test reactors andnew reactor designs

NuclearMaterials

Radioactive
Waste

Nuclear
Reactors

Nuclear
Security

Transportation, storage
and disposal ofnuclear material andwaste, anddecommissioning ofnuclear facilities

Physical security,source security andcyber security
3

Carrying out aRegulatory Program(1) Develop regulations andguidance for applicants andlicensees(2) License or certify applicants
to use nuclear materials or
operate nuclear facilities ordecommissioning that
permits license termination,(3) Oversee licensee operations
and facilities to ensure thatlicensees comply with safety
requirements,(4) Evaluate operational
experience at licensed
facilities or involving
licensed activities, and(5) Conduct research, holdhearings to address theconcerns of parties affectedby agency decisions, andobtain independent reviews
to support regulatory
decisions.

Source: U.S. NRC – How We Regulate
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory.html

4National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA)• Passed by the U.S. Congress in 1969 and signed into law inJanuary 1970.
• Established a national environmental policy for the federal
government.
• Requires that every recommendation or report on proposals forlegislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment include a detailed statement
assessing the environmental impacts.
• Established a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to oversee
NEPA implementation.
 The AEC initially resisted application of NEPA to its activities.
 The court in Calvert Cliffs’ Coordination Committee v. AEC compelled
the AEC to consider environmental issues just as they consideredother matters within their statutory authority.
 The court also set expectations for federal agencies’ compliance with
NEPA’s procedural requirements.
5

National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA)•NEPA requires all Federal agencies to evaluate the impacts ofproposed major actions on the human environment.

•NEPA is a procedural statute that merely requires that the decision togo forward with a Federal project that significantly affects theenvironment be an environmentally conscious one.

•NEPA does not require the agency to favor an environmentally
preferable course of action, nor does it prohibit the agency from taking
action that may adversely affect the environment.

•NEPA also does not dictate which alternatives to the proposed action
the agency must consider.

•NEPA provides for public participation in the process.

•The NRC framework for implementing NEPA is set forth in 10 CFRPart 51; Regulatory Guides 1.206, 4.2, 4.7; NUREG-1555,“Environmental Standard Review Plan”; and Interim Staff Guidance(ISG)-26 and 27.

•Some U.S. state governments have similar laws that require
environmental review of proposed actions.
6National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
There are three potential courses of action under NEPA depending on projectcomplexity and the significance of the reasonably foreseeable impacts•

Categorical Exclusion – applicable where a Federal agency makes a determination basedon the consistency of prior reviews that a category or specific type of action will not have asignificant environmental impact. These categories are set forth in the NRC’s regulations.
Examples of these types of actions are:
 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements;
 Licensing actions for which the impact has been generically documented.

•Environmental Assessment (EA) – a concise document providing sufficient evidence andanalysis to aid the Federal agency in determining whether an EIS is necessary. Examplesof the types of evaluations for which an EA is sufficient are:
 No impacts expected to certain environmental resources because no new construction;
 Minor amounts of ground water are needed for the proposed change.

•Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – is intended to detail the environmental andeconomic effects of any proposed federal action so that the public may meaningfully
participate and to ensure that the decision maker gives serious weight to environmental
factors in deciding the course of action. An EIS is required for major proposed actions which
could significantly affect the environment.
7

National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)

8

National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)• The NRC’s regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 51.20(a) require that anEnvironmental Impact Statement be prepared in two instances:
1) the proposed action is a major Federal action significantly affecting thequality of the human environment; and2) the proposed action involves a matter which the Commission, in theexercise of its discretion, has determined should be covered by an EIS.

• The NRC’s regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 51.20(b) identify those
proposed actions requiring an EIS. Examples of those actions are:
 Limited Work Authorization, Early Site Permit, or Construction Permit;
 Issuance or renewal of an Operating License or Combined Operating
License for a nuclear power reactor;
 License for using special nuclear material in a processing or fuelfabrication facility; Licenses for uranium milling or production of uranium hexafluoride; License for a uranium enrichment facility; Licenses related to nuclear waste facilities.
9

NRC’s NEPA Process

Overview of Environmental
Review Process for an EIS
Notice of Intent to Conduct
Scoping and Prepare EIS
Scoping Process

Develop Draft EIS
Public Comments onDraft EIS• Applicant’s environmental report servesas a starting point for the staff’s review.
• Public meetings are held during scoping
and the comment period on the draft EIS.
• NRC review team visits the proposed site
and alternative sites during audits.
• Frequent interactions are held with otheragencies involved in related reviews.
• Draft EIS must be a complete evaluation.

Develop Final EIS• Final EIS is one input to the licensing
process and the Commission’s decision.
10

Environmental Impacts
Considered in the Review
Air Quality

Public &Occupational
HealthScenic and Visual
Noise

Socioeconomics

EcologyTransportation

Waste Management

Historic and CulturalLand Use
Geology and Soils

Water Resources(Surface and Groundwater)

11

Environmental Impacts
considered in the review• In 2009 the Commission directed NRC staff to consider carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental
reviews for major licensing actions. See Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC (William States Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) andTennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units
3 and 4).
• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the NRC
must consider the environmental impact of terrorist attack in its
NEPA review of a proposed interim spent fuel storage installation.
See San Luis Obispo Mother for Peace v. NRC. However, thewhether a terrorist attack is actually required to be consideredwithin the NEPA of an NRC major proposed action continues to be
unsettled as Courts of Appeals in the 2nd and 3rd Circuits have each
ruled that the NRC is not required to considers such impacts. See,e.g., New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection v. NRC.
12

NRC Review Process13Other Applicable Laws
NRC also has obligations under other statutes:• National Historic Preservation Act

 NRC must identify cultural resources and historic properties
 NRC must consider the impacts the proposed action may
have on cultural resources and historic properties.

• Endangered Species Act

 Section 7 of the Act provides for consultation between theNRC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on theproposed action

Applicants/Licensees may need permits under otherstatutes related to environmental protection:••••

Clean Water Act
Clean Air Act
CERCLA (Superfund)State statutes14

Government agencies areencouraged to work together•

For a major proposed action where more than one Federal agency
has a licensing or permitting role, the respective agencies may choose
to combine their environmental reviews and develop a single
Environmental Impact Statement with one agency assuming the roleof lead agency.

•NRC works cooperatively with other Federal agencies on joint
program activity and shares information on practices and procedures
to improve effectiveness and efficiency in Federal services•NRC seeks appropriate consultation at the earliest possible stage
between NRC and States, local governments, other Federal agencies,and Federally recognized Native American tribes.

•Federally recognized Tribes are domestic, dependent sovereign
nations with their own customs, culture, concerns, interests andneeds. Consultations occurring between the Federal government anda Federally recognized Tribe are considered government togovernment meetings.
15

Public Involvement• Public interaction during environmental review
 A comment period on an Environmental Assessment or a draft EIS
 Public meetings may also be held
 Scoping Draft EIS• Environmental issues may be considered inlicensing hearings
 The opportunity for public hearings on NRC licensing actions isestablished under the Atomic Energy Act
 The Commission has included its environmental reviews within thescope of the hearing process.
 An opportunity to participate is usually provided before a threemember Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
 Hearings cover both the safety and environmental reviews
16Transboundary Impacts•

NEPA itself, does not specifically require federal agencies toconsider transboundary impacts.

•However, CEQ recommends that Federal agencies include
an analysis of reasonably foreseeable transboundary effectsof proposed actions in their analysis of proposed actions in
the United States.

•Such impacts are generally identified during the scoping
stage, and are analyzed to the best of the agency's ability
using reasonably available information.

•Absent a “sufficient causal relationship” between theproposed action and an alleged transboundary impact, thefederal agency is not required to consider the transboundary
impact in its final Environmental Impact Statement•

Consideration of such impacts is consistent with theobligation recognized in the Trail Smelter Arbitration (1938)
that a nation avoid undertaking actions on its territory thatwill harm the territory of another state.
17Case study: Considering
Transboundary Impacts•In 2015 the NRC considered the impact that granting DTE Electric Company’s application
for a combined license (COL) application to construct and operate a new nuclear reactor
at the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant site in Monroe County, Michigan would have on thenearby Province of Ontario, Canada and as part of that proceeding the NRC staff
communicated with and sought input from their Canadian counterparts.

•The proposed site is located in Monroe County, Michigan, approximately 48 km southwest ofDetroit, Michigan, and about 11 km from the United States-Canada border. The site is also
within an international wildlife refuge.

•Data from public sources within a 50-mi (about 80 km) radius of Fermi 3 was included on
possible impacts on Canadian resources and the First Nations population in Canada.

•The following Canadian governmental entities were invited to provide input during the scoping
process for the draft EIS to ensure consideration of environmental and safety implications:The City of Windsor and other municipalities bordering the Detroit River and Lake Erie
The County of Essex
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Environment Canada•

The NRC staff communicated with the Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources which jointly manages the wildlife refuge with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service•

Comments on the final environmental impact statement were also received from the Walpole
Island First Nation.

•Transboundary impact of emergency preparedness were thoroughly explored during theCommission hearing and as part of the bilateral agreement on emergency response with theCanadian regulator
18

Thank you!

19

Bibliography
Statutes and Case Law•

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4437 – https://ceq.doe.gov/•Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) – https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/•

Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions,” (44 Fed. Reg.
1957; Jan. 4, 1979)•

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 52 U.S.C. § 306180 et seq. – https://www.achp.gov/•

Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 15314 et seq.

•

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.

•

Calvert Cliffs’ Coordination Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir.
1971)

•San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006 )•New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection v. NRC, 561 F.3d 132 (3rd Cir. 2009)•

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (William States Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2) andTennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4), CLI-09-21, 70 NRC927 (2009).

•Sierra Club v. Clinton, 746 F.Supp.2d 1025, 1043-46 (D. Minn. 2010)•DTE Electric Company (Fermi Nuclear Power Plan Unit 3), CLI-15-13, 81 NRC 555 (2015)20

Bibliography (cont.)
NRC Resources•

NRC Regulatory Guides:– Draft RG 4.2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations(being revised)– RG 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations– RG 4.11, Terrestrial Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations– RG 4.24, Aquatic Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations•

NRC’s Environmental Standard Review Plan, NUREG 1555 (being revised)•NRC Interim Staff Guidance (ISG):– ISG-26, Environmental Issues Associated with New Reactors– ISG-27, Specific Environmental Guidance for Light Water Small ModularReactor•Tribal Protocol Manual, NUREG-2173, Rev. 121