NUREG-1748

Environmental Review

Guidance for Licensing

Actions Associated with

NMSS Programs 

Final Report 

 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Washington, DC 20555-0001
 NUREG-1748

Environmental Review

Guidance for Licensing

Actions Associated with

NMSS Programs

Final Report 

Manuscript Completed: July 2003

Date Published: August 2003

Division of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

iii

ABSTRACT

This guidance document provides general procedures for the environmental review of licensing actions

regulated by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). Although the main focus of

this guidance is the NRC staff’s environmental review process, it also contains related information which

applicants and licensees may find useful. Chapter 1 provides a summary and overview of the guidance. 

This chapter briefly discusses the three ways in which an environmental review is performed: either by

meeting the criteria for a categorical exclusion or by preparing an environmental assessment (EA) or

environmental impact statement (EIS). This chapter also discusses early planning for an EA or EIS and

methods of using previous environmental analyses related to the proposed action. Chapter 2 discusses

the categorical exclusions and the basis of their use. Chapter 3 discusses the EA process, including

preparation and content of the EA, and preparation of the Finding of No Significant Impact. Chapter 4

discusses the process of preparing an EIS, from developing a project plan through scoping, consultations

and public meetings, to preparing the Record of Decision. Chapter 5 discusses the technical content of

the EIS, and Chapter 6 discusses environmental information that should be considered by applicants and

licensees in preparing their environmental report.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collections contained in this NUREG are covered by the requirements of 10 CFR Parts

20, 51, and 70, respectively, which were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval

numbers 3150-0014, -0021, and -0009.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for

information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently

valid OMB control number.
iv
v

CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

CITATIONS FOR LAWS AND REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

1 INTRODUCTION TO THIS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.2 The Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1.3 Initiation of the Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

1.3.1 Early Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

1.3.2 Pre-Application Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

1.3.3 Acceptance Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

1.4 Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

1.4.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

1.4.2 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.5 Emergency Circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.6 Utilizing Existing Environmental Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.6.1 Adopting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.6.2 Tiering ....................................................... 1-10

1.6.3 Supplementing ................................................ 1-10

1.6.4 Incorporating by Reference ...................................... 1-11

1.7 Public Meetings ...................................................... 1-11

1.8 Sensitive Information ................................................. 1-11

1.9 References .......................................................... 1-11

2 PREPARATION AND USE OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 Documenting the CATX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.2 General CATX Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2.2.1 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2.2.2 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2.2.3 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.2.4 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.2.5 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.2.6 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.2.7 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2.2.7.1 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.2.7.2 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(ii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.2.7.3 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(iii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.2.7.4 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(iv) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

2.2.7.5 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(v) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

2.2.7.6 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(vi) ................................... 2-10

2.2.7.7 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(vii) .................................. 2-11
vi

2.2.7.8 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(viii) ................................. 2-11

2.2.7.9 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(ix) ................................... 2-12

2.2.7.10 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(x) .................................. 2-12

2.2.7.11 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(xi) .................................. 2-12

2.2.7.12 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(xii) ................................. 2-13

2.2.7.13 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(xiii) ................................. 2-14

2.2.7.14 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(xiv) ................................. 2-15

2.2.7.15 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(xv) .................................. 2-15

2.2.7.16 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(xvi) ................................. 2-16

2.2.8 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(17) .............................. 2-16

2.2.9 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(19) .............................. 2-17

2.2.10 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) .............................. 2-17

2.3 Consultations ........................................................ 2-19

2.4 Public Participation in CATXs .......................................... 2-19

2.5 The Environmental Checklist ........................................... 2-19

2.6 References .......................................................... 2-20

3 PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 Environmental Assessment Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.2 EA Format and Technical Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3.3 EA for Simple Licensing Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3.4 EA for Complex Licensing Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.4.1 Introduction of the Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.4.2 Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.4.3 The Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.4.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.4.5 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.4.6 Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.4.6.1 Adverse Impacts ........................................ 3-11

3.4.6.2 Cumulative Impacts ...................................... 3-12

3.4.6.3 Evaluation of Significance ................................. 3-12

3.4.7 Mitigation Measures ............................................ 3-13

3.4.8 Monitoring ................................................... 3-14

3.4.9 Agencies and Persons Consulted .................................. 3-14

3.4.10 Conclusion ................................................... 3-15

3.4.11 List of Preparers ............................................... 3-15

3.4.12 List of References .............................................. 3-16

3.4.13 Supplemental Information to Environmental Assessment Document ...... 3-16

3.5 Review of a Draft Environmental Assessment Document ..................... 3-16

3.6 Documenting a Finding of No Significant Impact ........................... 3-16

3.7 References .......................................................... 3-17

4 PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Project Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1.1 EIS Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1.2 Project Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

4.1.3 Contractor Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
vii

4.2 EIS Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

4.2.1 Initial EIS Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

4.2.2 Notice of Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4.2.3 Scoping Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4.2.3.1 Scoping Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

4.2.3.2 Scoping Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.2.4 Consultations and Cooperating Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.2.4.1 Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.2.4.2 Cooperating Agencies .................................... 4-11

4.2.4.3 Potentially Interested or Affected Groups ..................... 4-11

4.2.5 Impact Assessment ............................................. 4-11

4.2.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts ................................ 4-12

4.2.5.2 Cumulative Impacts ...................................... 4-12

4.2.5.3 Evaluation of Significance ................................. 4-13

4.2.6 Request for Additional Information ................................ 4-15

4.2.7 Format and Content of EIS ....................................... 4-15

4.3 Internal Review of the Environmental Impact Statement ...................... 4-15

4.4 Publishing the DEIS .................................................. 4-16

4.4.1 Notice of Availability and Distribution of DEIS ...................... 4-16

4.4.2 Filing the DEIS with EPA ....................................... 4-17

4.4.3 DEIS Public Meetings .......................................... 4-17

4.4.4 EPA Review .................................................. 4-18

4.4.5 Responses to Comments on the DEIS .............................. 4-20

4.5 Finalizing the EIS .................................................... 4-21

4.5.1 Publishing the FEIS ............................................ 4-21

4.5.2 Distributing the FEIS ........................................... 4-21

4.5.3 Filing the FEIS with EPA ........................................ 4-21

4.5.4 Abbreviated FEIS .............................................. 4-22

4.5.5 Full Text FEIS ................................................ 4-22

4.6 Record of Decision ................................................... 4-22

4.7 Implementation and Monitoring ......................................... 4-24

4.8 References .......................................................... 4-24

5 PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: FORMAT AND TECHNICAL

CONTENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 Introduction of the EIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.1.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.1.2 The Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.1.3 Scope of This Environmental Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.1.3.1 Issues Studied in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.1.3.2 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.1.4 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Regional Consultations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.1.5 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.2 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.2.1 Process Used to Formulate Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.2.2 Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
viii

5.2.3 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.2.4 Other Reasonable Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.2.6 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.2.7 Preliminary Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.3 Description of the Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.3.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5.3.2 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5.3.3 Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5.3.4 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5.3.5 Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

5.3.6 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

5.3.7 Noise ........................................................ 5-10

5.3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................... 5-10

5.3.9 Visual/Scenic Resources ......................................... 5-12

5.3.10 Socioeconomic ................................................ 5-12

5.3.11 Public and Occupational Health ................................... 5-13

5.3.12 Waste Management ............................................ 5-13

5.4 Environmental Impacts ................................................ 5-13

5.4.1 Land Use Impacts .............................................. 5-14

5.4.2 Transportation Impacts .......................................... 5-14

5.4.3 Geology and Soils Impacts ....................................... 5-15

5.4.4 Water Impacts ................................................. 5-15

5.4.5 Ecological Impacts ............................................. 5-16

5.4.6 Air Quality Impacts ............................................ 5-17

5.4.7 Noise Impacts ................................................. 5-18

5.4.8 Historic and Cultural Impacts ..................................... 5-19

5.4.9 Visual/Scenic Impacts .......................................... 5-21

5.4.10 Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................... 5-21

5.4.11 Environmental Justice ........................................... 5-22

5.4.12 Public and Occupational Health Impacts ............................ 5-22

5.4.12.1 Nonradiological Impacts ................................. 5-22

5.4.12.2 Radiological Impacts .................................... 5-23

5.4.13 Waste Management Impacts ...................................... 5-24

5.5 Mitigation Measures .................................................. 5-25

5.6 Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs ...................... 5-25

5.6.1 Radiological Monitoring ......................................... 5-26

5.6.2 Physiochemical Monitoring ...................................... 5-26

5.6.3 Ecological Monitoring .......................................... 5-28

5.7 Cost-Benefit Analysis ................................................. 5-30

5.8 Summary of Environmental Consequences ................................. 5-31

5.9 List of Preparers ...................................................... 5-33

5.10 Distribution List ...................................................... 5-33

5.11 References Cited ..................................................... 5-33

5.12 Supplemental Information of Environmental Impact Statement Document ........ 5-34

5.13 References .......................................................... 5-34
ix

6 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT: FORMAT AND TECHNICAL CONTENT . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 Introduction of the Environmental Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1.2 The Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

6.1.3 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Required Consultations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

6.2 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

6.2.1 Detailed Description of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

6.2.1.1 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3

6.2.1.2 Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3

6.2.1.3 Reasonable Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

6.2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

6.2.3 Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

6.2.4 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5

6.3 Description of the Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5

6.3.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5

6.3.2 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6

6.3.3 Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7

6.3.4 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7

6.3.5 Ecological Resources ........................................... 6-10

6.3.6 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality ......................... 6-12

6.3.7 Noise ........................................................ 6-14

6.3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................... 6-14

6.3.9 Visual/Scenic Resources ......................................... 6-15

6.3.10 Socioeconomic ................................................ 6-16

6.3.11 Public and Occupational Health ................................... 6-17

6.3.12 Waste Management ............................................ 6-17

6.4 Environmental Impacts ................................................ 6-18

6.4.1 Land Use Impacts .............................................. 6-18

6.4.2 Transportation Impacts .......................................... 6-18

6.4.3 Geology and Soils Impacts ....................................... 6-19

6.4.4 Water Resources Impacts ........................................ 6-19

6.4.5 Ecological Resources Impacts .................................... 6-21

6.4.6 Air Quality Impacts ............................................ 6-21

6.4.7 Noise Impacts ................................................. 6-22

6.4.8 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts ............................ 6-23

6.4.9 Visual/Scenic Resources Impacts .................................. 6-24

6.4.10 Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................... 6-24

6.4.11 Environmental Justice ........................................... 6-25

6.4.12 Public and Occupational Health Impacts ............................ 6-26

6.4.12.1 Nonradiological Impacts .................................. 6-26

6.4.12.2 Radiological Impacts .................................... 6-27

6.4.13 Waste Management Impacts ...................................... 6-29

6.5 Mitigation Measures .................................................. 6-29

6.6 Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs ...................... 6-29

6.6.1 Radiological Monitoring ......................................... 6-30

6.6.2 Physiochemical Monitoring ...................................... 6-30
x

6.6.3 Ecological Monitoring .......................................... 6-31

6.7 Cost Benefit Analysis ................................................. 6-32

6.8 Summary of Environmental Consequences ................................. 6-33

6.9 List of References .................................................... 6-33

6.10 List of Preparers ...................................................... 6-33

6.11 References .......................................................... 6-33

Appendices

APPENDIX A: APPLICATION OF THE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON

THE LICENSE TERMINATION RULE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS FOR UNRESTRICTED

RELEASE DECOMMISSIONING SITES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

APPENDIX B: CATX CHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

APPENDIX C: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

APPENDIX D: CONSULTATION PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

APPENDIX E: EXAMPLE LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

APPENDIX F: GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

APPENDIX G: COMMENTS ON DRAFT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

Figures

1 Flow chart showing the National Environmental Policy Act screening process . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

2 Major steps in the EA process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3 Identifying and analyzing impacts in NEPA documents ............................. 3-10

4 Major steps in the EIS process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

Tables

1 Sample format for Federal, State, and local authorizations and consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

2 Important species and habitats ................................................. 5-10

3 Example of environmental impacts ............................................. 5-33
xi

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

ALARA As Low As is Reasonably Achievable

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CATX Categorical Exclusion

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DWM Division of Waste Management (NRC)

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPAB Environmental and Performance Assessment Branch

ER Environmental Report

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FR Federal Register

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

OGC Office of General Counsel

OFA Office of Federal Activities

OSTP Office of State and Tribal Programs 

PM Project Manager

RAI Request for Additional Information

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROD Record of Decision

SER Safety Evaluation Report

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

TAR Technical Assistance Request 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

WWW World Wide Web
xii

CITATIONS FOR LAWS AND REGULATIONS

This document uses accepted abbreviations for referencing the United States Code, the Code of Federal

Regulations, and the Federal Register.

United States Code (USC)

The format for United States Code is xx USC yyyy, where xx represents the title and yyyy represents the

section. For example, the Atomic Energy Act can be found at 42 USC 2011, et seq. The Latin phrase, et

seq. (et sequentes) literally means "and the following." Et seq. can be interpreted to mean "and the

subsequent sections." The United States Code is available on the WWW at

<http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/cong013.html>. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

The format for the Code of Federal Regulation is xx CFR yyy, where xx represents the title and yyy

represents the part. For example, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations on environmental

protection can be found at 10 CFR 51. The Code of Federal Regulations is available on the WWW at

<http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html>. 

Federal Register (FR)

The format for the Federal Register is xx FR yyyy, where xx is the volume number and yyyy is the page

number. For example, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s final rule for license termination

criteria is found at 62 FR 39058. The Federal Register is available on the WWW at

<http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html>. 
1

While the NRC maintains its view that, as a matter of law, independent regulatory agencies can be bound

by the CEQ NEPA regulations only insofar as those regulations are procedural or ministerial in nature, the

regulations nonetheless provide useful guidance. See 49 FR 9352.

1-1

1 INTRODUCTION TO THIS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

1.1 Introduction

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal

agencies, as part of their decision-making process, to consider the environmental impacts of actions

under their jurisdiction. Both the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) have promulgated regulations to implement NEPA requirements. CEQ

regulations are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1500 to 1508, and NRC

requirements are provided in 10 CFR 51.1

To ensure consistent treatment of environmental requirements throughout the NRC Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), the Environmental and Performance Assessment Branch

(EPAB) has produced this document to provide general procedures for determining the level of

environmental review and documentation required for NMSS actions. Because of broad NMSS

organizational responsibilities (e.g., rulemaking, licensing of new facilities, amendments to existing

licenses, and decommissioning), this document is written in general terms to accommodate the

different situations and types of facilities regulated by NMSS. Divisions within NMSS and their

Regional counterparts may have, or choose to develop, supplemental environmental review guidance that

is specific to facilities they regulate. Any such guidance should be consistent with this document and

provided to EPAB for review and comment. This document is intended to provide an overview of the

environmental review process with major emphasis on preparing NEPA documents. Chapter 2 discusses

categorical exclusions (CATXs), Chapter 3 discusses the environmental assessment (EA) process,

Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the environmental impact statement (EIS) process and technical content,

respectively, and Chapter 6 discusses environmental information that should be considered by applicants

and licensees in an environmental report (ER).

This document is primarily intended to serve as guidance to NMSS staff to meet the requirements

established by legislation and regulations. Although this guidance is not a substitute for legislation and

regulations and compliance with this document is not required, the NMSS staff is directed to use this

guidance when reviewing licensing actions. In a similar manner, applicants and licensees are

encouraged, but not required, to use Chapter 6 when preparing environmental reports for submission to

the NRC. Methods different from those set out in this document will be acceptable if they provide a

basis for concluding that the NRC’s regulations have been met.

This document supersedes previous environmental review guidance, including:

 NMSS Policy and Procedures Letter 1-48, Revision 1, "Procedure for Preparing Environmental

Assessments," May 31, 1995.

 NMSS Policy and Procedures Letter 1-50, Revision 2, " Environmental Justice in NEPA

Documents," September 7, 1999.
2

In this document the term "licensing PM" is used to refer to the staff responsible for preparing the EA. 

Different organizations within NMSS or the Regions may utilize staff with different titles to assume responsibility

for completion of the EA.

1-2

 Memorandum from Richard E. Cunningham, "Policy and Guidance Directive 84-20; Impact of

Revision of 10 CFR Part 51 on Material Licensing Actions," December 5, 1984.

 Memorandum from Richard E. Cunningham, "Supplement to Policy and Guidance Directive 84-

20: Impact of Revision of 10 CFR Part 51 on Material Licensing Actions," February 19, 1992.

 Memorandum from Carl J. Paperiello, "Revision 1, Supplement to Policy and Guidance

Directive 84-20 ‘Impact of Revision of 10 CFR Part 51 on Material Licensing Actions’," March

9, 1994.

 Memorandum from John T. Greeves, "Guidance on Preparation of Environmental Assessments

for Licensing Actions by Regional Offices," May 7, 2001.

1.2 The Environmental Review

NEPA mandates that Federal agencies carefully consider the environmental impacts of their actions prior

to making decisions that affect the environment. The NEPA review (also referred to as environmental

review) process is usually initiated by an application for a new license or certification, change to an

existing license, or a decommissioning plan submitted to the NRC. A flow chart illustrating the NEPA

process is shown in Figure 1. Part of the NEPA process is directed by legislation and Executive Orders

related to environmental issues. When a request for a specific action is received from an

applicant/licensee, the NRC first determines whether a CATX is applicable for the proposed action. 

CATXs are categories of actions that the NRC, in consultation with CEQ, has determined do not

individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. Criteria for identifying a

CATX and a list of actions eligible for CATX are provided in 10 CFR 51.22. Categories of actions

appropriate for CATX include administrative, organizational, or procedural amendments to certain types

of NRC regulations, licenses, and certificates; minor changes related to application filing procedures;

certain personnel and procurement activities; and activities where environmental review by NRC is

excluded by statute. If a CATX exists, the finding should be documented as described in Chapter 2. The

proposed action is subject to no further NEPA review, but is still evaluated for compliance with NRC

radiation protection regulations and other applicable environmental regulations. Under special

circumstances, the NRC may elect to conduct an environmental review even if a CATX exists [10 CFR

51.22(b)].

If no CATX applies, NMSS staff responsible for the proposed action must prepare an EA (10 CFR

51.21). EAs are prepared by the appropriate licensing project manager 2

 (PM) or rulemaking task leader

and are reviewed by an environmental PM in EPAB. An EA is a concise publicly available document

that provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a finding of

no significant impact (FONSI). If the EA supports a FONSI, the environmental review process is

complete. If the EA reveals the proposed action may significantly affect the environment and cannot be

mitigated, the environmental review activities transition to the process to develop an EIS.
Define Proposed Action

Qualify for

CATX? EIS Required?

Complete

CATX

Checklist

Document

Decision

Special

Circumstances?

Prepare EA

Prepare EIS

MAKE ACTION DECISION

Implement Decision (with mitigation and/or monitoring 

where specified in EA/FONSI or EIS/ROD)

YES

NO

FONSI?

NO NO

YES

NO

YES

YES

Figure 1: Flow chart showing NEPA screening process.

1-3
1-4

NEPA requires that a detailed statement of the environmental impact of the proposed action and

reasonable alternatives be prepared for "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment" [Section 102(2)(C)]. NRC implementing regulations require an EIS for proposed

actions that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment or

involve a matter which the NRC determines should be covered by an EIS [10 CFR 51.20(b)]. An EIS is

also prepared for actions in which an EA does not support a FONSI. An EIS is a publicly available

document detailing the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and reasonable

alternatives. Except for some rulemaking EISs, all NMSS EISs are prepared by environmental PMs in

EPAB (EISs prepared in support of rulemaking should be reviewed by EPAB). For NMSS, types of

licensing actions that typically require an EIS are applications for facilities such as uranium mills,

uranium conversion plants, uranium enrichment plants, independent spent fuel storage installations at a

site not occupied by a nuclear power reactor, and low-level waste disposal facilities.

The Rulemaking and Guidance Branch in the Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety (IMNS)

is responsible for preparing EAs and EISs for rulemaking actions in NMSS. Procedures for EAs and

EISs prepared in support of rulemakings are described in NUREG/BR0053, Regulations Handbook

(NRC, 2001a). Related guidance documents, (i) NMSS Policy and Procedures Letter 1-63, Procedures

for Preparation and Review of Rulemaking Packages (NRC, 2001b) and (ii) Management Directive 6.3,

The Rulemaking Process (NRC, 2000), should be used in conjunction with this guidance document. 

EPAB management should be informed of any proposed rulemaking actions that will require an EIS

early in the rulemaking and planning stage. EPAB is required to review all EAs and EISs prepared for

rulemaking actions (NOTE: EA’s dealing with certificates of compliance do not need to be reviewed by

EPAB if the previously reviewed template is followed).

The focus of environmental review documents (e.g., EAs and EISs) is the environmental impacts of the

proposed action and reasonable alternatives. Often, the NRC staff prepares a Safety Evaluation Report

(SER) to evaluate and document the safety of the proposed action and compliance with NRC regulations. 

The safety and environmental reviews are conducted in parallel. Although there is some overlap

between the content of an SER and the NEPA document, the intent of the documents are different. The

NEPA document does not address accident scenarios, rather it addresses the environmental impacts

which would result from the accident and is therefore dependent on certain information from the SER. 

Accident scenarios (i.e., frequency, probability) are addressed in the SER. Much of the information

describing the affected environment is also applicable to the SER (e.g., traffic patterns, demographics,

geology, and meteorology) and the NRC staff should ensure consistency between the NEPA document

and the SER. For rulemakings, SERs are not developed and there is generally no site-specific

information nor environmental report.

1.3 Initiation of the Environmental Review

An environmental review may be initiated as a result of a license application, request for a licensing

action, or as a result of an internal action, such as a rulemaking. Any of these activities may result in the

documentation of a CATX or the preparation of an EA or an EIS, depending on the significance of

impacts associated with the action. The environmental review needs to be coordinated, scheduled, and

integrated with the safety evaluation and other aspects of the licensing or certification action.

Preparation of an EA for a licensing action for which a CATX does not apply is the responsibility of the

licensing PM either at NRC Headquarters or in a Regional Office. All EAs prepared for NMSS actions
3

In the future, after Headquarters and Regional staff gain more experience preparing EAs consistent with

this guidance, only "complex" EAs will need to sent to EPAB. However, if requested, EPAB will review "simple"

EAs. EPAB will issue a memorandum notifying the staff of changes in the review requirements for EAs.

1-5

must be reviewed by EPAB3

. EPAB staff can also assist with the various consultations among other

Federal and State Agencies, as discussed in Sections 1.4, 3.3, and 3.4.9.

If the EA results in a FONSI, it is also the licensing PM’s responsibility to prepare the Federal Register

notice of the EA finding and the basis for those findings. If the EA does not result in a FONSI, the EIS

process should be initiated as discussed in Chapter 4. Please note that all Federal Register notices

related to materials licensing actions must be reviewed by OGC (NRC, 2002a). Additionally, guidance

is currently being developed to assist staff in the preparation of Federal Register notices.

1.3.1 Early Planning

If the proposed licensing action is likely to require preparation of an EA, the licensing PM should consult

with EPAB to determine the level of EPAB assistance required. For complex licensing actions, as

described in Section 3.4, the licensing PM should involve EPAB as early as possible to facilitate the EA

review. A written request should be forwarded to EPAB requesting review of the EA. Chapter 6

provides guidance to assist the applicant/licensee in preparing an environmental report (ER) which aids

the NRC in preparing the EA or EIS and complying with Section 102(2) of NEPA. The general

requirements for a materials applicant/licensee ER are provided in 10 CFR 51.60.

Written requests for EPAB reviews of EAs should include the following information: 

 A generalized description of the proposed action(s);

 Copy of the SER, license application, or background material, as applicable;

 Requested date for completion of EPAB’s review; and 

 The activity code to be entered for Time and Labor in the NRC Human Resource Management

System (HRMS) for the requested work.

All requests for EA reviews or other requests for review assistance (e.g., review the use of a CATX or

assist in any required consultation) be sent to the electronic mail address 

Environmental_Reviews@nrc.gov (please note there is an underscore between Environmental and

Reviews). EPAB management will notify the requestor and identify the environmental PM working on

the request and the estimated time of completion. The typical review period for EAs is 30 days. To

request an early or accelerated review, please include a rationale and propose a completion review date.

EPAB will review the request and respond whether the request is possible.

The responsible licensing PM should continue to keep EPAB informed about significant changes and

issues, new information, and meetings that are planned regarding the proposed action. The licensing PM

may also request assistance from EPAB in preparing correspondence for any required consultations. The

licensing PM should keep in mind that consultations with other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies
1-6

may be required and should be initiated early in the environmental review as discussed in Sections 1.4,

3.3, and 3.4.9. In addition, EPAB may need copies of information related to the EA (e.g., request for the

proposed action, information provided by the applicant/licensee, and referenced documents used in

tiering). In this case, EPAB staff will work with the licensing PM to identify and obtain copies of the

necessary information.

If it is determined that an EIS is necessary, a Technical Assistance Request (TAR) should be forwarded

requesting EPAB to assume responsibility for the EIS. The TAR should include the same information as

suggested above in the EA. The environmental PM in EPAB will establish a separate activity code for

Time and Labor in HRMS for preparation of an EIS. The environmental PM will need copies of all

information related to the EIS (e.g., applicant/licensee request for the proposed action, supporting

information provided by the applicant/licensee, referenced documents used in tiering, and previous site

specific EAs and SERs applicable to the proposed action). At this point, the environmental PM will

prepare a notice of intent for the Federal Register to inform the public of the decision to prepare an EIS

(10 CFR 51.26-27). Section 4.2.2, Notice of Intent, provides more information on this notice.

Consultations with other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies may be required and should be

identified by the licensing PM and initiated early during the environmental review. These consultations

can take a significant amount of time and may identify impacts which require further assessment.

1.3.2 Pre-Application Meetings 

Prior to the applicant/licensee’s preparation of information needed to support the environmental review

(e.g., information usually found in an ER), the licensing PM should be aware that preliminary meetings

between the applicant/licensee and EPAB can enhance the environmental review process (10 CFR

51.40).

1.3.3 Acceptance Reviews

An application or request for action is accompanied by information needed to conduct the environmental

analysis. This information may be provided in an ER submitted by the applicant/licensee. Information

may also be submitted as part of the license application or amendment request, without an ER. When the

environmental information is submitted, the licensing PM should conduct an acceptance review of the

applicant/licensee information to determine whether (i) the requested action qualifies for a CATX or

whether an EA or EIS is required, and (ii) the information is complete and will support the required

environmental analyses. This initial acceptance review is not be a detailed technical review and does not

address quality and thoroughness of the ER; rather, the acceptance review determines if the submitted

information is complete in order to begin the detailed technical review. For actions that might require an

EIS, the licensing PM should involve EPAB in the acceptance review. The information in Chapter 6,

The Environmental Report: Format and Technical Content provides a list of topics that may be helpful in

completing the preliminary assessment of the submittal.

The appropriate PM (i.e., licensing or environmental depending on whether an EA or EIS is being

prepared) should ensure that the applicant/licensee has provided data, assumptions, and analyses, that

support the applicant/licensee conclusions. The appropriate PM should begin to develop an outline of

the environmental review document (EA/EIS) during the acceptance review in order to reveal gaps in

explanations or logic that may require additional information from the applicant/licensee. If the
1-7

environmental information is deficient, the applicant/licensee should be notified by letter that

deficiencies in the submittal prevent NRC from beginning the review.

Once the submittal is determined to be acceptable for the environmental review, the applicant/licensee

should be notified by letter that the NRC has begun its review. The letter should also notify the

applicant/licensee that, in the course of the detailed review, the staff may identify areas where additional

information is needed to complete the review. The letter should also provide the applicant/licensee with

a time frame for the completion of the staff’s review.

1.4 Consultations

When receiving a license application, the PM should be aware of the following consultations and the

time required to complete these consultations. It should be noted that even if the proposed action is

categorically excluded from NEPA review, the PM should determine if the proposed action requires

consultation under either Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) or

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470 et seq.). If so, the PM

should proceed with the appropriate consultation as described below. In addition to the overview

presented below, a step-by-step procedure is provided in Appendix D.

PMs are encouraged to coordinate compliance with Section 7 and Section 106 with any steps taken to

meet the requirements of NEPA. The PM should consider their consultation responsibilities as early as

possible in the NEPA process, and plan any required public participation, analysis, or review in such a

way that they can meet the purposes and requirements of all three statutes in a timely and efficient

manner.

Consistent with applicable conflict of interest laws the PM may obtain information from the

applicant/licensee or use the services of consultants to prepare information, analyses or recommendations

in completing these consultations. However, the NRC remains responsible for the reliability of

information used and all required findings and determinations. If a document or study is prepared by a

non-Federal party, the PM is responsible for ensuring that its content meets applicable standards and

guidelines. 

For rulemaking actions, consultations will not typically be required as these types of actions are usually

considered administrative in nature. However, the rulemaking task leader should consult the procedures

provided in Appendix D.

The PM should also be aware of NRC’s commitment to the Council on Environmental Quality to consult

with affected States before issuing the environmental assessment (NRC, 1994). Additional information

is provided in Section 3.3, 3.4.9, and Appendix D.

1.4.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires the NRC staff to take into account the

effects of the undertaking (i.e., the licensing action) on historic properties, and afford the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. If the proposed action meets the

criteria for an "undertaking" or has the potential to cause effects to historic properties, consultation with

the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is required (36 CFR 800). The review should also
1-8

consider historic properties included in State or local registers or inventories and any additional

important cultural, traditional, or historic properties. In areas of American Indian tribal land, a Tribal

Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) may exist with the equivalent authority and responsibility as a

SHPO. Responses from the SHPO/THPO should be noted in the EA or included in an appendix to the

EIS.

1.4.2 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Interagency Cooperation) requires the NRC staff to ensure that

the licensing action is "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the habitat of such species." If a

proposed action "may affect" listed species or critical habitat, consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service is required (50 CFR 402). Additional

information can be found in "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" (FWS, 1998). Responses

from either agency should be noted in the EA or included in an appendix to the EIS.

1.5 Emergency Circumstances

Under certain circumstances, the NRC may approve a licensee’s action which could result in significant

environmental impacts without first observing the provisions of 10 CFR 51. This situation will only

occur under emergency circumstances where the health and safety of the public may be adversely

affected if mitigative or remedial actions are delayed (10 CFR 51.13). In these cases, the EPAB will

consult with the CEQ as soon as practicable concerning alternative NEPA arrangements.

1.6 Utilizing Existing Environmental Analyses

Existing environmental analyses should be considered to evaluate impacts associated with a proposed

action to the extent possible and appropriate. This approach builds on work that has already been done,

avoids redundancy, and provides a coherent and logical record of the analytical and decision making

process. 

The staff should determine whether environmental analyses (EAs or EISs) relevant to the site or

proposed action have been prepared and whether any of the existing analyses adequately address the

proposed action and alternatives. This review will determine whether additional analyses are necessary

or whether a tiered or supplemental analysis is possible. 

For example, an initial license application or license renewal EA may be very detailed and provide many

different aspects of anticipated activities for that license. If subsequent license actions are identified

specifically or are bound by the initial analysis in the original license application or renewal EA, the

environmental review for subsequent licensing actions may incorporate by reference the initial analysis

and additional NEPA evaluation may be limited to consideration of new and significant information. 

When utilizing a previous environmental review the licensing PM should ensure this is documented

either by a note to the appropriate docket or license file or in a letter to the applicant of licensee. The

following language should be considered in instances where no additional environmental review is

necessary:
1-9

"The NRC staff have previously reviewed the environmental impacts from this license

amendment in [insert title of document, date, and description of scope]. The scope of this

license amendment was included in the previous analysis and does not alter the previous [FONSI

or EIS decision, insert date published in Federal Register]. No further environmental review

is required under 10 CFR Part 51.

1.6.1 Adopting

Adoption is another technique used to avoid redundancies in NEPA analysis. If the NRC elects to use all

or part of another agency’s EIS, the NRC can adopt the EIS as described in the CEQ regulations

(40 CFR 1506.3, 10 CFR 51 Appendix A). For example, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the NRC

is required, to the extent practicable, to adopt the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) EIS for a proposed

high-level radioactive waste geologic repository (10 CFR 51.26).

In those instances where the actions covered by another agency’s EIS and the NRC action are

substantially the same, the NRC can adopt the EIS after recirculating the document as a FEIS. Section

4.9, Publishing the FEIS, provides more information on publishing the FEIS. When recirculating the

FEIS, the NRC should provide information that identifies the Federal action involved. The EIS must

meet the applicable NRC criteria and the NRC must prepare a separate record of decision (ROD).

In those instances where the actions covered by the other agency’s EIS and the NRC proposal are not

substantially the same, the NRC can adopt the EIS in part by treating the other agency’s final document

as part of an NRC DEIS (discussed in Section 4.4, Publishing the DEIS). If the other agency’s EIS only

partially covers a proposed action or only a portion of the other agency’s EIS is adopted, the NRC must

prepare a supplemental or new and separate DEIS, describing that portion of the other agency’s EIS

which is being adopted as well as any supplementary analysis needed. If the NRC adopts an EIS that is

not final within the agency that prepared it, or if the adequacy of the EIS is the subject of judicial action

that is not final, the NRC must indicate its status in the recirculated DEIS and/or FEIS (40 CFR 1506.3)

and a FEIS and ROD must be prepared.

Similar procedures exist for using another agency’s EA. The other agency’s EA must satisfy CEQ and

NRC criteria. The NRC takes full responsibility for the scope and content of any adopted EA. The NRC

must prepare its own FONSI (in accordance with 10 CFR 51.3235) and decision record. Another

agency’s FONSI and decision record cannot be used or adopted by the NRC.

An example of adoption is the NRC’s use of the DOE’s Generic Environmental Impact Statement

(GEIS) for the management of spent nuclear fuel (DOE, 1995). This 1995 GEIS examined the various

programmatic alternatives for dealing with spent nuclear fuel and also identified certain site-specific

actions. Subsequent to the GEIS, the DOE applied for a site-specific 10 CFR 72 license to store the

Three Mile Island, Unit 2, spent nuclear fuel that was discussed and analyzed in the 1995 GEIS. As part

of the environmental review, the NRC adopted DOE’s 1995 GEIS, with minor additions, and recirculated

it as a DEIS and FEIS (NRC, 1998). For this licensing action NRC determined that site-specific aspects

had been addressed and, therefore, it was appropriate to adopt the 1995 GEIS.
1-10

1.6.2 Tiering

Tiering (defined in 40 CFR 1508.28) is a procedure by which more specific or more narrowly focused

environmental documents can be prepared without duplicating relevant parts of previously prepared,

more general, or broader documents. The new, more specific environmental document incorporates by

reference the general discussions and analyses from the existing broader document and concentrates on

the issues and impacts of the project which are not specifically covered in the broader document. Often,

the broader document is referred to as a programmatic EIS or GEIS. The new environmental document,

however, must be within the scope and conclusions of the more general environmental document from

which it is tiered. Also, the decision made as a result of the more specific document does not change or

modify the decision(s) of the more general document. The new environmental document must identify

the document from which it is tiered and both documents must be available for public review. An

example of tiering may include using a GEIS as the basis for an EA or EIS prepared for a site-specific

proposed action.

Since NEPA documents prepared for rulemaking are usually generic in nature, tiering off previous

documents is usually inappropriate. However, future applicant/licensee proposals requiring NEPA

reviews should be assessed for possible tiering from a rulemaking EA or GEIS. Therefore, an initial

rulemaking NEPA document, especially a GEIS, should provide ample information regarding bounding

conditions and assumptions to allow future reference and tiering. An example of tiering off a rulemaking

GEIS is provided in Appendix A. In this example, a checklist was developed to assist in the

determination of whether the GEIS in support of the License Termination Rule (NRC, 1997), is

applicable to proposed decommissioning actions.

An example of tiering is the NRC’s use of the DOE’s GEIS for the management of spent nuclear fuel

(DOE, 1995). This GEIS examined the various programmatic alternatives for dealing with spent nuclear

fuel and also identified certain site-specific actions. Subsequent to the GEIS, the DOE, through a private

contractor, applied for a site-specific 10 CFR 72 license to store Peach Bottom spent nuclear fuel. This

particular action was discussed in the GEIS but did not include site-specific details. The NRC elected

develop an EIS (62 FR 48953) that tiers off DOE’s GEIS (i.e., incorporates relevant portions into the

current environmental review while developing site-specific impact analyses). For this licensing action,

NRC determined that site-specific aspects had not been adequately addressed in the GEIS and it was

therefore not appropriate to adopt the GEIS. Another specific example of tiering is the use of NUREG1437, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants," (NRC, 1996a)

as it applies to the spent fuel storage license renewal actions.

1.6.3 Supplementing

A supplement to an existing draft EIS (DEIS) or final EIS (FEIS) is prepared when additional

environmental analysis is needed as described in 10 CFR 51.72 or 51.92.

It is not necessary to formally supplement an EA. An existing EA can be modified to reflect new

information. For example, a modified EA could be prepared by identifying changes to an existing EA

and attaching or incorporating by reference the existing EA.
1-11

1.6.4 Incorporating by Reference

Incorporation by reference is a technique used to avoid redundancies in analyses and to reduce the bulk

of a NEPA document. Both EAs and EISs may incorporate previous analyses by reference. Materials or

analyses incorporated by reference are not limited to NEPA documents. Special technical or

professional studies and analyses prepared by the NRC, other Federal, State, local agencies, tribal

governments, or private interests may be incorporated by reference.

The EA or EIS should identify documents that are incorporated by reference and indicate where these

references are available for public review. Relevant portions of the incorporated analysis should be

referenced by page or section number and summarized in the EA or EIS. Incorporating by reference

should not result in a loss of comprehension to the reader. The NEPA document must be able to stand

alone and provide sufficient analysis to allow the decision maker to arrive at a conclusion. Material

incorporated by reference must be reasonably available for inspection by interested persons within the

time allowed for comment. Material based on proprietary data may not be incorporated by reference.

An example of incorporation by reference is the NRC’s use of the DOE’s GEIS for the management of

high-level waste (DOE, 2002). In the NRC’s preparation of an EIS for a site-specific 10 CFR 72 license

to store Peach Bottom spent nuclear fuel, the NRC was able to incorporate by reference the affected

environment section of the 2002 DOE GEIS as the two actions are at the same location.

1.7 Public Meetings

In preparing for meetings PMs should be aware of NRC’s "Enhancing Public Participation in NRC

Meetings; Policy Statement" (67 FR 36920; NRC, 2002b). Additional guidance is available for

conducting public meetings in NUREG/BR-0224, "Guidelines for Conducting Public Meetings" (NRC,

1996b) and NUREG/BR-0297, "NRC Public Meetings" (NRC, 2002c). Relevant guidance is also

contained in NRC Management Directive 3.5 "Public Attendance at Certain Meetings Involving NRC

Staff" (NRC, 1996c).

1.8 Sensitive Information

In preparing environmental review documents, the PM should be aware of certain types of information

that may be restricted for national security reasons or eligible for withholding under other specific

statutory provisions. The PM is referred to 10 CFR 51.16 and NRC Management Directive 3.4 "Release

of Information to the Public" (NRC, 1999) for additional details.

There may also be occasions where an EA or EIS is required for a proposed action that is classified. 

These documents must be restricted from public dissemination for national security reasons. These

documents should be organized so that classified information is included in an appendix that is not made

publically available while unclassified portions can be made available to the public (40 CFR 1507.3(c)).

1.9 References

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1995. "Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste
1-12

Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement." DOE/EIS-0203. DOE, Washington,

DC. April.

DOE, 2002. "Idaho High Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement." DOE/EIS-0287. DOE, Washington, DC. September.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1998. "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook." FWS,

United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

<http://endangered.fws.gov/consultations/index.html>. (December 19, 2002).

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1994. "State Consultation on Environmental

Assessments." Memorandum from Taylor to Russell et. al. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC. December 6.

NRC, 1996a. "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants."

NUREG1437. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. May.

NRC, 1996b. "Guidelines for Conducting Public Meetings." NUREG/BR0224. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. February.

NRC, 1996c. "Public Attendance at Certain Meetings Involving the NRC Staff." Management Directive

3.5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. May 24.

NRC, 1997. "Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological

Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities." NUREG1496. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C.

NRC, 1998. "Final Environmental Impact StatementFor the Construction and Operation of an

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation to Store the Three Mile Island Unit 2 Spent Fuel at the Idaho

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory." NUREG1626. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C.

NRC, 1999. "Release of Information to the Public." Management Directive 3.4. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. December 1.

NRC, 2000. "The Rulemaking Process." Management Directive 6.3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. June 2.

NRC, 2001a. "Regulations Handbook." NUREG/BR0053, Revision 5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. March.

NRC, 2001b. "Procedures for Preparation and Review of Rulemaking Packages." NMSS Policy and

Procedures Letter 163. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. August.

NRC, 2002a. "Federal Register Notices For Materials Licensing Actions." Memorandum from Travers

to Meserve. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. December 10.
1-13

NRC, 2002b. "Enhancing Public Participation in NRC Meetings; Policy Statement." U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. May 28. 

<http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/meeting-faq.html>. (December 19, 2002).

NRC, 2002c. "NRC Public Meetings." NUREG/BR0297. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. August.
1-14

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
2-1

2 PREPARATION AND USE OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS

The purpose of CATXs is to focus extensive NEPA analysis onto major Federal actions that may

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The use of CATXs is a means of streamlining

the NEPA process, saving time, effort, and resources.

Categorical exclusion "...means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a

significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in

procedures adopted by a Federal agency [...] and for which, therefore, neither an Environmental

Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required..." (40 CFR 1508.4).

NRC regulations further describe CATXs in 10 CFR 51.22. A list of current categorical exclusion

criteria can be found at 10 CFR 51.22(c). Under special circumstances, the NRC may issue an EA or EIS

for any action which is categorically excluded. In the final rule, the Commission declined to further

define special circumstances because of the difficulty in precisely defining future situations and to

maintain necessary flexibility (49 FR 9352). Special circumstances include, but are not limited to,

unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources within the meaning of section

102(2)(E) of NEPA. Special circumstances in which a CATX may not apply are discussed further in the

following sections.

2.1 Documenting the CATX 

All CATXs should be documented in some manner. This documentation provides the explicit evidence

that the staff carried out the NEPA process and provides the rationale for applying the CATX. At a

minimum the CATX should be documented in the safety or technical review or a letter of response to the

applicant/licensee noting which CATX applies and how it applies. For actions which clearly qualify for

a CATX, no coordination with EPAB is necessary and the following sentence should be included in the

response to the applicant/licensee or in a memo to the file (without further documentation):

"An environmental assessment for this action is not required, since this action is categorically

excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(licensing manager should fill in appropriate number)."

For rulemaking actions, the CATX is documented in the Statement of Considerations. More detail is

provided in NUREG-0053, "Regulations Handbook" (NRC, 2001).

For actions not clearly encompassed by the CATX, additional documentation should be placed in the

license file. The additional documentation could be information supplied by the applicant/licensee or a

note to the license file from the licensing PM describing why or how a CATX applies. Examples of

additional information to determine whether a CATX applies can be found in NUREG-1556, Vol. 20,

"Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Guidance About Administrative Licensing

Procedures" (NRC, 2000a). It is suggested that the licensing PM coordinate with EPAB in making 

determinations on whether a CATX is applicable.

This chapter also provides an acceptable method of documenting a CATX via a checklist. Appendix B

contains a generic CATX checklist with instructions. This generic checklist can also be used to
4

The "selected subsections" are 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9), (c)(11), or (c)(14)(xvi).

2-2

document whether special circumstances are present. Although additions to the checklist are allowed,

the five basic questions, in the checklist, should be answered for each CATX.

Also, Sections 51.22(c)(11) and 51.22(c)(14)(xvi) provide generic categorical exclusions. The use of

either CATX was addressed in a Staff Requirements Memorandum (NRC, 1984) which directed the staff

to prepare:

"a written memorandum explaining why the action qualifies for the categorical exclusion

(emphasis in original) selected. The written memorandum shall include a discussion of the

factors listed in the selected subsections 4

 and shall become part of the permanent docket or

record relating to that action."

This 1984 memo also directed that the explanatory memo be signed by the appropriate Division Director

(or designee) and included in the license file.

2.2 General CATX Guidance

On March 12, 1984, 10 CFR 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and

Related Regulatory Functions," was revised (49 FR 9352). Subsequent guidance highlighted the

following licensing actions which are not covered by categorical exclusion:

 Use of radioactive tracers in field flood studies involving secondary and tertiary oil and gas

recovery.

 Performance of field studies in which licensed material is deliberately released directly into the

environment for purposes of the study. However, the use of tracers in well-logging is

specifically covered by 10 CFR 51.22(c)(14)(xi).

 Processing of source material for extraction of rare earth and other metals.

 Waste brokers who are authorized to store waste more than 180 days, or possess more than 50

curies of radioactive material.

 Any commercial radioactive waste disposal.

The following sub-sections provide text for the most commonly used CATXs in NMSS and the basis for

the CATX as noted in the Discussion and Finding in the final rule which created the CATX (NOTE:

Excerpts from the appropriate Statements of Consideration published with the final rule are shown in

italics). When a licensing or rulemaking action is not clearly encompassed by the Discussion and

Findings, additional documentation must be provided in the license file describing how or why the

CATX applies. If it is determined that the CATX does not apply (e.g., special circumstance), an EA

must be developed. EPAB and the Office of General Counsel (OGC) staff may be consulted when

making the determination of whether a CATX applies and the nature and extent of the documentation to

support a CATX.
2-3

2.2.1 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1)

This CATX states:

(1) Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 21, 25, 55, 75, 95, 110, 140, 150, 170, or

171 of this chapter, and actions on petitions for rulemaking relating to Parts 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11,

14, 19, 21, 25, 55, 75, 95, 110, 140, 150, 170, or 171. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

The regulations in these parts serve the dual purpose of making needed information readily available to

the public and providing procedures for the orderly conduct of Commission business. These regulations

in and of themselves will not affect the volume of that business.

In some instances, the regulations implement Federal laws and executive orders which prescribe specific

procedures and policies for the conduct of government business. These laws include the Administrative

Procedure Act (15 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the Privacy Act of

1974 (Pub. L. 93-579), the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770), certain provisions in 18 U.C.C. 201-209 dealing with

conflicts of interest in Federal employment, and House Concurrent Resolution No. 175, July 11, 1958, on

the Code of Ethics for Government Service (72 Stat. B12, 5 U.S.C.A. § 7301, Note.) Executive Order

11222, May 8, 1965, provides in part that "[t]he elimination of conflict of interest in the Federal service

is one of the most important objectives in establishing general standards of conduct."

In some instances, application of the regulations will have economic or social, but not environmental

consequences. Examples include: Part 140 which contains regulations implementing the provisions of

the Price- Anderson Act relating to financial protection and indemnity agreements; Part 170 which

prescribes the schedule of Commission fees; and Part 4 which contains regulations on nondiscrimination

which implement the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IV of the Energy

Reorganization Act of 1974.

Formal interpretations of the Commission's regulations authorized by the Commission and prepared by

the General Counsel are codified in Part 8. Although these interpretations may address matters of

substance as well as procedure, the issuance of a formal interpretation and its inclusion in Part 8 of the

Commission's regulations is an action without environmental effect.

2.2.2 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2)

This CATX states:

(2) Amendments to the regulations in this chapter which are corrective or of a minor or

nonpolicy nature and do not substantially modify existing regulations, and actions on petitions

for rulemaking relating to these amendments.
2-4

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

Minor amendments of this type are sometimes needed to update, clarify or eliminate an ambiguity in an

existing regulation. Since these amendments are usually editorial and do not change the substance of an

existing regulation they can neither increase nor decrease any environmental impact which the existing

regulation may have.

2.2.3 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)

This CATX states:

(3) Amendments to parts 20, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 50, 51, 54, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,

81 and 100 of this chapter which relate to(i) Procedures for filing and reviewing applications

for licenses or construction permits or other forms of permission or for amendments to or

renewals of licenses or construction permits or other forms of permission; (ii) Recordkeeping

requirements; or (iii) Reporting requirements; and (iv) Actions on petitions for rulemaking

relating to these amendments. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

Although amendments of this type affect substantive parts of the Commission’s regulations, the

amendments themselves relate solely to matters of procedure. Requirements to keep records and make

reports and regulations providing specific instructions as to where applications should be filed, how they

should be signed and executed, the number of copies to be furnished, and the procedural steps which will

be followed in connection with their review, do not have an effect on the environment. Like the

amendments in Category 1., their function is to facilitate the orderly conduct of Commission business.

2.2.4 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10)

This CATX states:

(10) Issuance of an amendment to a permit or license pursuant to parts 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,

39, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70 or part 72 of this chapter which (i) changes surety, insurance and/or

indemnity requirements, or (ii) changes recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures

or requirements. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

Issuance of an amendment to a permit or license to change surety, insurance and/or indemnity

requirements or to change requirements relating to recordkeeping, reporting or other administrative

procedures does not affect the scope or nature of the licensed activity. Although changes in surety,

insurance and/or indemnity requirements affect the financial arrangements of licensees and have

economic and social consequences, they do not alter the environmental impact of the licensed activities. 

Similarly, changes in recordkeeping and reporting requirements and other administrative procedures

relating to the licensee’s organization and management do not change the nature and the consequent

environmental impact of the licensed activity. The function of these procedural and administrative
2-5

changes is merely to facilitate the orderly conduct of the licensee’s business and to insure that the

information needed by the Commission to perform its regulatory functions is readily available.

2.2.5 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11)

This CATX states:

(11) Issuance of amendments to licenses for fuel cycle plants and radioactive waste disposal sites

and amendments to materials licenses identified in § 51.60(b)(1) which are administrative,

organizational, or procedural in nature, or which result in a change in process operations or

equipment, provided that (i) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in

the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, (ii) there is no significant increase in

individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure, (iii) there is no significant construction

impact, and (iv) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from

radiological accidents. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

Some requests for amendments to these types of licenses are administrative, organizational or

procedural in nature or involve changes in process operations and equipment which do not result in any

significant adverse incremental impacts to the environment from the licensed activity. Implementation of

these minor and routine types of changes do not significantly alter the previously evaluated

environmental impacts associated with the licensed operation, taking into account construction impacts,

types and amounts of effluents released by the operation, occupational exposure of employees, or

potential accidents. Furthermore, these amendments do not affect the scope or nature of the licensed

activity.

For this CATX to apply, the license amendment must involve routine and minor types of changes that do

not significantly alter the previously evaluated environmental impacts associated with the licensed

operation, and the amendment must not affect the scope or nature of the licensed activity. This CATX

has additional documentation requirements as described in Section 2.1

This CATX does not apply to the approval of decommissioning activities or decommissioning plans. 

This CATX may apply for certain decommissioning actions such as a change in facility status from

operational to decommissioning, however, no additional decommissioning activities could be approved

as this would constitute a change in the scope and nature of the licensed activity; only decommissioning

activities authorized under the existing license would be permitted. For license actions to authorize

decommissioning plans or additional decommissioning activities, the CATX listed in 10 CFR

51.22(c)(20), must be used, if appropriate, otherwise an EA should be prepared (see Section 2.2.7).

2.2.6 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(12)

This CATX states:

(12) Issuance of an amendment to a license pursuant to parts 50, 60, 61, 70, 72 or 75 of this

chapter relating solely to safeguards matters (i.e., protection against sabotage or loss or diversion

of special nuclear material) or issuance of an approval of a safeguards plan submitted pursuant to
2-6

parts 50, 70, 72, and 73 of this chapter, provided that the amendment or approval does not

involve any significant construction impacts. These amendments and approvals are confined to

(i) organizational and procedural matters, (ii) modifications to systems used for security and/ or

materials accountability, (iii) administrative changes, and (iv) review and approval of

transportation routes pursuant to 10 CFR 73.37. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

These amendments are needed (1) to implement new safeguards regulations through incorporation of

provisions into licenses, if requested and (2) to permit modifications to licensees’ safeguards programs

established under existing requirements.

With regard to route approvals, the requirement in 10 CFR 73.37(b)(7) for advance NRC approval of

transportation routes applies only to spent fuel shipments and was included in the Commission's

regulations in order to provide additional assurance that shipments containing spent fuel would be

adequately protected against loss, diversion or sabotage. Before approving a particular transportation

route, the NRC first makes a determination, on the basis of independently acquired information, that (1)

details have been worked out for swift response by local law enforcement agencies, if requested, and (2)

concrete details for NRC contingency planning for the route are adequate.

The Commission in NUREG-0170 ["Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of

Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes," (NRC, 1977)], a generic environmental impact

statement, considered the environmental impacts of the transportation of radioactive materials,

including the transportation of those materials over routes approved for safeguards purposes, and

concluded that such impacts are small. This generic environmental impact statement set out the NRC's

views of the present (1977) and projected (1985) environmental impact of the transportation of

radioactive material and provided documentation for the NRC determination that the environmental

impacts, radiological as well as non-radiological, of both the normal transportation of radioactive

materials and of the risk and consequent environmental impacts attendant on accidents involving

radioactive material shipments were sufficiently small that shipments by all modes of transport should be

allowed to continue and that no immediate changes to NRC regulations were needed. This report also

concluded that the risks of theft or sabotage resulting in any significant radiological release are

sufficiently small to constitute no major adverse impact on the environment. The Commission has

examined the potential impacts set forth in NUREG-0170 and characterized as "small" and determined

that they do not amount to a significant adverse impact.

The Commission notes, however, that if special circumstances are shown to exist in connection with a

particular shipment an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement may be

prepared for that shipment, and that as further review continues, this conclusion may be modified.

2.2.7 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(14)

This CATX states:

(14) Issuance, amendment, or renewal of materials licenses issued pursuant to 10 CFR parts 30,

31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40 or part 70 authorizing the following types of activities: 
2-7

and encompasses 16 specific types of activities, as discussed below.

2.2.7.1 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(i)

This CATX states:

(i) Distribution of radioactive material and devices or products containing radioactive material to

general licensees and to persons exempt from licensing. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

These licenses authorize persons to distribute radioactive materials and devices such as density gauges,

level gauges, and other gauging devices to persons who are general licensees and to distribute products

containing radioactive material such as watches, electron tubes, or smoke detectors to persons who are

exempt from licensing. These licenses for distribution do not authorize processing or use of radioactive

materials. There are no effluent releases or personnel exposures associated with the licensed activities. 

These distribution licenses presuppose ultimate use or possession of the radioactive materials under a

general license or exemption established by regulation, which regulation, under 51.21, will require an

environmental assessment addressing the environmental impacts of the generally licensed or exempted

activities of the recipients of the materials. The radioactive material, devices and products that may be

distributed pursuant to these licenses must meet the specific standards and requirements in the NRC

regulations. At the time of issuance of the regulations authorizing distribution, the determination was

made that subsequent exempt or generally licensed use or possession of the materials would not

constitute a risk to the public health and safety.

2.2.7.2 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(ii)

This CATX states:

(ii) Distribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits and/ or sealed sources to

persons licensed pursuant to 10 CFR 35.18. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

These licenses for distribution do not authorize possession, use or processing of radioactive materials. 

There are no effluent releases or personnel exposures associated with the licensed activities.

2.2.7.3 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(iii)

This CATX states:

(iii) Nuclear pharmacies. 
2-8

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

Nuclear pharmacies purchase prepared radiopharmaceuticals, radioisotope generators, and reagent kits

from manufacturers. They elute the generators and distribute the eluate as a prepared

radiopharmaceutical or compound the eluate with reagent kits to make prepared radiopharmaceuticals. 

They dispense and distribute prepared radiopharmaceuticals to medical licensees in unit-dose or

multi-dose forms. If the services of a nuclear pharmacy are not used, the medical licensee performs

these functions in his own nuclear medicine laboratory. Due to the short half-life of medically useful

isotopes, the radioactive wastes that nuclear pharmacies generate may be decayed to background levels

in storage. Releases in effluents may be estimated at 5% of maximum permissible values. Due to the soft

gamma emission of most medically useful isotopes and the use of personnel shielding devices, exposure

to personnel may be conservatively estimated at 25% of the maximum permissible dose.

2.2.7.4 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(iv)

This CATX states:

(iv) Medical and veterinary. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

NRC issues licenses to hospitals and to physicians authorizing use of radioactive materials in the

diagnosis and treatment of patients. These licensed activities may include such activities as: receipt of

radioactive material, preparation of radiopharmaceuticals from Mo-99/Tc-99m generators and reagent

kits, administration of unsealed radiopharmaceuticals to patients for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes,

the use of sealed sources for brachytherapy (i.e., radiation delivered from a short distance) and/or

teletherapy (i.e., radiation delivered from a long distance), use of sealed sources contained in devices

implanted in patients (e.g., nuclear-powered pacemakers), laboratory use of unsealed sources for

performance of diagnostic tests or for tracer studies for research purposes, use of source material for

shielding (e.g., as a component of a teletherapy unit or a linear accelerator), and the disposal of the

authorized materials by holding for decay or by transfer to authorized recipients.

For the purposes of this discussion, medical licenses also include similar activities conducted by

veterinarians for diagnosis or treatment of animals and laboratory use of unsealed sources for

diagnostic tests as performed by clinical laboratories.

The environmental impact of these licensed activities is insignificant. In light of 10 CFR 20.107,

radiation exposures of patients are not considered. The environmental impacts would be: occupational

exposures estimated at less than 10% of the applicable limits; non-occupational exposures of members of

the public who may have contact with these patients are generally minimal; releases to air and water or

to sanitary sewerage (primarily as patient excreta) are of small quantity, or if of larger quantities, are

short-lived. Effluent releases with the exception noted in 10 CFR 20.303(d) are estimated at less than

10% of the applicable limits.
2-9

2.2.7.5 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(v)

This CATX states:

(v) Use of radioactive materials for research and development and for educational purposes. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

These licenses authorize persons (e.g., academic institutions, industrial firms, and government agencies)

to use sealed and/or unsealed sources of byproduct, source and special nuclear material for activities

such as research and development (10 CFR 30.4(q)), educational purposes, classroom demonstrations,

animal tracer studies, and tracer studies of materials and compounds. (Licenses to construct or operate

nuclear research reactors are not materials licenses and therefore are not within the scope of this

categorical exclusion.) This categorical exclusion does not encompass (a) processing or manufacturing,

(b) performance of field studies in which licensed material is deliberately released directly into the

environment for purposes of the study, or (c) use of radioactive tracers in field flood studies involving

secondary and tertiary oil and gas recovery. As specified in 51.60(b)(1)(vi), applicants seeking licenses

authorizing the use of tracers in field flood studies involving secondary and tertiary oil and gas recovery

are required to submit environmental reports. In the case of other field studies in which licensed

material is deliberately released directly into the environment for purposes of the study, environmental

reports will be requested on a case-by-case basis as needed.

A typical facility is designed to minimize release of effluents to the environment. Remote handling

equipment, personnel protective clothing, and shielding materials are standard equipment to minimize

personnel exposures. A day-to-day radiation safety program provides for monitoring of personnel

exposures, contamination levels, radiation levels, and effluent releases. Personnel exposures and

effluent releases are estimated at less than 10 per cent of the limits of 10 CFR Part 20.

This CATX deals with the issuance, amendment, or renewal of materials licenses authorizing the use of

radioactive materials for research and development and for educational purposes. This CATX does not

apply to the five types of activities listed in Section 2.2.

In applying this CATX the following should be considered:

 Radioactive material used including its half-life, chemical characteristics, and solubility;

 Procedures to control and clean-up the radioactive material;

 Location, size, and length of study; and

 Ability to restrict access to study area.

If a research and development or academic institution application proposes to release to the environment

radioactive materials that originated on-site (i.e., within the controlled property of the licensee), an EA is

normally not needed and is covered under this categorical exclusion, provided:

 All releases originating on-site to the environment, such as air and liquid effluents, direct

radiation from deposition of radioactive materials from the release (e.g., groundshine), comply

with as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) and 20 requirements.
2-10

 To assist in demonstrating compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 20, the licensee should

set ALARA goals for air effluents at a modest fraction of the values in Appendix B, Table 2,

Columns 1 and 2, to 10 CFR 20.1001-20.2401. Experience indicates that values of about 10

millirems per year from all of the licensee’s radioactive air effluents should be practicable for

almost all materials facility licensees (see Regulatory Guide 8.37); therefore, as a first step

toward demonstrating compliance with ALARA for radioactive air effluents, the licensee

demonstrates that the nearest member of the general public receives no more than 10 millirems

per year from all of the licensee’s radioactive air effluents (i.e., licensee demonstrates it meets

the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1101(d)).

 All releases on-site comply with all applicable decommissioning requirements (e.g.,

decommissioning recordkeeping requirements pursuant to 10 CFR 30.35(g)) and current

decommissioning policies. 

Documentation that supports the licensee’s application as meeting the above criteria is sufficient to

support why an EA is not needed. Research activities which may qualify for this CATX with an

explanatory memorandum or other appropriate documentation include:

 Those that involve crops on small plots which are planted in a lined area and totally removed at

the conclusion of the study and the study design prevents release to the environment and includes

confirmatory analysis of the soil beneath the liner;

 Those that involve a small quantity of short-lived material which will decay to natural

background by the conclusion of the study and the study design includes confirmatory analysis

of background levels; and 

 Those that involve tagging of animals and penning them to prevent their escape.

For license actions that cannot meet the above criteria, the Regions should coordinate with EPAB to

determine whether an EA is needed. For example, an EA would be required for discrete sources released

to the environment, which originated on-site, and which may not be recovered at the conclusion of the

study or decommissioning. Examples of field studies that might require an EA include:

 Those that are not similar to normal routine research, development and educational activities;

 Those that deliberately release discrete sources to the environment;

 Those that release sources that may not be recovered; or

 Those that affect endangered species or historical/cultural resources. 

2.2.7.6 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(vi)

This CATX states:

(vi) Industrial radiography. 
2-11

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

Gamma radiation sources (primarily iridium-192 and cobalt-60) are used for non-destructive testing of

materials throughout the United States. The sources used are metallic and are encapsulated in a

stainless steel capsule. Therefore, during ordinary use it is not expected that there will be releases of

radioactive material to the environment. The radiation exposure during routine use of sources in

industrial radiography is well within NRC limits for occupational exposure. The average exposure per

individual radiographer is less than 0.4 rem per year, which is less than 10% of the permissible

exposure.

2.2.7.7 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(vii)

This CATX states:

(vii) Irradiators. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

These devices are used for a variety of purposes in research and industry to expose products to large

amounts of radiation. Typical uses include sterilization or microbiological reduction in medical and

pharmaceutical supplies and insect eradication through sterile male release programs. Irradiators

usually contain from a few hundred curies to megacuries of radioactive material, principally cobalt 60. 

The radioactive material is contained in sealed sources. Product irradiation occurs within areas to

which access is controlled and which are shielded to protect both operating personnel and the

environment.

Personnel exposures during use of these devices are less than 5% of the limits in 10 CFR Part 20. There

are no effluent releases resulting from operation of irradiators.

2.2.7.8 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(viii)

This CATX states:

(viii) Use of sealed sources and use of gauging devices, analytical instruments and other devices

containing sealed sources. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

Sealed sources used by licensees are usually singularly or doubly encapsulated depending on activity in

stainless steel. Therefore, in ordinary use it is not expected that the use of sealed sources will result in

the release of radioactive material to the environment. Sealed sources used by licensees are usually

required to undergo rigorous prototype testing to ensure that the likelihood of a substantial release of

radioactive material to the environment during abnormal use of sealed sources is unlikely.

Gauging devices used to measure thickness, density, and level of materials contain sealed sources,

usually cesium-137 and strontium-90, which are encapsulated so that there is no leakage during use. 

The devices provide shielding such that radiation levels external to the devices are on the order of a few
2-12

milliroentgens per hour. Other devices include gas chromatographs with millicurie quantities of

nickel-63 or hydrogen-3, analytical devices such as X-ray fluorescence analyzers with sealed sources

containing a variety of radioisotopes, instrument calibration devices containing millicurie to curie

quantities of cesium-137 and cobalt-60, and soil-density gauges which contain millicurie quantities of

cesium-137 and americium-241 neutron sources.

Personnel exposure from use of these devices is less than 5% of the limits in 10 CFR Part 20. There are

no effluents associated with the use of devices containing sealed sources.

2.2.7.9 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(ix)

This CATX states:

(ix) Use of uranium as shielding material in containers or devices. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

These licenses for possession and use of uranium for shielding are a non-nuclear use of radioactive

materials. Because of its high density, uranium is excellent as shielding material. Depleted uranium has

very low specific activity and the corresponding low radiation levels emitted make it very unlikely that

any individual will receive a radiation dose in excess of 5% of maximum permissible dose specified in

Part 20. In addition, because of its physical and chemical properties, there should be no release of

radioactive material to the environment during normal use of depleted uranium as shielding and very

limited release during abnormal conditions.

2.2.7.10 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(x)

This CATX states:

(x) Possession of radioactive material incident to performing services such as installation,

maintenance, leak tests and calibration. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

These licenses only authorize the possession of radioactive material incident to performing services

either at the customer’s facility or at the licensee’s facility. Generally the activity involves the use of

sealed sources only. Since service licenses involved very little actual possession and use of radioactive

material, personnel exposure from performing the services should be less than 5% of the limits in 10

CFR Part 20 and there should be no effluent releases.

2.2.7.11 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(xi)

This CATX states:

(xi) Use of sealed sources and/or radioactive tracers in well-logging procedures. 
2-13

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

During the past 20 years in which the NRC and its predecessor agency, the AEC, have been regulating

the use of sealed radioactive sources and short-lived radioactive tracers in well logging, there have been

approximately 89 incidents in which well-logging sources have been forced to be abandoned in wells. A

risk analysis prepared by the NRC staff shows only a small radiological risk to the public health and

safety from the potential release of radioactive material due to long term corrosion or damage from

drilling into sources that have been abandoned. In addition, routine safety measures, such as those

described below, also protect against significant environmental impacts from well-logging activities.

Well drilling permits require that gas and oil wells be cased to below potable water aquifers to prevent

cross contamination from brine, oil and gas normally associated with wells. This requirement also

serves to preclude contamination of potable water aquifers when radioactive materials are used in these

cased wells. In the event a source becomes irretrievable during a well-logging operation, safety

requirements are imposed to minimize the escape of radioactivity from the source and the surrounding

areas. These requirements include: (1) Sealing the source in place with a cement plug to immobilize it

and to preclude abrasion and corrosion; (2) setting a deflection device (whipstock) at the top of the

cement plug to deflect a drill away from the general area of the source in the event of an inadvertent

future drilling; (3) mounting a permanent identification plaque at the surface of the well to alert anyone

planning to enter the well to the existence of a source downhole; and (4) requiring notification to be

placed in pertinent land records maintained by State oil and gas regulatory agencies to alert against redrilling the well. In addition, the construction of the source itself minimizes the possibility of releases

and migration of radioactive material. Source capsules are always doubly encapsulated and fabricated

of stainless steel or other corrosion resistant material. The radioactive material is in the form of a very

low solubility compound. The sources are enclosed in a logging tool made of steel which provides

additional protection.

The radioactive materials used as tracers in well logging have short half-lives and the quantities

involved are small--in the low millicurie range. The use of these tracers does not present any

environmental impact because of the small quantities which decay to innocuous radioactivity levels in

short periods of time.

Additional guidance can be found in NUREG-1556, Vol. 14, "Consolidated Guidance About Materials

Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Well Logging, Tracer, and Field Flood Study Licenses"

(NRC, June 2000b).

2.2.7.12 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(xii)

This CATX states:

(xii) Acceptance of packaged radioactive wastes from others for transfer to licensed land burial

facilities provided the interim storage period for any package does not exceed 180 days and the

total possession limit for all packages held in interim storage at the same time does not exceed

50 curies. 
2-14

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

These licenses authorize the acceptance of radioactive waste in packages that meet all governmental

regulations for transport of radioactive materials. The packaged radioactive material is stored

temporarily until a sufficient number of packages is accumulated for shipment to licensed land burial

sites.

In general, these activities are analogous to the transport carried out by common and contract carriers,

which are exempt from NRC license requirements. Packages are not permitted to be opened although

over-packaging may be carried out in the event defective packaging is received. There are no routine

releases of radioactive effluents. Safety requirements for the storage facility include protection against

unauthorized entry, fire resistant buildings and packages, fire detection and suppression capability,

radiation monitoring equipment and operating and emergency procedures. By limiting the total

radioactivity in storage at any one time to a maximum of 50 curies and by limiting the storage period for

any package to a maximum of 180 days, the chances of significant releases of radioactivity or excess

exposure of personnel in the event of accident conditions, such as a fire, are minimal.

2.2.7.13 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(xiii)

This CATX states:

(xiii) Manufacturing or processing of source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials for

distribution to other licensees, except processing of source material for extraction of rare earth

and other metals. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

Manufacturing or processing of source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials for distribution to other

licensees consists of approximately 234 NRC licensees at the present time. Under these licenses, persons

manufacture radiopharmaceuticals, labeled compounds for research purposes and sealed sources for use

in gauging and analytical equipment. Other licensees in this category use and handle radioactive

materials in solid form to manufacture sealed sources, e.g., radiography devices, or use and handle

already sealed sources by incorporating the sources into devices used for gauging purposes.

In 1978, licensees in this category had an average dose of 0.45 rem for persons with measurable

exposure and an average dose of 0.21 rem for all persons monitored. The collective dose for this

category of licensees was 3,280 man-rems. The potential impact, therefore, is very small, less than one

calculated health effect. Ninety-eight percent of the facilities had releases in air of less than one percent

of the maximum permissible concentrations in 10 CFR Part 20. The largest release reported was

approximately 12 percent of the maximum permissible concentrations. Releases of liquid wastes were

well within the limits in NRC regulations.

Operations where source material is processed for extraction of rare earth or other metals may involve

generation of large volumes of waste containing low levels of radioactive material. The storage and

ultimate disposal of this waste may have significant environmental impact. Therefore, these types of

operations are not listed as a categorical exclusion.
2-15

2.2.7.14 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(xiv)

This CATX states:

(xiv) Nuclear laundries. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

Nuclear laundries receive slightly contaminated clothing from nuclear facilities and provide

decontamination services. The "clean" garments are then returned to the customer. As of August 31,

1981, there were four NRC licensees in this category. The quantities of radioactive material involved

are small, usually a few millicuries of radioactive material. In 1978, three of the four licensed laundries

reported an average dose of 0.22 rem for persons with measurable exposure and a collective dose of 1

rem. The small amount of activity used by those licensees is disposed of in accordance with NRC

regulations.

2.2.7.15 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(xv)

This CATX states:

(xv) Possession, manufacturing, processing, shipment, testing, or other use of depleted uranium

military munitions. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

Possession, manufacturing, processing, shipment, testing or other use of depleted uranium munitions,

e.g., bullets and other projectiles, includes about 10 licenses held by U.S. military organizations and less

than 10 licensees involved with the manufacturing process. The military tests involve the use of low

specific activity depleted uranium (3.6 x 10 7 curies/gram) as metal alloy penetrators (rods) which vary

in weight from a few grams to less than 10 kilograms. These rods are propelled at high velocities

against metal targets such as armor plate. Testing of these munitions is carried out at remote desert

locations on military reservations, in constructed enclosures, or over deep ocean waters. Any materials

released to the environment are of low radioactive content, are highly dispersed, and are of chemical

and physical form which is not readily incorporated into flora or fauna. Thus, radioactive releases to

the environment which could affect human, animal or plant life from testing at any of the locations are

negligible and occupational exposures from handling depleted uranium are so low that personnel

monitoring is not required. Additionally, since the penetrators tested do not explode, cratering or other

defacing of the environment is not experienced. The military also transports and stores depleted

uranium munitions for war-readiness posture. Because the munitions are transported and stored in

sealed containers as solid metal in nondispersible form, there is negligible environmental impact

associated with such transportation and storage.

Manufacturers of depleted uranium munitions are also included here for the sake of completeness,

although manufacturers are excluded in section (xiii) of Category 14.
2-16

2.2.7.16 CATX 51.22(c)(14)(xvi)

This CATX states:

(xvi) Any use of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material not listed above which involves

quantities and forms of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material similar to those listed in

paragraphs (c)(14) (i) through (xv) of this section (Category 14). 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

It has been the Commission’s experience in the past that additional environmentally insignificant

materials licensing actions occasionally arise. These cases involve uses of source, byproduct or special

nuclear material in quantities and form similar to those categorically excluded in sections (i)-(xv) of

Category 14 and, therefore, have insignificant environmental impacts. By categorically excluding

actions of this type, the Commission will avoid the unnecessary expenditure of scarce resources in

preparing environmental assessments for those few environmentally insignificant cases not separately

identified as the subject of a specific categorical exclusion. The Commission anticipates that

considerably less than 1% of its licensing actions in the nuclear materials area would fit within this

category.

License actions not specifically listed in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(14) for which staff believes fit the criteria for a

CATX will require a TAR to EPAB. To expedite the processing of the TAR, the Regions should perform

an initial technical assessment, to be enclosed with the TAR, to justify why the licensing action qualifies

for categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(14)(xvi). Examples of the specific type of information

that should be submitted to EPAB to assist the staff in making its determination can be found in

Appendix I of NUREG-1556, Vol. 20, "Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Guidance

About Administrative Licensing Procedures" (NRC, 2000a). When a TAR is received from the Region,

EPAB will review the documentation and determine if the action qualifies for a categorical exclusion. 

EPAB will then provide a memorandum to the Region, documenting the results that need to be included

in the docket. This CATX has additional documentation requirements as described in Section 2.1.

2.2.8 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(17)

This CATX states:

(17) Issuance of an amendment to a permit or license pursuant to parts 30, 40, 50 or part 70 of

this chapter which deletes any limiting condition of operation or monitoring requirement based

on or applicable to any matter subject to the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act. 

Discussion and Finding (49 FR 9352)

The NRC no longer has a role setting conditions relating to nonradiological discharges of pollutants into

aquatic bodies or establishing requirements for aquatic monitoring where an NPDES permit is in effect.

Instead, EPA, and those states to whom permitting authority has been delegated, have exclusive

responsibility for regulating nonradiological pollutant discharges through the NPDES permit system. 

The NRC’s role in the water quality area is limited to regulating radiological discharges into aquatic
2-17

bodies and NEPA matters such as weighing aquatic impacts in the NEPA analysis which NRC is

required to make before reaching a major Federal licensing decision.

2.2.9 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(19)

This CATX states:

(19) Issuance, amendment, modification, or renewal of a certificate of compliance of gaseous

diffusion enrichment facilities pursuant to 10 CFR part 76. 

Discussion and Finding (59 FR 48944)

The two plants to be regulated by this rule have already been subject to evaluation in accordance with

NEPA. The NRC has reviewed these documents, as well as environmental reports prepared by DOE for

both facilities in 1992 and environmental audits prepared by DOE prior to turning operation of the

Facilities over to the Corporation in 1993. The promulgation of a rule governing these plants, and their

subsequent regulation by the NRC, will not result in any environmental impacts beyond those previously

considered by DOE in its environmental reviews and which currently exist or would be expected to

continue absent NRC regulatory oversight.

Similarly, subsequent certificates of compliance including amendments, modification, and renewals

issued pursuant to this part will consist of findings of compliance with 10 CFR Part 76. Therefore, these

actions will not result in any significant new environmental impacts. The regulations require that the

Corporation submit information for use by NRC in preparing an environmental assessment for

certification applications addressing areas where the facilities are not in compliance with the

requirements of Part 76.

2.2.10 Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20)

This CATX states:

(20) Decommissioning of sites where licensed operations have been limited to the use of (i)

Small quantities of short-lived radioactive materials; or (ii) Radioactive materials in sealed

sources, provided there is no evidence of leakage of radioactive material from these sealed

sources.

Discussion and Finding (62 FR39058)

The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) ["Generic Environmental Impact Statement in

Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRCLicensed Nuclear

Facilities," NUREG-1496 (NRC, 1997)] prepared by the Commission on this rulemaking evaluates the

environmental impacts associated with the remediation of several types of NRC-licensed facilities to a

range of residual radioactivity levels. The Commission believes that the generic analysis will encompass

the impacts that will occur in most Commission decisions to decommission an individual site where the

licensee proposes to release the site for unrestricted use. Therefore, the Commission plans to rely on the

GEIS to satisfy its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act regarding individual

decommissioning decisions that meet the 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) criterion for unrestricted use. 
2-18

However, the Commission will still initiate an environmental assessment regarding any particular site,

for which a categorical exclusion is not applicable, to determine if the generic analysis encompasses the

range of environmental impacts at that particular site. The GEIS indicates that the decommissioning for

certain classes of licensees (e.g., licensees using only sealed sources) will not individually or

cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

The GEIS (NRC, 1997), Section 3.2.1, further noted that a large majority of NRC’s 7000 materials

licensees use either sealed radioactive sources or small amounts of short-lived radioactive materials in

their business operations. Typically, these facilities can be categorized in the following manner:

1. A sealed source is defined in 10 CFR 30 as any byproduct material that is encased in a

capsule designed to prevent leakage or escape of the by product material. Sealed source

users, licensed pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, include medical users of sealed sources

(teletherapy, brachytherapy), users of industrial gauges, well loggers, radiographers, and

irradiators. Nuclides contained in the capsules and used by sealed source users include

Co-60, Cs-137, I-125, Ir-192, Sr-90, and Am-241. The sealed sources are designed and

tested according to the requirements of industrial standards and radiation safety criteria

set out in the regulations to prevent leakage. 

As a result of the nature of the sealed source design, testing, and operation, it is expected

that contamination of facility structures and soils would not result from routine

operations.

Recent experience indicates that the frequency of leakage of sealed sources is very low. 

Leaking sources are taken out of service and returned to another specific licensee

(typically the manufacturer) for disposal. Sealed source contamination would most

likely be contained within the device or otherwise localized, and remediation would be

straightforward and localized. When operations using the sealed source cease, the sealed

source would be returned to a specific licensee authorized to possess the source or sent

to licensed disposal site for proper disposal. It is expected that decontamination of the

building or soils would not be needed. Currently, 10 CFR 30.36 requires that sealed

source licensees properly dispose of the source, submit NRC Form 314, and either

conduct a radiation survey or demonstrate that the premises are suitable for license

termination by other means.

2. Licensees using short-lived byproduct radionuclides are licensed pursuant to 10 CFR

Part 30 and use short-lived nuclides for specific reasons, primarily in the area of medical

diagnostics. Short-lived nuclides licensed for such use include Tc-99m, I-131, and I123.

The nature of operations using short-lived nuclides, makes the contamination of facility

structures and soils unlikely. Contamination (if any) would likely be confined to

localized areas in buildings. Any such contamination would be diminished by

radioactive decay, and no long-term contamination would remain after license

termination. Cleanup would be straightforward and localized. The predominant means

for decommissioning of facilities that use short-lived nuclides is "decay-in-storage." In

terminating the license, the licensee follows the same procedure required under 10 CFR
2-19

30.36 as noted above for sealed sources; i.e., any byproduct material is properly disposed

of, NRC Form 314 is submitted indicating disposition of any licensed material, and

either a radiation survey is conducted or there is a demonstration that the premises are

suitable for license termination by other means (e.g., by calculation of the reduction in

activity by radioactive decay). Based on use of "decay-in-storage" for the short-lived

nuclides, and the time involved in submitting the information necessary to terminate a

license, it is expected that licensed material would reach sufficiently low levels such that

decontamination of the building or of soils would not be needed.

This CATX deals with the decommissioning of sites where licensed operations have been limited to the

use of small quantities of short-lived material or radioactive materials in sealed sources. Typically this

CATX will be limited to the application of Group I decommissioning actions as defined in NUREG1757, Vol. 1, "Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance" (NRC, 2003). 

2.3 Consultations

CATX actions do not require EAs or EISs; they are "excluded" from more detailed levels of NEPA

analysis. However, these actions are not excluded from other Federal, State, or local environmental laws

and regulations. Therefore, the licensing PM may need to conduct additional analyses, consult with

other agencies, carry out public participation activities, and prepare documentation under other

applicable laws even though the proposed action qualifies for a CATX (e.g., a project to decommission a

building included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places). However, in most cases,

external environmental experts and agencies with jurisdiction by law or expertise such as the FWS or

appropriate SHPO will not need to be consulted for licensing actions that qualify for a CATX as these

actions typically "will not affect" listed species/critical habitat and/or are not the types of activities "with

a potential" to affect historic and cultural resources. Appendix D provides a detailed procedure to follow

in conducting consultations.

2.4 Public Participation in CATXs

Generally, determining whether an action is a CATX requires no public participation, but if an individual

or group expresses interest in the project’s environmental effects, they should be kept informed of the

CATX review and a copy of the completed CATX checklist (Appendix B) or other documentation should

be part of the publically available information documenting the NRC decision.

2.5 The Environmental Checklist

The licensing PM may use the checklist provided in Appendix B to document the CATX and the

considerations in using the applicable CATX. Instructions for completing the checklist are also

presented in Appendix B.

The licensing PM should be aware of special circumstances in which the CATX may not apply. In

general, if the action does not fall within the discussions presented above or if other special

circumstances (e.g., unique, controversial, precedent setting, etc.) are present, the licensing PM should

prepare an EA. Additionally, actions which are potentially significant, as discussed in Section 3.4.6.3,

should generally be considered a special circumstance and an EA/EIS should be prepared.
2-20

The checklist consists of one question about the applicability of the selected CATX and four questions

about the likelihood that a particular kind of environmental consequence will result from the proposed

action. The licensing PM should consult with technical staff and EPAB, as necessary.

Based on internal review, external review (where appropriate), and research, check "YES," "NO," or

"NEED DATA" for each question. Attach documentation as needed to support the answer. If the

"NEED DATA" box is checked, the licensing PM may consult with an environmental PM about what

data is needed and/or how to get it. Appendix B provides details to consider when completing the

checklist.

The checklist is not complete until all "NEED DATA" issues have been resolved and all blocks are

checked either "YES" or "NO." Checking a single block to "YES" does not necessarily mean that an EA

must be prepared; it may be possible to resolve the "YES" answer in another way (e.g., additional

technical documentation).

Resolve all "NEED DATA" issues and complete the checklist, attaching all supporting documentation. 

In the "Conclusions" section, check the box corresponding to the conclusion reached. The checklist is

now complete. The checklist becomes part of the licensing file and can be made available to the public

and other potential review agencies upon request. In some cases, it may be necessary to consult with

OGC to respond adequately to the questions in the checklist. 

The CATX checklist is a guide. The licensing PM should take appropriate steps to carry out the

conclusions reached. If the conclusion is that further review is needed, the licensing PM should ensure

this review happens. If the conclusion is that a CATX is not warranted, the licensing PM should ensure

the appropriate level of analysis and documentation is carried out and initiate preparation of an EA. For

any activity related to an EIS, the responsibility for the environmental review should be transferred to

EPAB.

2.6 References

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1977. "Final Environmental Impact Statement on the

Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes." NUREG-0170. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. December. 

NRC, 1984. "SECY83286 Revision to 10 CFR Part 51 and Related Conforming Amendments -

Implementation of CEQ NEPA Regulations." Memorandum from Chilk to Dircks. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. February 28.

NRC, 1997. "Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological

Criteria for License Termination of NRCLicensed Nuclear Facilities." NUREG1496. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. July.

NRC, 2000a. "Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Guidance About Administrative

Licensing Procedures." NUREG1556, Volume 20. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. June.
2-21

NRC, 2000b. "Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About

Well Logging, Tracer, and Field Flood Study Licenses." NUREG1556, Volume 14. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. June.

NRC, 2001. "Regulations Handbook." NUREG/BR0053, Revision 5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. March.

NRC, 2003. "Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance." NUREG1757, Volume 1, Revision 1. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. September.
2-22

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
5

In the future, after Headquarters and Regional staff gain more experience preparing EAs consistent with

this guidance, only "complex" EAs will need to sent to EPAB. However, if requested, EPAB will review "simple"

EAs. EPAB will issue a memorandum notifying the staff of changes in the review requirements for EAs.

3-1

3 PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

An EA must be prepared for proposed actions that are not:

 Exempt from NEPA (this does not mean licensing exemptions);

 Categorically excluded (10 CFR 51.22);

 Covered in an existing EIS or other environmental analysis; or

 Required to have an EIS prepared (10 CFR 51.21).

An EA may be prepared for any action to assist in planning and decision making (40 CFR 1501.3), but

should be initiated as early in the process as possible after the license application submittal, license

amendment request, or rulemaking action. The EA should provide sufficient evidence and analysis of

impacts to support a determination of a finding of no significant impacts (i.e., FONSI). If an EA does

not result in a FONSI, then the potential impacts from the proposed activities require the preparation of

an EIS. The EA process is an interdisciplinary review of proposed actions and their impacts on all

affected resources. The EA may also identify and develop appropriate mitigation measures, which may

result in a mitigated FONSI. The EA and any related FONSI are made available to the public. In cases

when an EIS is found to be necessary, any research completed during EA preparation can be used in the

preparation of the EIS. If the action under review is certain to result in significant impacts, the

environmental review to support the action should move directly to an EIS. As described in Chapter 1,

responsibility for completing the EIS should be transferred to EPAB.

The EA process need not be extraordinarily time consuming or complicated. The level of assessment

should be commensurate with the anticipated impacts and the degree of public concern. EAs are

prepared by the licensing PM or rulemaking task leader responsible for the action associated with the EA

along with the assistance of technical staff. Staff from EPAB (environmental PM) review all EAs,

except for Certificate of Compliance rulemakings, prepared by NMSS staff 5

 and will be available to

assist with determinations on whether an action will require an EA or EIS, especially for areas where

policy is being developed. Figure 2 provides an overview of the EA process.

3.1 Environmental Assessment Development

Following the acceptance review, as discussed in Section 1.3.3, the licensing PM and other necessary

technical reviewers should develop a preliminary draft of the EA. This effort assists with identification

of missing and unclear information, facilitates the preparation of requests to the applicant/licensee for

additional information (RAI), and streamlines the EA development. RAI is a term applied to additional

necessary information (clarifications and questions) requested of the applicant/licensee to complete the

environmental and safety review. To streamline the process, the NMSS goal is to focus the content of

the RAIs to that additional information necessary to support a regulatory decision. Preparation of a 
NEPA Analysis

Complete.

Prepare FONSI.

(Section 3.6)

Prepare Federal

Register Notice.

Prepare EA Document.

(Section 3.3, 3.4)

Begin EIS Process.

(Chapter 4)

Identify and Analyze

Impacts. (Section 3.3, 3.4.6)

Consultations

and Cooperating Agencies.

(Section 1.4)

Initial EA Process.

(Section 3.1)

Impacts

Significant?

(3.4.6.3)

Mitigation

Measures

Available?

(3.4.7)

YES

NO

NO

YES

Figure 2: Major steps in the EA process.

3-2
3-3

preliminary draft EA ensures that the necessary information is being requested. The licensing PM should

consult with EPAB to determine any recent policy changes for environmental reviews that might impact

the RAIs. In evaluating the applicant’s environmental information, the licensing PM and other technical

reviewers should identify and evaluate the quality assurance measures taken by the applicant in

collecting and analyzing data. Quality assurance measures, including verification and validation, are also

evaluated where computer models have been used to predict environmental consequences of the

proposed actions. 

Related generic and site-specific EAs and/or EISs should be reviewed to determine if there is a potential

for tiering (Section 1.6, Utilizing Existing Environmental Analyses). Attention should be given to the

bounding conditions (both environmental and non-environmental) and related assumptions of these

previous analyses to determine if they apply to the new proposed action. This comparison and

determination should be briefly described in the EA and, for future generic use, may be documented in

greater detail separate from the EA (e.g., response letter to person/organization providing comments). 

Applicable portions of existing EAs and/or EISs should be incorporated by reference to shorten the

length of the EA. 

An example of tiering off a GEIS is provided in Appendix A. This appendix contains a checklist that the

licensing PM can use to determine whether it is appropriate to tier off the GEIS developed in support of

the License Termination Rule (NRC, 1997). This checklist should only be used for sites being released

for unrestricted use and is related only to dose assessments (i.e., nonradiological impacts must still be

considered).

3.2 EA Format and Technical Content

At a minimum, an EA is required (10 CFR 51.30) to include a brief discussion of (i) the proposed action,

(ii) the need for the proposed action, (iii) alternatives as required by Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, (iv) the

environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and (v) a list of agencies and persons

consulted, and (vi) identification of sources used. Program-specific guidance may identify additional

format and content requirements or options. 

Due to the wide variation in the types of NMSS licensing actions, two different formats for preparing an

EA are presented below, simple and complex. Simple licensing actions can include minor changes to

existing facilities or administrative type actions which do not qualify for categorical exclusion and are

discussed further in Section 3.3. EAs for these simple licensing actions should typically not exceed 5

pages. Complex licensing actions can include major changes to existing facilities (e.g., significant new

construction), construction of new facilities, or approval of decommissioning plans involving major

disturbances to the environment, and are discussed further in Section 3.4. EAs for these complex

licensing actions should be consistent with CEQ guidance which suggests a 10-15 page limit. CEQ has

also noted that lengthy EAs may be an indication that an EIS is needed (CEQ, 1981).

Rulemaking actions will generally use the simple format for preparing an EA, though more complicated

rulemakings may use the complex format.

3.3 EA for Simple Licensing Actions

As discussed in Section 3.2, an EA is required to contain the following items. 
3-4

Introduction

Though not required, an "Introduction" is usually helpful to orient the audience by providing an

overview and should include a brief description of the proposed action, how and when the proposed

action was submitted (e.g., license application, license amendment), and by whom the proposed action

was submitted. Any unique terms and phrases (e.g., cask, sealed-source, restricted release) should be

briefly defined as they are presented. A brief discussion of the relevant NRC regulations should be

included. Also, other relevant documents (e.g., another agency’s EA or a previous NRC review) should

be described in relation to the proposed action and should be clearly referenced.

The Proposed Action

This section should describe the proposed action in more detail and reference the pertinent license

application. Also, planned activities/phases, location, and duration of the proposed action should be

described. Relevant and brief descriptions of proposed activities expected to result in impacts should be

described in enough detail to support the environmental impacts discussion. Also, the description of the

proposed action should describe any mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the action to

avoid environmental impacts (i.e., measures the licensee has committed to doing as a part of the

proposed action). The proposed action is what the applicant/licensee is proposing to do or accomplish

with the license amendment. The proposed action is not NRC approval of the license/amendment

request. Also, other relevant documents (e.g., another agency’s EA or a previous NRC review) should be

described in relation to the proposed action and should be clearly referenced.

The Need for the Proposed Action

This section should discuss the applicant's motivation for submitting the application to the NRC. For

example, does the requested exemption or amendment provide some benefit to the applicant if granted? 

How would the applicant be affected if the application was not approved? The need should not be

described as a justification for the proposed action over the alternatives. Also, the need should not be

stated as NRC approval of a license request.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

This section should describe how the environmental resource (e.g., land or water) is used, how the

resource would be affected by the proposed change (e.g., the construction of a building, change in the

amount of water taken in by the facility, record keeping or reporting requirements, etc.), and the

significance of the relationship between the environmental resource and proposed change. The EA

should include an assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action. For

example, air quality (the environmental resource) would be affected by a release of radioactivity from

increased facility effluents and the significance of the release would depend on the types and amounts of

the emission. In this example, an appropriate question would be whether the emission for the

radionuclide is above the regulatory limits or is a small fraction of the regulatory limits. The section

should include an evaluation of radiological and nonradiological impacts. The impacts section should

also describe the potential impacts to cultural or historic resources and threatened and endangered

species or critical habitat (see Appendix D for more information on consultation requirements). It should

clearly state which resources are affected by the proposed action. Likewise, it should clearly state no
3-5

environmental resources are affected, if that is the case. Section 3.4.6 provides additional information

for discussing environmental impacts.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

NEPA requires NRC to consider alternatives in the preparation of all EAs whenever the following two

conditions are present: (i) there is some identifiable environmental impact from the proposed action and

(ii) the objective of the proposed action can be achieved in one of two or more ways that will have

differing impacts on the environment. This section of the EA should discuss alternatives to the proposed

action and the environmental impact of the alternatives. The fact that the EA involves a finding of no

significant impact (FONSI) does not provide relief from considering alternatives. As long as there is

some identifiable impact on the environment from the proposed action, the EA should consider

alternatives.

For those actions involving a very small impact, it is reasonable to consider a very limited range

of alternatives. In fact, in several decisions, the courts have stressed that the range of alternatives an

agency must consider in an EA decreases as the environmental impact of the proposed action becomes

less and less substantial. However, no court has held that an agency is excused from considering

alternatives if the agency has made a FONSI, and, in fact, considering alternatives is independent of the

question of environmental impact.

At a minimum, the no-action alternative must be addressed. The no-action alternative is a discussion of

the results from a lack of action (i.e., status quo or the existing state). For example, if the proposed

action is the clean-up of a site for unrestricted use, then the no-action alternative is to continue to keep

the material licensed and on site, without disposal. More specific guidance on alternatives for an EIS is

provided in Section 5.2.

A insignificant impact does not equate to no impact. Therefore, if an even less harmful alternative is

feasible, then it needs to be considered. If the environmental impact of a proposed action is zero (e.g.,

administrative type actions), there is no meaningful alternative to be considered because there is no use

of natural resources associated with the action. In those cases involving no environmental impact, it is

reasonable to limit the discussion of alternatives to consideration of the no-action alternative. If the

"no-action" alternative is the only alternative examined, the alternatives section may contain the

following statement, if appropriate:

"As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e.,

this is the "no-action alternative"). Denial of the application would result in no change in current

environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative

action are similar."

Section 3.4.6 provides additional information for discussing environmental impacts.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

This section of the EA should list Federal and State agencies and persons consulted. The licensing PM

should consult with the affected State just prior to issuing the final EA and should solicit comments on

the environmental impact of the proposed action and any other comments the State may have (NRC,
3-6

1994). Additionally, the licensing PM is responsible for ensuring that other appropriate agencies are

contacted if an action may involve some impact on the natural or physical environment and these

consultations should be initiated early in the development of the EA. Appendix D provides a detailed

description for the licensing PM to follow for consultations: 

 With the appropriate State official;

 Required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and 

 Required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

All consultations should be briefly documented in the EA and should contain (i) the name of the agency

or person contacted (consulted), (ii) the date and purpose of the consultation, (iii) a brief summary of the

views or comments expressed and the staff’s resolution, and (iv) references to publicly available

documents containing additional information, as applicable.

For licensing actions that do not affect endangered or threatened species or do not have the potential to

cause effects on historic properties the following statement should be considered:

"NRC staff have determined that the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical

habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act. Likewise, NRC staff have determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity

that has potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is

required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act."

If comments are received from the State or agency, the licensing PM should summarize the comments in

the EA. Minor comments could be characterized as "general agreement" or "no objection" by the State

or agency. For more extensive comments the licensing PM should summarize the details of the

comments and the responses in the EA or place them in a separate document and reference them in the

EA. The EA and comment response document should be placed in the NRC Public Document Room to

ensure public access.

For rulemaking actions, the draft EA is sent to the State Liaison Officer for comment while the proposed

rule is out for comment. This is accomplished through the Office of State and Tribal Programs. The

rulemaking task leader is referred to NUREG-0053, "Regulation Handbook" (NRC, 2001) for additional

information. Also, consultations beyond that with the State are not typically required for rulemaking

actions as these are usually considered administrative in nature. However, the rulemaking task leader

should consult the procedures provided in Appendix D.

Conclusion

The conclusion for an EA can be a "finding of no significant impact" (FONSI) or the conclusion can be

that there are possible significant impacts from the proposed action. When a FONSI can not be reached

an EIS must be prepared; see Section 1.3.1 for guidance on transferring the action to EPAB. The

licensing PM is not required to complete the EA if it is determined that an EIS is necessary. 

The FONSI is a separate legal finding that is published in the Federal Register. The conclusion of the

EA supports this finding, however, it does not replace the formal finding that is published in the Federal

Register (i.e., there is no FONSI section heading in an EA).
3-7

A FONSI should include the following language:

"The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action [describe how the proposed action

complies with appropriate regulations and brief supporting statement describing minimal

impacts, e.g., ‘Public exposure to radiation will be less than __% of the limits in 10 CFR

Part 20.’].

The NRC staff have prepared this EA in support of the proposed action to [amend or grant 

license number]. On the basis of this EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant

environmental impacts and the license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No

Significant Impact is appropriate."

When a FONSI can not be reached, an EIS must be prepared; see Section 1.3.1 for guidance on

transferring the action to EPAB. For completing the EA and documenting the FONSI the licensing PM

is referred to Section 3.5-3.6. Additionally, please note that all Federal Register notices related to

materials licensing actions must be reviewed by OGC (NRC, 2002a).

Sources Used

All references used in preparation of the EA should be listed. Generally, the incoming license request,

any correspondence used in preparing the EA, any programmatic documents used in reaching a decision

(e.g., Generic/Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Standard Review Plan, etc.), and any

documents prepared by the staff to reach the conclusion should be referenced here. Additionally, it is

helpful to provide ADAMS Accession numbers, if applicable, to assist the public in finding relevant

documents.

3.4 EA for Complex Licensing Actions

As discussed in Section 3.2, some NMSS licensing actions are more complex and thus may require

additional information in the EA to document the decision. Following is a generic outline for an EA for

a complex licensing action (with suggested Section format):

 Introduction (Section 1);

 Need for the Proposed Action (Section 1);

 The Proposed Action (Section 1);

 Alternatives to the Proposed Action (Section 2);

 Affected Environment (Section 3);

 Environmental Impacts (Section 4);

 Mitigation Measures (if applicable, Section 4);

 Monitoring (if applicable, Section 4);

 Agencies and Persons Consulted (Section 5);

 Conclusion (Section 6);

 List of Preparers (Section 7); and 

 List of References (Section 8 or can be included at the end of each section).
3-8

3.4.1 Introduction of the Environmental Assessment

The introduction should include a brief description of the proposed action, how and when the proposed

action was submitted (e.g., license application, license amendment), and by whom the proposed action

was submitted. Any unique terms and phrases (e.g., cask, sealed-source, restricted release) should be

briefly defined as they are presented. A brief discussion of the relevant NRC regulations should be

included. Also, other relevant documents (e.g., another agency’s EA or a previous NRC review) should

be described in relation to the proposed action and should be clearly referenced.

3.4.2 Need for the Proposed Action

This section describes the applicant/licensee’s motivation for submitting the application to the NRC. 

Examples of need could include a benefit provided to the applicant or any other group if the proposed

action is granted and descriptions of the detriment that will be experienced by the applicant or any other

group without approval of the proposed action. The need should not be described as a justification for

the proposed action over the alternatives. Also, the need should not be stated as NRC approval of a

license request.

3.4.3 The Proposed Action

The proposed action should be presented with more detail, including the following:

 Identification of planned activities/phases;

 Location of proposed action;

 The duration of the proposed action (not the duration until the next license renewal), including

construction and operation or excavation and/or decommissioning activities, as applicable;

 Relevant and brief descriptions of proposed activities expected to result in impacts should be

described in enough detail to support the environmental impacts discussion;`

 Mitigation measures incorporated into the proposed action to avoid significant environmental

effects; and

 Maps showing location, facilities, etc., as applicable.

The proposed action is what the applicant/licensee is proposing to do or accomplish with the license

amendment. The proposed action is not NRC approval of the license/amendment request.

3.4.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As specified in 10 CFR 51.30(a)(ii), alternatives to the proposed action are developed in accordance with

Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA. Although NEPA requirements and CEQ guidance generally address

alternatives in the context of an EIS, the same information is generally applicable to an EA. Therefore,

alternatives should be considered in an EA (i) if there is some identifiable environmental impact from the
3-9

proposed action and (ii) if the objective of the proposed action can be achieved in one of two or more

ways that will have differing impacts on the environment.

For those actions involving a very small impact, it is reasonable to consider a very limited range

of alternatives. In fact, in several decisions, the courts have stressed that the range of alternatives an

agency must consider in an EA decreases as the environmental impact of the proposed action becomes

less and less substantial. However, no court has held that an agency is excused from considering

alternatives if the agency has made a FONSI, and, in fact, considering alternatives is independent of the

question of environmental impact.

At a minimum, the no-action alternative must be addressed. The no-action alternative is a discussion of

the results from a lack of action (i.e., status quo or the existing state). For example, if the proposed

action is the clean-up of a site for unrestricted use, then the no-action alternative is to continue to keep

the material licensed and on site, without disposal. More specific guidance on alternatives for an EIS is

provided in Section 5.2, Alternatives. 

3.4.5 Affected Environment

The description of the affected environment should provide a framework for the discussion of impacts

(Section 3.4.6, Environmental Impacts). Environmental conditions currently existing in the area that

could be impacted by the proposed action should be described in this section. The geographic area

studied should be identified for each resource. Maps or illustrations may help to provide a clear and

concise description. More specific guidance on describing the affected environment for an EIS is

provided in Section 5.3, Description of the Affected Environment. 

3.4.6 Environmental Impacts

The goal of this section is to determine whether there are significant impacts (radiological and

nonradiological) for the proposed action and each alternative. Impacts can be direct, indirect,

cumulative, long-term and short-term. Direct impacts, or effects, are caused by the action and occur at

the same time and place. Indirect impacts, or effects, are caused by the action and are later in time or

farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. A detailed definition of direct and

indirect effects from 40 CFR 1508.8 states that effects include the following areas of impact: ecological;

aesthetic; historical; cultural; socioeconomic; and health. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section

3.4.6.2 of this guidance. A section on radiological dose impacts should always be provided in the EA

and includes both direct and indirect radiation dose impacts to humans. Accident analysis is generally

discussed in a SER. The impacts are assessed over the expected lifetime of the action and beyond, if

necessary. A scientific basis should be provided; however, there are areas that require professional

judgement based on the available information. Where information is incomplete or not available, this

should be documented in the EA. Figure 3 provides an overview for analyzing impacts in NEPA

documents. A more detailed approach for determining impacts is presented in "Environmental Impact

Assessment," (Canter, 1996).

Impacts resulting from each alternative should be briefly described. A table showing the impacts may be

useful. Although impacts may exist, they may not be significant, and impacts can be beneficial as well

as adverse. Also, an impact that is not significant does not equate to "no impact." Typical impacts may

include, but are not limited to:
Identify environmental emissions, effluents,

stressors and/or changes accompanying 

proposed action.

Identify environmental laws, regulations,

criteria and/or guidelines for actions and

impacts associated with proposed action.

Prepare purpose and need

of proposed action.

Analyze direct, indirect, and cumulative

impacts of proposed action on

affected environment.

Prepare description of

affected environment.

Determine significance of

predicted impacts.

Formulate mitigation measures.

Figure 3: Identifying and analyzing impacts in NEPA documents.

3-10
6

The Commission has directed the staff to develop an environmental justice policy statement. After the

policy statement is completed, necessary updates to the environmental justice guidance will be incorporated.

3-11

 Increased radiation dose to workers and/or members of the public;

 Degradation of water quality or water supply;

 Habitat destruction;

 Increased air emissions;

 Increased noise;

 Damage or reduced access to cultural resources;

 Changes to local or regional socioeconomic conditions;

 Increased traffic or other transportation effect;

 Increased competition for available resources; or

 Additional population or changing demographics.

For example, describe how the environmental resource (e.g., land or water) is used, how the resource

would be affected by the proposed change (e.g., the construction of a building, change in the amount of

water taken in by the facility, record keeping or reporting requirements, etc.), and the significance of the

relationship between the environmental resource and proposed change. For example, air quality (the

environmental resource) would be affected by a release of radioactivity from increased facility effluents

and the significance of the release would depend on the types and amounts of the emission. In this

example, an appropriate question would be whether the emission for the radionuclide is above the

regulatory limits or is a small fraction of the regulatory limits. The section should include an evaluation

of radiological and nonradiological impacts. The impacts section should also describe the potential

impacts to cultural or historic resources and threatened and endangered species or critical habitat (see

Appendix D for more information on consultation requirements). It should clearly state which resources

are affected by the proposed action. Likewise, it should clearly state no environmental resources are

affected, if that is the case.

If it is determined that a particular action will have no significant environmental impact, then there is no

need to consider whether the action will have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on certain

populations. Consequently, an environmental justice review will not be completed for an EA where a

FONSI is concluded (NRC, 2002b).6

For more detailed examples of the types of impacts that should be considered (not necessarily analyzed)

see Section 5.4. It is important to understand that all environmental resource areas are not required to be

discussed in detail in each EA. The licensing PM should focus the analysis and discussion on resource

areas reasonably expected to be impacted.

3.4.6.1 Adverse Impacts

Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires consideration of potentially unavoidable adverse environmental

impacts should the proposed action be implemented. Discuss both direct and indirect effects and their

significance. Potentially adverse impacts of alternatives to the proposed action should also be

considered. The discussion of adverse impacts should be thorough, yet brief. Detailed technical

information may be incorporated by reference to publicly available materials such as the SER
3-12

(40 CFR 1502.21). Proprietary data should not be incorporated by reference. It may also be appropriate

to discuss potential mitigation measures for adverse impacts (see Section 3.4.7, Mitigation Measures).

Both radiological and nonradiological impacts should be discussed. Identify resources that were

evaluated but an impact was not found. Impacts may result from construction, operation, and

decommissioning phases. Each impacted resource (regardless of significance or size) should be

identified, with a rationale provided to explain the determination that the impact(s) are significant or are

not significant. The rationale may cite, for example, standards, case history, evaluations or professional

judgement. Modeling or other techniques used to predict impacts should be summarized. Impacts are

evaluated both onsite and offsite, as well as assessed for cumulative effects. If beneficial impacts are

identified, note if a benefit to one party is not viewed as beneficial to a second party.

3.4.6.2 Cumulative Impacts

Unlike an EIS, CEQ regulations do not require an assessment of cumulative impacts in an EA. However,

it is suggested that a paragraph be included in the EA that (i) notes the resources with anticipated

environmental impacts for the proposed action, (ii) explains that NRC searched for activities that could

result in cumulative impacts for those resources, and (iii) states whether there are significant cumulative

impacts. A detailed discussion of cumulative impacts in an EIS is in Section 4.2.5.2. A more detailed

synopsis is provided in "The NEPA Book," (Bass, Herson, and Bogdan, 2001).

3.4.6.3 Evaluation of Significance

An EA is used to provide sufficient information for determining whether to prepare an EIS or FONSI (10

CFR 51.21, 40 CFR 1501.4) on the proposed action. Impact significance determination involves

considering the context and intensity of the impacts. Context means that consideration should be given

to what the impacts are, where they will occur, how long they will last, what population or resource is

affected, and the carrying capacity of the affected environment. Intensity refers to the impact severity,

and can be addressed by a number of criteria delineated in 40 CFR 1508.27. The evaluation of

significance should be based on the following considerations:

 Impacts can be both beneficial and adverse. Are there significant adverse impacts despite the

existence of beneficial impacts?

 Are there undesirable public health or safety effects?

 Are there unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural

resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild/scenic rivers, or ecologically critical

areas?

 Are the impacts on the quality of the human environment controversial?

 Are the impacts on the human environment highly uncertain, or do they involve unique or

unknown risks?

 Does the proposed action establish a precedent for future actions with significant impacts? Does

it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration?
3-13

 Is the proposed action related to other actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively

significant impacts? Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively

significant impact on the environment and cannot be avoided by describing an action as

temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

 Does the proposed action adversely affect districts, sites, structures, or other objects listed in or

eligible for listing in the National Register, or will the action result in significant destruction of

scientific, cultural, or historical resources?

 Will the proposed action adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that

has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act?

 Will the proposed action cause a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements for the

protection of the environment?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes (i.e., impact(s) are significant), then an EIS is normally

required. If the answer to all of these questions is no (i.e, no significant impacts are identified),

documenting the answers in the EA can be used to prepare the FONSI (see Section 3.6).

The licensing PM, in coordination with management, initially determines whether the proposed action,

taking into account reasonable mitigation, will have a significant impact on the quality of the human

environment. EPAB is then requested to review the EA, as discussed in Section 3.5. If it is determined

that there are no significant impacts, then a FONSI is prepared as discussed in Section 3.6.

If the licensing PM, in coordination with management, determines that the impacts are significant, there

are several options for how to proceed. The applicant/licensee may agree in writing to modify the

proposed action sufficiently to support a FONSI and a revised EA is prepared. It is possible that the

modified proposed action is represented in the alternatives investigated in the initial EA, and only minor

changes may be necessary. The applicant/licensee can also agree to mitigate the impacts so that a

FONSI can be realized. Mitigation efforts should be clearly identified in the EA document. For

example, license conditions and other applicant/licensee commitments may mitigate an impact to permit

a "mitigated FONSI". If changes to the proposed action are not available or agreeable to the

applicant/licensee to mitigate significant impacts, the licensing PM will forward the project to EPAB

who will initiate development of an EIS. The information contained in the EA will form part of the

background information for scoping the EIS.

3.4.7 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures that could reduce adverse impacts or enhance beneficial impacts should be

incorporated in the proposed action to the extent feasible. These mitigation measures may assist in a

FONSI. The analysis should address the anticipated effectiveness of these mitigation measures in

reducing adverse impacts or enhancing beneficial impacts. The staff should analyze any residual impacts

or unavoidable adverse impacts that may remain after mitigation measures have been applied, as well as

any further impacts caused by the mitigation measures themselves. Any mitigation measures used to

justify FONSIs should be tangible and specific. For example, mitigation measures that avoid, minimize,

rectify, reduce over time, or compensate are tangible as opposed to measures that include activities such
3-14

as further consultation, coordination, and study. A more detailed synopsis is provided in "The NEPA

Book," (Bass, Herson, and Bogdan, 2001).

Appropriate monitoring and license requirement for mitigation measures should be identified. 

Monitoring activities proposed to meet the intent of NEPA should be distinguished from monitoring

required by program-specific guidance and/or discretionary monitoring activities.

3.4.8 Monitoring

Any proposed monitoring should be briefly described, including the specific parameters to be monitored

(e.g., water quality, noise, species abundance), the frequency (e.g., continuous, once per day), the period

of monitoring (e.g., during the entire duration of the site operation), and the action to be taken when

thresholds are exceeded. The EA may form the basis for subsequent license conditions on monitoring

the proposed action. Monitoring is also discussed for an EIS in Section 5.6, Environmental

Measurements and Monitoring Programs.

3.4.9 Agencies and Persons Consulted

This section of the EA should list Federal and State agencies and persons consulted. The licensing PM

should consult with the affected State just prior to issuing the final EA and should solicit comments on

the environmental impact of the proposed action and any other comments the State may have (NRC,

1994). Additionally, the licensing PM is responsible for ensuring that other appropriate agencies are

contacted if an action may involve some impact on the natural or physical environment and these

consultations should be initiated early in the development of the EA. Appendix D provides a detailed

description for the licensing PM to follow for consultations:

 With the appropriate State official;

 Required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and 

 Required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

All consultations should be briefly documented in the EA and should contain (i) the name of the agency

or person contacted (consulted), (ii) the date and purpose of the consultation, (iii) a brief summary of the

views or comments expressed and the staff’s resolution, and (iv) references to publicly available

documents containing additional information, as applicable.

For licensing actions that do not affect endangered or threatened species or do not have the potential to

cause effects on historic properties the following statement should be considered:

"NRC staff have determined that the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical

habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act. Likewise, NRC staff have determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity

that has potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is

required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act."

If comments are received from the State or agency, the licensing PM should summarize the comments in

the EA. Minor comments could be characterized as "general agreement" or "no objection" by the State

or agency. More extensive comments may require the licensing PM to summarize the details of the
3-15

issues and the resolution of the comments in the EA or to place them in a separate document and

reference them in the EA. If there is a differing view that can not be resolved, then it should be noted in

the EA. Resolution of the comments should be placed in the NRC Public Document Room to ensure

public access.

For rulemaking actions, the draft EA is sent to the State Liaison Officer for comment while the proposed

rule is out for comment. This is accomplished through the Office of State and Tribal Programs. The

rulemaking task leader is referred to NUREG-0053, "Regulation Handbook" (NRC, 2001) for additional

information. Also, consultations will not typically be required for rulemaking actions as these are

usually considered administrative in nature. However, the rulemaking task leader should consult the

procedures provided in Appendix D.

3.4.10 Conclusion

The conclusion for an EA can be a "finding of no significant impact" (FONSI) or the conclusion can be

that there are possible significant impacts from the proposed action. When a FONSI can not be reached

an EIS must be prepared; see Section 1.3.1 for guidance on transferring the action to EPAB. The

licensing PM is not required to complete the EA if it is determined that an EIS is necessary. 

The FONSI is a separate legal finding that is published in the Federal Register. The conclusion of the

EA supports this finding, however, it does not replace the formal finding that is published in the Federal

Register (i.e., there is no FONSI section heading in an EA).

A FONSI should include the following language:

"The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action [describe how the proposed action

complies with appropriate regulations and brief supporting statement describing minimal

impacts, e.g., ‘Public exposure to radiation will be less than __% of the limits in 10 CFR

Part 20.’].

The NRC staff have prepared this EA in support of the proposed action to [amend or grant 

license number]. On the basis of this EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant

environmental impacts and the license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No

Significant Impact is appropriate."

For completing the EA and documenting the FONSI the licensing PM is referred to Section 3.5-3.6. 

Additionally, please note that all Federal Register notices related to materials licensing actions must be

reviewed by OGC (NRC, 2002a).

3.4.11 List of Preparers

Identify the principal individuals responsible for the assessment, their professional titles, and the

resources they evaluated. For example, "G. Smith, Project Manager in the Division of Waste

Management, Health Physics."
3-16

3.4.12 List of References

All references (i.e., sources used) used in the preparation of the EA should be listed, including those

cited in the text of the EA and those that were not specifically cited but served as useful guidance during

document development. NRC guidance, NUREG-0650, "Preparing NUREG-Series Publications," (NRC,

1999) is available and should be useful for determining reference format. Additionally, it is helpful to

provide ADAMS Accession numbers, if applicable, to assist the public in finding relevant documents.

3.4.13 Supplemental Information to Environmental Assessment Document

As appropriate, appendices can be included at the end of the EA that include information that is

supportive of the findings in the EA. Publicly available information such as letters documenting

consultations can be incorporated by reference in the EA.

3.5 Review of a Draft Environmental Assessment Document 

The EPAB reviews all NMSS EAs as a final draft document prior to consulting with the State. Section

1.3.1 discusses the process for requesting EPAB review. As discussed in Section 3.4.9, the licensing PM

should consult with the affected State before the final EA is prepared. The licensing PM is referred to

Appendix D for a suggested procedure to follow in consulting with the State [NOTE: The EA should

have a "Conclusion" section with the appropriate language as described in either Section 3.3. or 3.4.10]. 

After the State has been consulted, the EA is finalized with text noting that the State was consulted along

with a summary of the State’s comments. If substantive changes are made to the EA as a result of the

State or other agency comments, EPAB should review the changes.

In certain circumstances, a draft EA and FONSI may be prepared. Circumstances include those where a

FONSI appears warranted for the proposed action but the proposed action is similar to one which

normally requires and EIS, the proposed action is without precedent, or the appropriate NRC staff

director determines preparation of a draft FONSI will further the purposes of NEPA [10 CFR 51.33(b)]. 

The draft FONSI should be clearly marked "draft" and should be published in the Federal Register and

distributed as described in 10 CFR 51.74(a). The Federal Register notice must include a request for

comments and specify where the comments should be submitted and when the comment period ends (10

CFR 51.119(a)).

3.6 Documenting a Finding of No Significant Impact

If the "Conclusion" of the EA is that no significant impacts exist, a FONSI must be prepared (10 CFR

51.31). The FONSI is not part of the EA, rather the FONSI is a formal finding at the completion of an

EA that is published in the Federal Register that either includes the EA or a summary of the EA. The

FONSI must (10 CFR 51.32): (i) identify the proposed action, (ii) state that the NRC has determined not

to prepare an EIS for the proposed action, (iii) briefly present the reasons why the proposed action will

not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, (iv) include the EA or a summary

of the EA, (v) note any other related environmental documents (e.g., application letters, supporting

information, consultation letters, etc.), (vi) state that the finding and any related environmental

documents are available for public inspection and where the documents may be inspected.
3-17

For simple licensing actions (see Section 3.3.), the FONSI is published in the Federal Register and may

include the complete EA. For complex licensing actions (see Section 3.4), the FONSI is also published

in the Federal Register, however, a summary of the EA is usually published in lieu of the entire EA.

For rulemaking actions, the FONSI is published in the Federal Register for the final rule. The

rulemaking task leader is referred to NUREG-0053, "Regulation Handbook" (NRC, 2001) for additional

examples.

As mentioned in Section 1.3.1, an initial Federal Register notice may be published to announce that

NRC received the license application or amendment with an opportunity for hearing. This initial Federal

Register notice should be referenced when publishing the draft or final FONSI. The FONSI should not

include a hearing opportunity notice. The hearing opportunity notice, if required, should be provided in

the initial Federal Register notice which describes the receipt the of the license application/amendment. 

Questions on hearing opportunity notices should be directed to the OGC.

As required by 10 CFR 51.35, the final FONSI will be published in the Federal Register prior to

authorizing the proposed action. In addition the final FONSI must be distributed in accordance with 10

CFR 51.119. The EA and FONSI should be placed in ADAMS and made publicly available.

3.7 References

Bass, R.E.; Herson, A.I.; and Bogdan, K.M.; 2001. "The NEPA Book: A Step-by-Step Guide on how to

Comply with the National Environmental Policy Act." Solano Press Books, Point Arena, CA.

Canter, L.W., 1996. "Environmental Impact Assessment." Irwin/McGraw Hill, Boston, MA.

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality) 1981, "Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s

National Environmental Policy Act Regulations." CEQ, Executive Office of the President, Washington,

D.C. <http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40P1.HTM >. (December 18, 2002).

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1994. "State Consultation on Environmental

Assessments." Memorandum from Taylor to Russell et. al. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC. December 6.

NRC, 1997. "Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological

Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities." NUREG-1496. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washingtion, DC.

NRC, 1999. "Preparing NUREG-Series Publications." NUREG0650. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC.

NRC, 2001. "Regulations Handbook." NUREG/BR0053, Revision 5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. March.

NRC, 2002a. "Federal Register Notices For Materials Licensing Actions." Memorandum from Travers

to Meserve. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. December 10.
3-18

NRC, 2002b. "Staff Requirements (Supplemental) - Affirmation Session, 9:55 A.M., Thursday,

November 21, 2002, Commissioners’ Conference Room, One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland,

(Open to Public Attendance)." SRM-02-0179. Memorandum from Vietti-Cook to Travers. U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. December 3.
4-1

4 PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

PROCESS

An EIS must be prepared for proposed actions that:

 Are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment (10 CFR

51.20(a)(1)); 

 The NRC, as a matter of its discretion, has determined that an EIS should be prepared (10 CFR

51.20(a)(2)); or

 Are of the type listed in 10 CFR 51.20 (b). 

An EIS provides decision makers and the public with a detailed and objective evaluation of significant

environmental impacts, both beneficial and adverse, likely to result from a proposed action and

reasonable alternatives. In contrast to the brief analysis in an EA, the EIS includes a more detailed

interdisciplinary review. The EIS provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to support the

final NRC action in the Record of Decision (ROD; Section 4.10). The draft and final EIS and ROD are

made available to the public. Figure 4 outlines the EIS process.

For major licensing actions, as part of the NRC environmental review process, an applicant/licensee

should submit information necessary for the environmental review (i.e., prepare an ER, supplement an

existing ER, or provide the necessary information with the license application, as appropriate). The

environmental PM will review this information and use it to form the basis for assessing environmental

impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. Chapters 4 and 5 of this guidance document discuss the

EIS process and preparation of the EIS document. Applicants/licensees may find the information in

Chapter 6 useful when preparing environmental reports or supplemental environmental reports in support

of the proposed action (10 CFR 51.45, 51.60, 51.61, 51.62, 51.66).

For rulemaking actions, there is no applicant to provide environmental information, though in some cases

there may be a petitioner for rulemaking who would supply environmental information. Generally, the

environmental information needed to support the rulemaking EIS is developed by NRC staff and

contractors. Rulemaking EISs usually do not contain site-specific information though generic sites or

situations may be described, hence the term Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). As

discussed in Section 1.6.2, "Tiering," rulemaking GEISs should provide ample information regarding

bounding conditions and assumptions to allow future reference and tiering

4.1 Project Planning

4.1.1 EIS Team

As stated in Section 1.2.2, EPAB is assigned the responsibility for preparing NMSS EISs. EPAB will

designate an EIS or environmental PM who will form an EIS team. The EIS team should include the

licensing PM, relevant technical staff who will either prepare or review the EIS, and staff of the Office of

Public Affairs and OGC. Also, the environmental and licensing PMs’ Section Chiefs, and Licensing
NEPA Analysis

Complete.

Prepare FEIS and

File with EPA.

(Section 4.5)

Prepare ROD.

(Section 4.6)

Publish DEIS Document

and File with EPA.

(Section 4.4)

Scoping Process.

(Section 4.2.3)

Prepare Notice of Intent.

(Section 4.2.2)

Initial EIS Process.

(Section 4.2.1)

Perform Impact Analyses.

(Section 4.2.5)

Public Comment Period.

(Section 4.4.1)

Figure 4: Major steps in the EIS process.

Identify and Consult with

Cooperating Agencies.

(Section 4.2.4)

4-2
4-3

Assistants, and representatives of the Office of State and Tribal Programs (OSTP), and the applicable

Regional Office may be part of the team.

The environmental PM, with assistance from the EIS team, should:

 Determine the preliminary scope of the EIS including:

- developing a purpose and need statement;

- identifying a list of preliminary alternatives; and

- developing a list of potentially significant environmental issues.

 Prepare a project plan for the EIS process, including a preliminary schedule for preparing the

EIS.

 Assess the need for and provide a recommendation on contractor support.

 Conduct planning for the scoping process to determine:

- the number and type of scoping meetings;

- the locations of scoping meetings; and 

- agencies, groups, and individuals to be invited to participate.

 Identify potential cooperating agencies.

 Prepare the notice of intent to be published in the Federal Register.

4.1.2 Project Plan

The environmental PM, with assistance from the EIS team, should prepare a project plan for the EIS

process. This plan should be used as a basis for managing the project and should be periodically

reviewed and modified as needed as the project proceeds. A Gantt chart describing the plan should also

be prepared. The plan should include:

 Project purpose and background;

 A description of the principal project tasks and sub-tasks (e.g., planning, scoping, contract

acquisition, public participation, technical analyses, preparation of DEIS, etc.);

 Schedule corresponding to the tasks and sub-tasks;

 Resources in staff hours and contract support funds (preferably at the task level);

 Project organization, technical disciplines needed, and responsibilities, including responsibilities

for concurrence/approval at each phase; and

 References.
4-4

4.1.3 Contractor Support

Because of the complex nature of an EIS and the need for representation, on an EIS team, of several

scientific disciplines not normally present amongst NRC staff, the NRC typically uses contractors to

assist with preparation of EISs. In some cases, the EIS may be prepared principally by NMSS staff with

contractors assisting staff in developing specific portions of the EIS, or a contractor may prepare most of

the EIS with the oversight of the environmental PM. Therefore, the EIS team must determine the extent

to which contractor support will be required. If the team finds that NMSS staff are not available or do

not possess the appropriate expertise, the staff should recommend using an outside contractor to assist in

the development of those portions of the EIS for which staff does not have expertise or resources. It is

the environmental PM’s responsibility to contact the NMSS Program Management, Policy Development

and Analysis Staff to discuss the need for contractor support with the appropriate Technical Assistance

Program Manager. To best plan and have EIS contractor support in place at the time the license

amendment/application is received, the licensing PM should coordinate with EPAB prior to the receipt of

the amendment/application.

For rulemaking actions, obtaining contractor support usually begins after Commission approval of the

rulemaking plan, though various administrative tasks such as developing the statement of work and

independent government cost estimate should be initiated prior to Commission approval.

4.2 EIS Development

4.2.1 Initial EIS Development 

Following the acceptance review, as discussed in Section 1.3.3, the environmental PM and other

necessary technical reviewers or contractors should begin development of a preliminary draft of the EIS. 

This effort assists with identification of missing and unclear information, facilitates the preparation of

requests to the applicant/licensee for additional information (RAI), streamlines the EIS development, and

may assist during the scoping process. Typically, the preliminary draft EIS and the RAIs will not be

completed until after the scoping process is complete.

In evaluating the applicant’s environmental information, the environmental PM and other technical

reviewers should identify and evaluate the quality assurance measures taken by the applicant in

collecting and analyzing data. Quality assurance measures, including verification and validation, are also

evaluated where computer models have been used to predict environmental consequences of the

proposed actions.

Related generic and site-specific EISs should be reviewed to determine if there is a potential for using

existing analyses (Section 1.6, Utilizing Existing Environmental Analyses). Attention should be given to

the bounding conditions (both environmental and nonenvironmental) and related assumptions of these

previous analyses to determine if they apply to the new proposed action. This comparison and

determination should be briefly described in the EIS. Applicable portions of existing EAs and/or EISs

should be incorporated by reference to shorten the length of the EIS. 
4-5

The identification of potential cooperating agencies should also be made at this time in order to allow

full participation in the development of the EIS. A more complete discussion of the role of cooperating

agencies is provided in Section 4.2.4, Consultations and Cooperating Agencies.

4.2.2 Notice of Intent

After the environmental information and application are accepted for detailed review, the environmental

PM will publish the notice of intent (10 CFR 51.26) in the Federal Register. The notice of intent is

required (10 CFR 51.27) to: (i) state that an environmental impact statement will be prepared; (ii)

describe the proposed action and alternatives (if possible); (iii) state whether an environmental report has

been filed, and if so, where it is available; (iv) describe the scoping process including the role of

participants, whether scoping comments will be accepted, the last date for submitting comments, whether

scoping meeting(s) will be held, including the time and place; and (v) state the contact information for

the environmental PM. The notice of intent will also briefly describe the proposed action and possible

alternatives, describe the proposed scoping process, and state the name and address of the environmental

PM. An example is provided in Appendix E.

4.2.3 Scoping Process

Scoping occurs early in the EIS process and provides a means by which the scope of issues to be

addressed related to the proposed action are identified. CEQ requirements for scoping are found at 40

CFR 1501.7 and NRC requirements for scoping are found at 10 CFR 51.26-29. Objectives of the

scoping process (10 CFR 51.29) include:

 Defining the scope of the proposed action that is to be the subject of the EIS;

 Determining the scope of the EIS and identifying alternatives and significant issues to be

analyzed in depth;

 Identifying, and eliminating from detailed study, issues that are peripheral or are not significant;

 Identifying any EAs and other EISs that are being or will be prepared that are related to the EIS

under consideration;

 Identifying other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed

action;

 Indicating the relationship between the timing of the environmental analyses and the NRC’s

tentative planning and decision making schedule;

 Identifying any additional cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocating assignments for

preparation and schedules for completion of the EIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies;

and

 Describing the means by which the EIS will be prepared, including any contractor assistance to

be used.
4-6

Potential participants in the scoping process are described in 10 CFR 51.28 and typically include:

 The applicant or petitioner for rulemaking (if applicable) in the case of an EIS prepared in

support of a rulemaking action;

 Any person who has petitioned for leave to intervene, been admitted as a party, or requested to

participate in the proceeding;

 Any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise;

 Affected State and local agencies;

 Affected Federally recognized American Indian Tribes; and

 Any other interested person. 

The environmental PM shall ensure that adequate and timely notice of scoping meetings is provided to

all potentially interested parties. One of the most frequent complaints about scoping meetings is that

participants were not given sufficient notice or did not hear about the meetings until the last minute. In

addition to publishing the notice of intent in the Federal Register, the meetings should be announced on

the NRC’s website, in local or regional newspapers, posters around the meeting location, and/or on local

radio and television stations at least one week before the meeting is to be held. The environmental PM

should consult with the NRC Office of Public Affairs for assistance with newspaper, radio, or television

announcements or other avenues for public outreach.

Additional efforts to inform potentially affected groups, such as American Indian tribes and minority and

low-income populations, should be undertaken by requesting assistance from tribal leaders, church and

community leaders, or other appropriate individuals to disseminate the information. Where such groups

may be affected or have expressed concerns, allowing additional time to inform the public before the

scoping meeting should be considered. For example, announcements can be included in newsletters read

by these groups.

Scoping that is done before an EIS is initiated (e.g., to support an EA preparation) cannot substitute for

the formal scoping process after publication of the notice of intent, unless an earlier notice stated clearly

that this possibility was under consideration, and the earlier notice expressly provides that written

comments on the scope of alternatives and impacts would still be considered. There are no time

requirements for the scoping process (10 CFR 51.29 and 40 CFR 1501.7), however; 45 days from the

notice of intent should be considered as a minimum length for scoping and accepting scoping comments. 

If scoping meetings are held, they should be scheduled to ensure that there is a sufficient comment period

following the scoping meetings. Comments received after the scoping period has expired should be

considered to the extent practicable but may not be able to be included in the scoping report that is issued

listing the comments received. For supplemental EISs, scoping is not required (10 CFR 51.92); however,

circumstances may indicate that scoping is appropriate (e.g., substantive new or significant information

or circumstances) .
4-7

4.2.3.1 Scoping Meetings

Although public scoping meetings are not required by NRC’s or CEQ’s regulations; it is encouraged.

NRC practice is to usually hold one or more scoping meetings in the vicinity of the site(s) affected by the

proposed action. In certain circumstances (e.g., limited public interest) public scoping meetings may not

be held, however, public scoping comments must still be solicited. For rulemaking actions, the scoping

meetings should be centrally located to facilitate stakeholder participation. The environmental PM and

the EIS team, as appropriate, should visit the site prior to the scoping meeting if they have not already

done so in the past. The purpose of a site visit is to familiarize the environmental PM and the team of

technical experts who will be preparing the EIS with the site and locale. The environmental PM may

visit relevant Federal, State, and local agencies, especially potential cooperating agencies, to obtain

information needed to prepare the EIS and to facilitate communication with agencies having an interest

in the proposed action. The environmental PM is responsible for coordinating meetings with the licensee

and other parties.

The number of scoping meetings to be held should be determined by the types of concerns that have been

identified, the areal extent of the proposed action (including direct and indirect impacts), and the amount

of controversy associated with the proposed action. For example, if public interest appears to be

associated primarily with activities at the site of the proposed action, it may be sufficient to hold a single

scoping meeting at a location close to the site. On the other hand, if concerns are raised about

transportation of radioactive materials to/from the site, or about other issues having regional or broader

impacts, then scheduling scoping meetings in other locales where potential impacts have been identified

may be appropriate. 

There are no prescribed guidelines for conducting scoping meetings. Development of a format for the

meeting should be given careful consideration by the environmental PM and planning team. In preparing

for public scoping meetings, PMs should be aware of NRC’s "Enhancing Public Participation in NRC

Meetings; Policy Statement" (67 FR 36920; NRC, 2002a). Additional guidance is available for

conducting public meetings in NUREG/BR-0224, "Guidelines for Conducting Public Meetings" (NRC,

1996a) and NUREG/BR-0297, "NRC Public Meetings" (NRC, 2002b). Relevant guidance is also

contained in NRC Management Directive 3.4 "Release of Information to the Public" (NRC, 1999) and

NRC Management Directive 3.5 "Public Attendance at Certain Meetings Involving NRC Staff" (NRC,

1996b). Planning for the conduct of the scoping meeting should focus on:

 Goals of scoping; 

 Procedures to be used for the meeting;

 Need to focus the discussion in the scoping meeting on:

- Receiving comments relevant to the proposed activity;

- Significant issues;

- Alternatives to be considered;

- Receiving additional information that participants in the scoping process can provide;

- Other appropriate concerns;

 Ensuring that the meeting does not become a debate on either the applicant/licensee’s

justification for the proposed action or the past issues or actions; and
4-8

 Use of the EIS in making a decision on the proposed action.

In planning scoping meetings, the environmental PM, with the assistance of the Licensing Assistant,

should consider the following to enhance communications:

 Preparing handouts that explain the roles of NRC, cooperating agencies, scoping participants,

objectives of scoping, how the meeting is to be conducted, and some background on the

proposed action [These handouts can be based on information in the notice of intent, but it

should be written in plain language to facilitate communication with a broad audience];.

 Determining the type of meeting format, logistics and setup of the meeting room, procedures for

speakers (e.g., registration, order of speaking, time allowed for each speaker), use of handouts,

use of public feedback forms, and use of a facilitator;

 Holding an earlier separate meeting with local media reporters to discuss the proposed action, the

NEPA process, and the goals of the scoping meeting [Additional guidance is provided in

NUREG/BR-0202, "Guidelines for Interviews with the Media" (NRC, 2000).];

 Conducting a poster session (i.e., open house) prior to the scoping meeting to provide an

opportunity for one-on-one discussions with interested parties [Ensure that the public

understands when comments are being formally transcribed and/or taken.]; 

 Having the meeting transcribed to document public comments and support the preparation of the

scoping report;

 Starting a mailing list for those interested in receiving information about the scoping report,

DEIS, etc.; and 

 Setting up an EIS project email address to accept comments and a website to house key work

products. 

Possible formats for conducting scoping meetings include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Facilitated format in which the facilitator opens the meeting with an introduction about the

purpose of the meeting and a brief discussion of the background of the proposed action, solicits

questions and comments from the audience, guides and focuses the discussion on relevant issues

and points, and summarizes the discussion at the end of the meeting;

 Panel format in which a panel of individuals responsible for the EIS and a moderator (often the

senior decision maker) introduce the meeting and project similar to the preceding format, but

with the panel addressing specific background information on NRC, the project and the decisionmaking process, and the moderator guiding the meeting (i.e., solicits questions and comments

from the audience, guides and focuses the discussion on relevant issues and points, and

summarizes the discussion at the end of the meeting); and

 Open house format in which the meeting is set up as a series of discussion stations to address

specific issue areas or resources of concern (e.g., public health, ecological resources,
4-9

socioeconomic) [Attendees should be encouraged to discuss their concerns with appropriate EIS

team experts and/or to write down their concerns and turn them in at the meeting. This format

can include a formal introduction explaining the purpose of the meeting and directing the

attendees to specific areas of interest. It should also include an opportunity for attendees to

present oral comments to the NRC and the meeting audience, usually at the end of the meeting.].

4.2.3.2 Scoping Report

In addition to the oral comments gathered at scoping meetings, participants in the scoping process are

provided an opportunity to submit written comments on the scope of the EIS. The scoping comment

period should extend approximately 30 days after the scoping meeting is held if possible. After the

scoping meeting and receipt of written comments, the environmental PM and team will prepare a scoping

summary report [10 CFR 51.29(b)]. This report should be a concise summary of the determinations and

conclusions reached and should include the following:

 Brief discussion of how the scoping process was conducted, including the dates, locations, and

attendance at meetings;

 Discussion of the significant issues and concerns raised;

 Discussion of the alternatives to be evaluated;

 Preliminary schedule for preparing the EIS; and

 Identification of cooperating agencies who will participate in the preparation of the EIS and their

roles in EIS preparation. 

The environmental PM should send a copy of the final scoping report to each participant in the scoping

process. In addition, the report should be included in the EIS as an appendix. The scoping process ends

when the issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS have been clearly identified and summarized

in the scoping report. However, the issues and alternatives can be revised any time before publication of

the DEIS.

4.2.4 Consultations and Cooperating Agencies

4.2.4.1 Consultations

Early consultations are essential to: (i) maintaining the planned schedule for completion of the EIS, (ii)

gathering complete information, and (iii) identifying potentially significant impacts. Some agencies

require 30 days or more to respond to consultation requests and may require additional information from

NRC (e.g., photographs, maps, specialized surveys). Consultations may include a number of agencies

(e.g., local, county, State, tribal, Federal) which will have information relevant to the site. At a

minimum, the following consultations are typically required: 

 Section 106 consultation with the SHPO/THPO, Federally recognized American Indian Tribes,

or Native Hawaiian organizations for actions with the potential to cause/have effects on historic

properties; and 
4-10

 Section 7 consultation with the FWS for actions which may affect listed species or designated

critical habitat.

The environmental PM should document consultations and other sources of information with a brief

summary providing the following information: (i) the name of the person, position, and agency

consulted; (ii) the date and purpose of the consultation; (iii) a brief summary of the discussion and the

staff’s resolution; and (iv) references to publicly available documents containing additional information. 

Consultation letters should be included in an appendix to the EIS. The discussion of the consultation in

the EIS should describe why the staff initiated the consultation and summarize the details of the issues

and the resolution of the comments in the EIS. The PM is referred to Section 1.4 for a summary of

consultation requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of

the Endangered Species Act. Appendix D provides detailed instructions for completing these

consultations.

4.2.4.1.1 Interactions with the State

As required by 10 CFR 51.70(c), the staff will cooperate fully with State agencies to reduce duplication

between NEPA and State and local requirements. Lists of State Liaison Officers can be found on the

OSTP WWW at <www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/asframe.htm>. Often, the State Liaison Officer for NRC is the

head of the State agency responsible for radiation protection. Other State contacts (e.g., representatives

from the State department of health or environmental quality) who are typically copied on

correspondence regarding a license should also be notified of the action.

The environmental PM should contact the NRC Regional Offices to inform them of State interactions. 

The NRC Regional State Liaison Officers and Regional State Agreement Officers can be found on the

OSTP WWW at <www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/contacts/ospstaff.htm>.

OSTP should also be made aware of State interactions. Consulting with the NRC State Liaison Officer is

recommended during any consultation with the State. The NRC State Liaison Officer may offer insight

to recent NRC-State interactions. During significant interactions with the State, the appropriate NRC

State Liaison Officer should receive copies of correspondence with the State.

4.2.4.1.2 Other Consultations

The environmental PM should consult with other agencies that may be impacted or directly involved and

identify Federal and State laws that may apply to the site (Section 5.1.4, Applicable Regulatory

Requirements, Permits, and Regional Consultations). The staff should consult with the agencies

responsible for implementing these laws. Examples include sites located on or near Federally controlled

land (e.g., Bureau of Land Management), those that affect jurisdictional wetlands (e.g., U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers), in proximity to or upstream from National Parks, in proximity to coastal areas subject to

the Coastal Zone Management Act, and/or designated as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA) or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act sites by the EPA. 

If there is a need to contact the EPA, the EPA liaison in DWM should be informed of the contact and the

outcome or status. Consultations with American Indian tribes should be conducted in a sensitive manner

recognizing the unique government to government relationship that exists based on Federal law and

treaties and should be coordinated with the OSTP. 
4-11

4.2.4.2 Cooperating Agencies

NEPA implementing regulations encourage agencies to become cooperating agencies [10 CFR 51.14(a)

and 40 CFR 1501.6, 40 CFR1508.5]. Cooperating agencies can be Federal, State, or local agencies, or an

American Indian tribe, if the action may affect a reservation. Frequently, other Federal and/or State

agencies have jurisdiction over some aspect of the proposed action. In other cases, an agency may have

special expertise in relation to specific environmental issues of concern, and its involvement as a

cooperating agency will facilitate the exchange of information and help ensure that applicable

requirements are met. 

The environmental PM, in consultation with the licensing PM, identifies potential cooperating agencies

and requests the participation of agencies at the earliest possible time. Cooperating with Federal, State,

and local agencies will reduce duplication between Federal, NRC, and comparable State and local

requirements. For potential cooperating agencies that are unfamiliar with nuclear project it may be

beneficial for both the licensing and environmental PMs and OGC to meet with representatives of these

agencies to explain NRC’s mission and other topics relevant to the proposed action.

Contact potential cooperating agencies by letter to determine their interest in participating in the EIS

process. Once an agency expresses an interest in becoming a cooperating agency, an agreement should

be formalized between NRC and the agency (e.g., a letter of consent, procedural agreement, or a

memorandum of understanding) on the cooperating agency’s role (e.g., providing information, early

review of draft EIS analyses, preparation of EIS sections). It should also be noted that cooperating

agencies may have different business practices than NRC and these difference should be addressed as

early as possible (e.g., different comment periods for the DEIS). 

4.2.4.3 Potentially Interested or Affected Groups

Potentially interested or affected groups, including civic, American Indian tribes, ethnic, special interest

groups, and local residents may have special concerns about the proposed action. Identifying those

groups and understanding their interests are effective tools for emphasizing important environmental

issues and de-emphasizing less important issues. The NRC encourages enhanced public participation in

agency decisions.

4.2.5 Impact Assessment

Impacts are assessed for the proposed action and each alternative for each resource described in the

affected environment. Consider direct, indirect, cumulative, long-term, short-term, beneficial and

negative impacts. To the extent possible, the analysis of impacts should be quantified. Where there is

incomplete or unavailable information for evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts,

follow the procedures in 40 CFR 1502.22. If an impact can not be quantified it should be described

qualitatively. Beneficial impacts may also be identified but both positions should be discussed if a

benefit to one party is not viewed as benefit to a second party. A scientific basis should be provided;

however, it is recognized that there are areas that require professional judgement based on the available

information. A more detailed approach for determining impacts is presented in "Environmental Impact

Assessment," (Canter, 1996).
4-12

4.2.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

Direct impacts, or effects, are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect

impacts, or effects, are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are

still reasonably foreseeable. A detailed definition is provided in 40 CFR 1508.8 and describes the

following areas of impact: ecological; aesthetic; historical; cultural; economic; social; and health. Both

radiological and nonradiological impacts should be discussed. A section on radiological dose impacts

should always be provided, including both direct and indirect radiation dose impacts to humans and

environmental pathways.

Both geographic and temporal boundaries for each resource should be identified to assist with the

discussion of cumulative impact analysis findings discussed below. The EIS author should focus on

resource areas where there are impacts. The impacts should be assessed over the expected lifetime of the

action (e.g., expected duration of the site) and beyond. Although impacts may exist, they may not be

significant. Also, an impact which is not significant does not equate to "no impact." Describe the

assessment of impacts from all resources, even those for which an impact was not found.

4.2.5.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impact is defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period

of time" (40 CFR 1508.7).

Examples of cumulative impacts that may be considered:

 Pollutant discharges into surface water;

 Deterioration of recreational uses from loading water bodies with discharges of sediment,

nutrients, or thermal effluents;

 Reduction or contamination of ground water supplies; or 

 Physically segmenting a community through incremental development.

To determine cumulative impacts, the environmental PM should follow CEQ guidelines as outlined in

"Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act" (CEQ, 1997). Other

sources of guidance are available from EPA (1999) and the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency

(1999).

In general, a cumulative impacts assessment includes the following:

 Determining which resources are affected by the proposed action;

 Identifying other past, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that either have or

might affect those resources;
4-13

 Consulting with Federal, State, regional, and local regulators and affected American Indian

tribes;

 Identifying likely important cumulative effects;

 Describing cause and effect relationships between stresses (e.g., construction or operation of the

facility) and resources;

 Identifying and evaluating potential impacts, but focusing on the most important cumulative

impact issues; and

 Determining the magnitude and significance of the proposed action in the context of the

cumulative impacts of other past, present and future actions.

If the cumulative impacts are significant, consider avoiding, minimizing, mitigating, or monitoring to

address uncertainties.

The following information should be included in the EIS:

 Identification of relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, in addition to

the proposed action;

 Description of important cause-and-effect pathways;

 Description of significant cumulative impacts and a quantitative description of the magnitude of

these impacts;

 Justification for determining that other likely cumulative impacts are not significant;

 For significant cumulative impacts, a discussion of applicant commitments or staff

recommendations for actions to minimize environmental harm;

 For significant cumulative impacts, the need for monitoring to reduce uncertainties; and 

 Evaluation of reasonable alternatives for cumulative impacts.

4.2.5.3 Evaluation of Significance

Impact significance determination involves considering the context and intensity of the impacts. Context

means that consideration should be given to what the impacts are, where they will occur, how long they

will last, who is affected, and the carrying capacity of the affected environment. The evaluation of

significance should be based on the following considerations (40 CFR 1508.27):

 Impacts can be both beneficial and adverse. Are there significant adverse impacts despite the

existence of beneficial impacts?

 Are there undesirable public health or safety impacts?
4-14

 Does the proposed action comply with laws, regulations, or executive orders related to historic or

cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild/scenic rivers, or ecologically

critical areas?

 Are the impacts on the quality of the human environment likely to be controversial?

 Are the impacts on the human environment highly uncertain, or do they involve unique or

unknown risks?

 Does the proposed action establish a precedent for future actions with significant impacts? Does

it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration?

 Is the proposed action related to other actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively

significant impacts?

 Does the proposed action adversely affect districts, sites, structures, or other objects listed in or

eligible for listing in the National Register or will the action result in significant destruction of

scientific, cultural, or historical resources?

 Will the proposed action adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that

has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act?

 Will the proposed action cause a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements for the

protection of the environment?

The environmental and licensing PMs in coordination with management initially determine what impacts

the proposed action, taking into account reasonable mitigation, will have on the quality of the human

environment. Impact predictions should include comparisons to threshold levels (carrying capacity,

maximum concentration limits, etc.). Similar actions, regulations, professional judgement, and public

opinion or controversy may all contribute to the evaluation of the significance of the impacts related to

the proposed action.

A standard of significance has been established by NRC (see NUREG-1437) for assessing environmental

impacts. With the standards of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations as a basis, each

impact should be assigned one of the following three significance levels:

 Small: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

 Moderate: The environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,

important attributes of the resource.

 Large: The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

important attributes of the resource.
4-15

4.2.6 Request for Additional Information

As discussed in Section 4.2.1, the environmental PM or NRC contractor should develop a preliminary

draft of the EIS to assist with the preparation of RAIs. When using a contractor, the outline and draft of

the alternatives chapter (Section 5.2, Alternatives) should be approved by NRC staff before the

contractor begins development of the preliminary draft EIS. The scoping process should be completed

before the preliminary draft EIS and the RAIs.

RAI is a term applied to additional information (clarifications and questions) requested of the

applicant/licensee in order to complete the environmental and safety reviews. The NMSS goal is to

focus the content of RAIs to that additional information necessary to support a regulatory decision. 

Preparation of a preliminary draft EIS ensures that the necessary information is being requested. RAIs

should be documented in a letter to the applicant/licensee. Responses to RAIs should also be in writing.

4.2.7 Format and Content of EIS

NRC’s standard format for an EIS is described in Appendix A of 10 CFR 51. Program-specific guidance

may identify additional format and content requirements or options. The text of the EIS (not including

appendices) should normally be less than 150 pages and for proposals of unusual scope or complexity

less than 300 pages. CEQ guidance is provided in 40 CFR 1502.101502.18 and 1502.25. An

acceptable method of meeting these requirements is provided in Chapter 5, Preparing an Environmental

Impact Statement: Format and Technical Content.

4.3 Internal Review of the Environmental Impact Statement

Preliminary and final DEIS documents are reviewed by the environmental and licensing PMs, their

Section Chiefs, the EIS team, Branch Chiefs, and Division Directors. The Office Director and/or Deputy

Office Director may review certain NEPA documents (e.g., EISs involving a great deal of public

interest). OGC will review all EIS documents to make a determination of "no legal objection" prior to

release to the public. The environmental PM will coordinate the review. The NMSS Division Director

(normally the DWM Director) responsible for preparing the EIS is the decision maker for the preliminary

recommendation in the DEIS.

After internal review, the initial draft document will be forwarded to the cooperating agencies for review. 

The document should clearly indicate the following statements on each page: "DRAFT" and "Release of

this information to the public or other interested parties is only to be made upon the express permission

of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission." It may be beneficial to meet with cooperating agencies to

discuss the preliminary EIS.

The environmental PM and team will revise the DEIS in response to the cooperating agencies comments. 

A courtesy final DEIS document may be provided to the State and cooperating agencies before the notice

of availability is filed with EPA (Section 4.6, EPA Review). Reviewers should avoid inadvertent public

releases of draft documents.

A preliminary recommendation on the proposed action should be included in the DEIS [10 CFR

51.71(e)]. The preliminary recommendation should be based on the information discussed in 10 CFR
4-16

51.71 (e.g., scope of review, analysis of major points of view, status of compliance, and analysis of the

environmental effects of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives). In lieu of a recommendation

the staff may indicate that two or more alternatives remain under consideration.

4.4 Publishing the DEIS

When submitting the DEIS to the printer provide a copy of the distribution list, as described in

NUREG/BR-0188, "Distribution List Descriptions for NRC Reports and Documents," for the initial

distribution of DEIS. Sufficient copies must be printed and available for distribution to those who

request a copy, either during the scoping process or during the DEIS review period. Copies should also

be available for public review in the public electronic reading room. Documents incorporated by

reference in the DEIS must also be available for public review in the NRC public document room.

The following NRC standard forms may assist the environmental PM in completing the DEIS.

 Form 335 - Bibliographic Data Sheets;

 Form 426 - Authorization to Publish a NUREG; and

 Form 460 - Request for Graphic Services.

4.4.1 Notice of Availability and Distribution of DEIS

The NRC must publish a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the DEIS as described in

10 CFR 51.117. There are no format or content requirements for a notice of availability other than those

associated with the preparation of notices for publication in the Federal Register (OFR, 1998). In

addition to announcing the availability of the DEIS, the notice of availability must request comments on

the proposed action and the DEIS, specify where comments should be submitted, specify when the

comment period ends, and when applicable, indicate the dates and location of public meetings to discuss

the DEIS. Public comments can be received by mail, email, and on the NRC website, in addition to

public meetings. The NRC notice of availability should be coordinated with filing the DEIS with EPA. 

An example notice of availability is provided in Appendix E.

Beyond the minimum required period of 45 days (10 CFR 51.73), the time period for public comment on

a DEIS will be determined based on the potential environmental impact, the extent of the proposed

action, any associated controversy, and external time requirements (e.g., statutory deadlines). The

environmental PM should ensure the NRC notice of availability and comment period is consistent with

EPA’s notice of availability (i.e., publication dates in Federal Register).

For rulemaking actions, the DEIS is usually issued for a 75-day public comment period to coincide with

the comment period on the proposed ruel.

Following completion of the final DEIS, the lead agency is expected to distribute the DEIS for comment

to any interested parties. The DEIS will be distributed in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR

51.74 which include requirements for distribution, news releases, and the notice of availability. 
4-17

4.4.2 Filing the DEIS with EPA

The DEIS is filed with the EPA’s Office of Federal Activities (OFA) who will also publish a Federal

Register notice of availability. Five copies of the DEIS (including appendices) and a transmittal letter

identifying the name and telephone number of the environmental PM should be addressed to:

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Activities

EIS Filing Section

Mail Code 2252-A, Room 7241

Ariel Rios Building (South Oval Lobby)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

More information on the EPA process is provided at EPA’s OFA WWW at

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/submiteis/index.html> and

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/fileguide.html>. EPA’s review is described in

Section 4.6. As described in the EPA filing guidelines (EPA, 1989), the environmental PM should

complete distribution prior to transmittal of the DEIS to EPA for filing and review. The EPA notice of

availability is a list of all EISs filed the previous week, and is published on Fridays. The NRC notice of

availability is a more detailed description of the DEIS and must provide the information in 10 CFR 51.73

and 51.117. 

4.4.3 DEIS Public Meetings

Following the publication of the DEIS for public comment, the EIS team usually conducts a public

meeting or meetings near the site of the proposed action to receive public comments. In certain

circumstances public meetings need not be held (e.g., limited public interest). However, public

comments must still be solicited. For rulemaking actions, meetings should be centrally located to

facilitate stakeholder participation. The purpose of the public meeting is to allow the staff to explain the

contents of the DEIS as well as accept public comments. For actions, such as rulemaking, that may have

a national impact, it may be appropriate to schedule and hold a series of public meetings at a number of

different locations. For more information see Section 1.7, Public Meetings. The following should be

considered in preparing for and conducting meetings to gather public comments:

 Scheduling meetingsProvide the public with a reasonable opportunity to review the DEIS prior

to the meeting. Generally, the meeting should be held at least 30 days after the EPA notice of

filing. However, meetings should not be held so late in the comment period as to preclude

attendees from submitting written comments after the meeting. 

 Announcing meetingsAnnounce the dates, times, and locations in the Federal Register notice

of availability for the DEIS, in a press release to local media, in newspaper advertisements, on

NRC’s website, and by other means that may be recommended by local officials or groups. 

Planning for the meeting(s) should be completed before distributing the DEIS.
4-18

 Conducting meetingsRecords of public meetings should be maintained, including a transcript,

a list of attendees (as well as addresses of attendees desiring to be added to the mailing list) and a

meeting summary.

 Location of meetingsHold public meetings at a neutral location (e.g., school auditorium, hotel

meeting room, community center, etc.) large enough to handle the expected attendees.

 FormatThe format of public meetings will vary. The environmental PM and the EIS team

should be prepared to give a summary of the proposed action and potential impacts, allowing

time for questions prior to gathering comments from the public.

 CostIn budgeting for these meetings, the costs should include renting facilities and the

necessary equipment, hiring staff (e.g., court reporters, security), and other expenses such as

advertisements in the local media.

 The number of people expected to attend the proposed meetingThe number of attendees should

be considered when selecting the facility. Guidance is provided in Management Directive 3.5,

Public Attendance at Certain Meetings Involving the NRC Staff (NRC, 1996b). 

 Identify the members of the EIS team who will attend the meeting, and determine their role For

some meeting formats, formal presentations and/or a question and answer session may be

appropriate.

 A facilitatorA facilitator may be useful to establish ground rules for conducting the meeting

and keeping the meeting focused on the action and DEIS under review. This is especially

important for contentious or controversial (local or national) issues.

The following NRC standard forms will assist the environmental PM in preparing for public meetings:

 Form 30 - Request for Administrative Services;

 Form 420 - Request for Premium Cost Mail Service;

 Form 587 - Request for Court Reporting Services; and

 Form 659 - NRC Public Meeting Feedback.

4.4.4 EPA Review

The Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.)authorizes the EPA to review proposed actions by Federal

agencies in accordance with NEPA and to make those reviews public. Section 309 of the Clean Air Act

states that the Administrator [of the EPA] shall review and comment, in writing, on the environmental

impact of any matter relating to duties and responsibilities granted pursuant to the Act or other

provisions of the authority of the Administrator contained in: (i) legislation proposed by any Federal

department or agency; (ii) newly authorized Federal projects for construction and any major Federal

agency action (other than a project for construction) to which NEPA applies; and (iii) proposed

regulations published by any department or agency of the Federal government. Written comments will

be made public at the conclusion of the review. If the EPA Administrator determines that any such

legislation, action, or regulation is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health welfare or

environmental quality, they will publish their determination and the matter will be referred to the CEQ. 
4-19

If the proposing or "lead" agency does not make sufficient revisions in response to EPA’s review of the

proposed action and the project remains "environmentally unsatisfactory," EPA may refer the matter to

the CEQ for mediation.

The EPA Administrator has delegated responsibility for these reviews to EPA’s OFA and the ten EPA

Regional Administrators. OFA has developed the following criteria in rating the environmental impacts

of a proposed action:

 LO - Lack of Objection;

 EC - Environmental Concerns - Impacts identified that should be avoided. Mitigation measures

may be required.

 EO - Environmental Objections - Significant impacts identified. Corrective measures may

require substantial changes to the proposed action or consideration of another alternative,

including any that was either previously unaddressed or eliminated from the study, or the noaction alternative. Reasons include:

- violation of a Federal environmental standard;

- violation of the Federal agency’s own environmental standard;

- violation of an EPA policy declaration;

- potential for significant environmental degradation; or

- precedent-setting for future actions that collectively could result in significant

environmental impacts.

 EU - Environmentally Unsatisfactory - Impacts identified are so severe that the action must not

proceed as proposed. If these deficiencies are not corrected in the FEIS, EPA may refer the EIS

to CEQ. Reasons include:

- substantial violation of a Federal environmental standard;

- severity, duration, or geographical extent of impacts that warrant special attention; or

- national importance, due to threat to national environmental resources or policies;

EPA uses the following criteria to rate the adequacy of the EIS:

 1 - Adequate: No further information is required for review; 

 2 - Insufficient Information: Either more information is needed for review or other

alternatives should be evaluated. The identified additional

information or analysis should be included in the FEIS; or

 3 - Inadequate: Seriously lacking information or analysis to address potentially

significant environmental impacts. The draft EIS does not meet

NEPA and or Section 309 requirements. If not revised, or

supplemented, and provided again as a DEIS for public

comment, EPA may refer the EIS to CEQ. 
4-20

Additional information on the Section 309 process can be found at EPA’s OFA WWW at

<http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/nepa/comments/ratings.html> .

4.4.5 Responses to Comments on the DEIS

Depending on the extent of the proposed action, the anticipated impacts, and the degree of public

controversy, the number of written and oral comments received can vary. Comments may lead to

modification of the proposed action or alternatives, additional impact analyses, or factual corrections. 

The FEIS will include responses to individual or grouped substantive comments (10 CFR 51.91).

Comments can be grouped into categories to facilitate responses. All comments must be analyzed,

appropriate responses prepared, and the EIS revised as appropriate. Detailed responses should be made

to comments that (i) are substantive, (ii) relate to inadequacies or inaccuracies in the analysis or

methodologies used, (iii) identify new impacts or recommend reasonable new alternatives or mitigation

measures, or (iv) involve substantive disagreements on interpretations of significance. Several typical

types of comments and appropriate responses are discussed below.

 Comments on Inaccuracies and DiscrepanciesFactual corrections should be made to the DEIS

in response to comments that identify inaccuracies or discrepancies in factual information, data,

or analyses.

 Comments on the Adequacy of the AnalysisComments that express a professional

disagreement with the conclusions of the analysis or assert that the analysis is inadequate may or

may not lead to changes in the FEIS. Public comments may necessitate a reevaluation of

analytical conclusions. If, after reevaluation, the environmental PM believes a change is not

warranted, the response should provide the rationale for that conclusion.

 Comments That Identify New Impacts, Alternatives, or Mitigation MeasuresIf public

comments on a DEIS identify impacts, alternatives, or mitigation measures that were not

addressed in the draft, the environmental PM should determine if they warrant further

consideration. If they do, the EIS team should determine whether the new impacts, new

alternatives, or new mitigation measures should be analyzed in either the FEIS, a supplement to

the DEIS, or a completely revised and recirculated DEIS. If the environmental PM determines

that the new impacts, alternatives, or mitigation measures do not warrant further analysis, the

response should provide rationale for that conclusion.

 Disagreements With Significance DeterminationsComments may directly or indirectly

question the significance or severity of impacts. A reevaluation of these analyses may be

warranted and may lead to changes in the DEIS. If, after reevaluation, the environmental PM

does not think that a change is warranted, the response should provide the rationale for that

conclusion.

 Expressions of Personal PreferencesComments that express personal preferences or opinions

on the proposal do not require a response, however, they should be summarized in the comment

section of the FEIS.
4-21

4.5 Finalizing the EIS

As a result of public comments the EIS team may determine that additional information is needed from

the applicant/licensee before the DEIS can be finalized. Additional RAIs should be provided to the

applicant/licensee in writing with the responses to those requests also documented in a letter to the NRC.

Preliminary and final FEIS documents are reviewed by the environmental and licensing PMs, their

Section Chiefs, the EIS team, Branch Chiefs, and Division Directors. The Office Director and/or Deputy

Office Director may review certain NEPA documents (e.g., EISs involving a great deal of public

interest). OGC will review all EIS documents to make a determination of "no legal objection" prior to

release to the public. The environmental PM will coordinate the review.

4.5.1 Publishing the FEIS

When submitting the FEIS to the printer provide a copy of the distribution list, as described in

NUREG/BR-0188, "Distribution List Descriptions for NRC Reports and Documents," for the initial

distribution of FEIS. Sufficient copies must be printed and available for distribution to those who

request a copy. Copies should also be available for public review in the public electronic reading room. 

Documents incorporated by reference in the FEIS must also be available for public review in the NRC

public document room.

4.5.2 Distributing the FEIS

Following completion of the FEIS, the lead agency is expected to distribute the FEIS. The FEIS will be

distributed as described in 10 CFR 51.93:

 Distribution to:

- EPA;

- applicant or petitioner;

- any other party to the proceeding and each commentor; and

- appropriate State, regional, and metropolitan clearing houses; 

 News releases; and 

 Publishing Federal Register notice of availability (10 CFR 51.118).

For rulemaking actions, the notice of availability is published in the Federal Register notice with the

Final Rule.

4.5.3 Filing the FEIS with EPA

The FEIS is filed with the EPA’s Office of Federal Activities (OFA) who will also publish a Federal

Register notice of availability. Five copies of the FEIS (including appendices) and a transmittal letter

identifying the name and telephone number of the environmental PM should be addressed to:
4-22

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Activities

EIS Filing Section

Mail Code 2252-A, Room 7241

Ariel Rios Building (South Oval Lobby)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

More information on the EPA process is provided at EPA’s OFA WWW at

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/submiteis/index.html> and

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/fileguide.html>. As described in the EPA

filing guidelines (EPA, 1989), the environmental PM should complete distribution prior to transmittal of

the FEIS to EPA. The EPA notice of availability is a list of all EISs filed the previous week, and is

published on Fridays. The NRC notice of availability is a more detailed description of the FEIS and

must provide the information in 10 CFR 51.93 and 51.118. 

4.5.4 Abbreviated FEIS

If only minor changes are made in the DEIS in response to comments and the changes are confined to

either factual corrections or explanations of why the comments do not warrant further response then an

abbreviated FEIS may be prepared [10 CFR 51.91(a)(3)]. An abbreviated FEIS contains the substantive

comments received on the DEIS, responses to those comments, and an errata section with modifications

and corrections to the DEIS in response to comments. No rewriting or reprinting of the DEIS is

necessary.

4.5.5 Full Text FEIS

If the changes to the DEIS are major, the full-text of the FEIS should be published. The format of the

FEIS is the same as the DEIS, except that the FEIS includes the substantive comments on the DEIS,

responses to those comments, and changes in or additions to the text of the DEIS. The comments are

usually placed in an appendix. The FEIS may incorporate by reference the appendices of the DEIS, if

there are no changes to the appendices. The availability of a full-text FEIS aids subsequent use of the

document for tiering and supplementing purposes.

4.6 Record of Decision

The FEIS and SER form the basis for the NRC decision to approve or deny the applicant/licensee

request. The environmental PM will prepare a concise public ROD (10 CFR 51.102-103) that states: (i)

what the decision is; (ii) all alternatives considered by the NRC and specifying the alternative(s)

considered to be environmentally preferable; (iii) preferences among alternatives based on relevant

factors; (iv) whether the NRC has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or

minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative and if not, explain why; and (v) summarize

any license conditions or monitoring programs adopted as mitigation measures, if applicable. The ROD

may be integrated into any other record prepared by the Commission in connection with the proposed

action [10 CFR 51.103(c)]. The ROD may also incorporate by reference material contained in an FEIS. 
4-23

For NRC, issuance of the license, license amendment, or other authorization within the jurisdiction of the

NRC such as decommissioning and license termination typically constitute the ROD.

Until the ROD is issued, no action concerning the applicant/licensee proposal will be taken that could

have adverse environmental impacts or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. If NRC is considering

an application from a non-Federal entity and is aware that the applicant is about to take an action within

the agency’s jurisdiction that would meet either criterion (adverse effect or limiting choices), NRC will

promptly notify the applicant to stop the action.

The following suggested format satisfies the ROD content requirements specified in 10 CFR 51.103:

 Introductory MaterialA cover sheet includes the following information, or most of this

information is included at the top of the first page.

- Title;

- Docket number and name of applicant /licensee;

- Preparing office and office location;

- Cooperating agencies, if any;

- Signature and title of the responsible official, and signature and title of concurring

officials, if any (signature(s) may appear on the last page of the ROD if a cover sheet is

not prepared); and 

- Date of signature of approving and concurring officials (this is the official date of the

ROD).

 SummaryA summary is needed only if the ROD exceeds 10 pages. It should be a brief

synopsis of the ROD. 

 Decision [10 CFR 51.103(a)(1), 40 CFR 1505.2(a)]A clear and concise description of the

decision should be prepared. All important aspects or details of the decision should be

identified. There should be no ambiguities regarding the specifics of what is or is not being

approved.

 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action [10 CFR 51.103(a)(2), 40 CFR 1505.2(b)]Identify

the alternatives considered by the NRC and specify the alternative or alternatives which were

considered to be "environmentally preferable."

 Management Considerations [10 CFR 51.103(a)(3), 40 CFR 1505.2(b)]This section provides

the rationale for the decision. Discuss factors, including national policy considerations, NRC’s

statutory mission, social, economic, technical, and other pertinent considerations weighed in the

decision-making process. 
4-24

 Mitigation and Monitoring [10 CFR 51.103(a)(4), 40 CFR 1505.2 (c)]Committed mitigation

measures and related monitoring and enforcement activities, if any, for the selected alternative

are presented here. State whether the NRC has taken all practicable measures within its

jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected. Measures to

avoid or reduce environmental harm which were not selected should also be identified with a

brief explanation of why such measures were not adopted. Mitigation and monitoring that will

become part of the agency’s authorization should be included as stipulations or license

conditions in the ROD (i.e., license or license amendment).

 Public InvolvementBriefly describe efforts to seek public views throughout the NEPA process.

4.7 Implementation and Monitoring

Until the ROD has been signed and for at least 30 days following the publication by the EPA of the

Federal Register notice stating that the FEIS has been filed with the EPA, no action having either an

adverse environmental effect or that would limit the choice of alternatives can be taken (10 CFR 51.100-

101). Following approval of the ROD and the satisfaction of all other requirements the NRC may

approve the action. The approved action must be in accordance with the decision(s) as documented in

the ROD. No substantive changes may be made in the implementation of the decision without

reconsideration of NEPA compliance needs.

Monitoring and enforcement activities for mitigation measures are generally specified in the ROD as an

element of the decision. Most other monitoring activities, however, will not be specified in the ROD. A

monitoring plan is recommended for most actions requiring an EIS and should be developed as soon as

possible after approval of the ROD.

4.8 References

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 1999, "Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners

Guide." Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec, Canada. 

<http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/0011/0001/0004/index_e.htm>. (December 19, 2002).

Canter, L.W., 1996. "Environmental Impact Assessment." Irwin/McGraw Hill, Boston, MA.

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality), 1997. "Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National

Environmental Policy Act." CEQ, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

<http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/exec.pdf> (December 19, 2002).

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1989. "Filing System Guidance for the Implementation

of 1506.9 and 1506.10 of the CEQ Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA." U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Federal Register: Volume 54, pp. 9592-9594.

March 7. Also available at <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/fileguide.html> 

(December 19, 2002).

EPA, 1999. "Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents." U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. May.

<http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/nepa/>. (December 19, 2002).
4-25

OFR (Office of the Federal Register), 1998. "Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook." OFR,

National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C.

<http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/publications/document_drafting_resources.html>. (December

19, 2002).

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1996a. "Guidelines for Conducting Public Meetings." 

NUREG/BR0224. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. February.

NRC, 1996b. "Public Attendance at Certain Meetings Involving the NRC Staff." Management Directive

3.5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. May 24.

NRC, 1999. "Release of Information to the Public." Management Directive 3.4. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. December 1.

NRC, 2000. "Guidelines for Interviews with the News Media." NUREG/BR0202. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. June.

NRC, 2002a. "Enhancing Public Participation in NRC Meetings; Policy Statement." U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. May 28. 

<http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/meeting-faq.html>. (December 19, 2002).

NRC, 2002b. "NRC Public Meetings." NUREG/BR0297. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC. August.
4-26

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
5-1

5 PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

FORMAT AND TECHNICAL CONTENT

This chapter discusses one method of preparing an acceptable EIS. This chapter generally follows the

outline of an EIS as described in 10 CFR 51, Appendix A. This EIS format is generally present in all

EISs. The information to be provided by the applicant/licensee is described in Chapter 6, The

Environmental Report: Format and Technical Content. 

The scope of the EIS should be balanced against the credible threat to the environment posed by the

proposed action (e.g., facility construction, facility operation, or decommissioning). The EIS should

present a detailed and thorough description of each affected resource for the evaluation of potential

impacts to the environment. Every resource may not receive the same level of detailed review. This is

consistent with one of the goals of NEPA, which is to concentrate on the issues that are significant to the

proposed action and its potential environmental impacts.

In addition to the EIS, NRC typically prepares a SER to evaluate the radiological impacts of a proposed

action. Although there is some overlap between the content of an SER and an EIS, the intent of the

documents is different. Since the documents provide input to each other, they must be developed in

parallel. This guidance applies to licensing actions. Additional guidance for the preparation of EISs for

rulemaking actions is contained in NUREG/BR-0053, "Regulations Handbook" (NRC, 2001).

The rest of this chapter is written to follow the outline of an EIS. Each of the following section headings

describe the types of information usually included in the EIS. It is acceptable to combine chapters to

make a more readable document, as long the required information (10CFR 51.70 and 51.71) is present. 

Following is an example table of contents:

Executive Summary

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

1.2 The Proposed Action

1.3 Scope of This Environmental Analysis

1.3.1 Issues Studied in Detail 

1.3.2 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study 

1.4 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Regional Consultations

1.5 Comments on the Draft Environment Impact Statement

Chapter 2 Alternatives

2.1 Process Used to Formulate Alternatives

2.2 Proposed Action

2.3 No-Action Alternative

2.4 Other Reasonable Alternatives

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

2.6 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts

2.7 Preliminary Recommendation
5-2

Chapter 3 Description of the Affected Environment 

Chapter 4 Environmental Impacts

Chapter 5 Mitigation Measures

Chapter 6 Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs

6.1 Radiological Monitoring

6.2 Chemical Monitoring

6.3 Ecological Monitoring

Chapter 7 Cost-Benefit Analysis

Chapter 8 Summary of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 9 List of Preparers

Chapter 10 Distribution List

Chapter 11 List of References

Appendices

5.1 Introduction of the EIS

The following background information should be provided:

 Proposed action and relevant background;

 Explanation of why this action requires an EIS;

 Brief history of the facility (if not a new application) or program, as appropriate; and

 List of the other alternatives considered.

5.1.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

This section explains why the proposed action is needed. It describes the underlying need for the

proposed action and should not be written merely as a justification of the proposed action, nor to alter the

choice of alternatives. Another common mistake is to identify compliance with NEPA and CEQ

regulations as the need. Examples of need include a benefit provided if the proposed action is granted or

descriptions of the detriment that will be experienced without approval of the proposed action. In short,

the need describes what will be accomplished as a result of the proposed action.
5-3

5.1.2 The Proposed Action

This section should briefly describe the proposed action, including the name of the applicant/licensee, the

title of the project, the location (with a map), and the schedule. This section should also describe the

desired outcome or goal of the proposal. For example, at a decommissioning site, the licensee must meet

the 10 CFR 20, Subpart E, radiological criteria for license termination. For a new fuel cycle facility, the

applicant/licensee must meet the 10 CFR 70 criteria.

5.1.3 Scope of This Environmental Analysis

This section describes the scoping process. The scoping process, as described in Section 4.2.3, will

result in the scope of the EIS.

The following information should be included in the EIS:

 History of the planning and scoping process for this project;

 Discussion of public concerns;

 List of cooperating agencies and the reasons they became cooperating agencies;

 List of other Federal, State, local, and other organizations contacted; and 

 Summary of related EISs, EAs and other relevant documents, such as the SER and includes

mention of former EAs for the site and GEISs used in tiering.

5.1.3.1 Issues Studied in Detail 

The scoping process identifies two categories of issues - those that need to be studied in detail (but do

not necessarily result in significant impacts) and those that can be eliminated from detailed study because

the impacts are minimal. Resources (ground water, historic properties, ecological resources, etc.) are

generally the same as issues. However, a resource could be split into two issues - for example, shortterm socioeconomic impacts due to construction and long-term socioeconomic impacts to land use. To

make the EIS less like an encyclopedia and more issue-driven, it is recommended that the environmental

analysis be separated into these two categories. This approach leads to an EIS that emphasizes the

principal results of the analysis, and these two sections (5.1.4.1 and 5.1.4.2) are a summary of the

conclusions regarding environmental impacts.

This section provides a summary of the issues that require more detailed study. Among these issues are

those that may result in significant short- or long-term impacts. Each issue and the conclusion regarding

its potential impact are described briefly (no more than a few paragraphs). A more detailed analysis of

the impacts should be presented in the EIS chapter, "Environmental Impacts."

5.1.3.2 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study 

This section summarizes the issues that were found to have minimal short- and long-term impacts. Each

issue and the conclusion regarding its potential impact are described briefly in one or two paragraphs. If
5-4

necessary, the issues eliminated from detailed study are discussed further in an appendix. The reader is

referred to the appropriate EIS section in the appendix if there is further explanation. 

5.1.4 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Regional Consultations

The staff review includes identification of applicable consultations, approvals, and authorizations (and

the relevant agencies). The review should include: (i) determination of the status of the consultations

and/or authorizations; (ii) identification of environmental concerns; and (iii) evaluation of potential

administrative problems that could delay or prevent agency authorization. 

The staff should:

 Identify all Federal, State and local permits, licenses, approvals, and other entitlements that must

be obtained in connection with the proposed action.

 Produce a summary of compliance with applicable environmental quality standards and

requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, and local agencies.

Table 1 illustrates a sample format for summarizing the list of permits, licenses, approvals, entitlements

and consultations and their status. The table can be used by the reviewers to identify areas of

environmental concern and determine applicant/licensee compliance with existing standards and

regulations. In some circumstances (e.g., a potential problem in State siting authorizations), the

environmental PM may need to prepare additional information to fully cover the subject material. If it is

uncertain whether a Federal permit, license, approval, or other entitlement is necessary, the DEIS will so

indicate (10 CFR 51.71(c)).

Table 1. Sample format for Federal, State, and local authorizations and consultations

 Agency Authority Activity Covered Status*

US. Army Corps of

Engineers

Clean Water Act,

Section 404

Dredge and Fill Permit Approval to be

obtained

U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

Endangered Species

Act

Biological Assessment Undetermined at

present

State Historic

Preservation Office

National Historic

Preservation Act

Consultation Initial consultation

complete

*This field to be filled in based on the consultations with relevant agencies.

5.1.5 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

In the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), include a summary of the major public comments

on the DEIS. Include details on the comments and responses in an appendix.
5-5

The following information should be included in the FEIS:

 Date(s):

- DEIS was submitted to EPA;

- Notice of intent was published in the Federal Register; and

- DEIS was made available to the public;

 Methods used to publicize the availability of the DEIS;

 Schedule of public meetings held on the DEIS, including location, date, and time; and

 Summary of major comments and responses.

5.2 Alternatives

This section introduces alternatives that could also accomplish the need for the proposed action. This

section should discuss the no-action alternative, the proposed action, and the reasonable alternatives. 

Alternatives should be included that will avoid or minimize adverse effects upon the quality of the

human environment.

All alternatives, including the no-action alternative, should receive equal and objective treatment. The

phrase "range of alternatives" includes all reasonable alternatives (including the no-action alternative) to

the proposed action, as well as those other alternatives that are eliminated from detailed study, with a

brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating them. Reasonable alternatives are those alternatives that

meet the proposal objectives and applicable environmental standards and are technically feasible.

The number of alternatives considered is generally small (e.g., three to five alternatives). The discussion

of alternatives should include similar types of descriptions as for the proposed action. Describing the

alternatives in a parallel format for presentation makes the comparisons clear to the reader. The

alternatives should also be summarized in a table for efficiency and clarity.

The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that offers the best combination of

minimized damage to the biological/physical environment and protection of historic, cultural, and natural

resources. The environmentally preferred alternative may not necessarily be the same as the proposed

action or chosen alternative because of many factors, including cost/benefit analyses, mitigating factors,

and legal considerations.

A preliminary recommendation on the proposed action should be included in the DEIS [10 CFR

51.71(e)]. The preliminary recommendation should be based on the information discussed in 10 CFR

51.71 (e.g., scope of review, analysis of major points of view, status of compliance, and analysis of the

environmental effects of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives). In lieu of a recommendation

the staff may indicate that two or more alternatives remain under consideration.
5-6

5.2.1 Process Used to Formulate Alternatives

Briefly describe the process used to formulate alternatives - licensee submittals, public input during the

scoping process, interdisciplinary discussions, etc. As a general matter, the staff has broad discretion in

consideration of alternatives in the EIS and is not limited to considering only those alternatives proposed

by the applicant/licensee. However, the selection of an alternative solely because it is economically

superior to the proposed action is inconsistent with past NRC practice. In general, the staff should

include all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action with the purpose of identifying those that are

environmentally superior (NRC, 1997).

5.2.2 Proposed Action

This section describes the proposed action in greater detail, usually what the applicant/licensee proposes

in their license application. It should not include descriptions that are more appropriate in the purpose

and need section. 

This section should also describe the facility and location. It should provide a detailed description of the

facility’s geographical location including an overview map of within 50 miles of the site, a more detailed

map within 5 miles, and a map of the facility layout. The layout description should identify all buildings

and pertinent features. The site features most likely impacted (or to cause impacts) by the proposed

action should be described in detail. The location description will establish a geographical point of

reference for other resource descriptions (e.g., land and water use, local ecology, or socioeconomic).

The facility descriptions should include the nature and extent of present and proposed operations at the

site, facilities that might be constructed, modified, or impacted as a result of the proposed action,

summary description of the facility operations (including the types and methods of material movement

from one part of the site to another), and identification of the radionuclides and hazardous materials

used, including where and how they are stored, handled, utilized, and disposed. A complete description

of the facility support systems (e.g., electrical power, gas supply and water supply etc.) should be

provided. This section should also describe nonradiological and radiological contamination at the

site/facility and provide a discussion of background radiological characteristics. Discuss any accidents

that may have occurred during operation and their impacts.

5.2.3 No-Action Alternative

This section describes the no-action alternative along with a description of the major impacts. For the

no-action alternative, the proposed action would not take place. This serves as a baseline for comparing

alternatives. For example, in a license application proposing new construction and/or activities the noaction alternative would be to not grant the license (i.e., no construction or activity). In a license renewal

situation, the no-action alternative would be to deny the amendment request (the licensee would still

have to comply with other applicable requirements). For certain decommissioning actions, the no-action

alternative (i.e., not perform the decommissioning activity) may not be a reasonable option and detailed

analysis of impacts is not usually performed.
5-7

5.2.4 Other Reasonable Alternatives

This section describes other reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and a summary of their major

impacts. A description of reasonable alternatives depends on the nature of the proposal and the facts in

each case. As discussed in 40 CFR 1502.14, the emphasis is on reasonable rather than whether the

applicant/licensee likes or is capable of carrying out a particular alternative. Reasonable alternatives

include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using

common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant/licensee (CEQ, 1981). 

5.2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

This section summarizes the alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study, with a brief discussion

of the reasons for eliminating them. The section does not need to be exhaustive, but should at least

discuss alternatives that have been proposed in applicant/licensee documents, public meetings, and

related correspondence. If the no-action alternative is not a reasonable option due to legal, safety, or

considerations, it should also be discussed in this section.

5.2.6 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts

This section describes and compares all alternatives. Discussion of the impacts of the alternatives should

be limited to a descriptive summary of the impacts to all resources. The information contained in this

section should also be incorporated into a summary table.

5.2.7 Preliminary Recommendation

As described in 10 CFR 51.71(e) the DEIS should normally include a preliminary recommendation on

the proposed action. This recommendation should be based on the information and analyses contained in

the DEIS and reached after consideration of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and

reasonable alternatives. In lieu of a recommendation the staff may indicate that two or more alternatives

remain under consideration.

5.3 Description of the Affected Environment 

The description of the affected environment focuses on baseline conditions, i.e., the status quo. The

baseline conditions will be used to assess the impacts discussed in Section 5.4, Environmental Impacts.

The following environmental resources should be considered, as appropriate in preparing the EIS:

 Land use;

 Transportation;

 Geology and soils;

 Water resources;

 Ecology;

 Meteorology, climatology, and air quality;

 Noise;

 Historical and cultural resources;
5-8

 Visual/scenic resources;

 Socioeconomic;

 Public and occupational health; and

 Waste management.

5.3.1 Land Use

This section should describe existing and planned (without the proposed action) land uses for the site and

vicinity. The EIS should include maps that provide locations of schools, hospitals, farming areas, and

other land uses important to impact assessment. A discussion of possible conflicts between Federal,

State, regional, and local (and in the case of a reservation, American Indian tribe) land-use plans,

policies, and controls for the site should also be included.

5.3.2 Transportation

If transportation is an important issue, it may be necessary to develop a separate section on transportation

instead of incorporating this information in the land use or socioeconomic section. This section should

describe transportation resources at and around the facility. The EIS should describe transportation

infrastructure as it is important for considering impacts such as site workers commuting and

transportation of materials. This section should describe local roads and highways, railroads, navigable

rivers, and provide information on current levels of traffic.

5.3.3 Geology and Soils

The section should provide a brief summary of regional and site geology. Reference the SER for

additional details. The EIS should discuss regional and local structure, the site stratigraphy,

characteristics of the soil, major structural and tectonic features (e.g., faults), any other significant

geological conditions, local and regional seismicity data, and volcanism. 

5.3.4 Water Resources

This section describes the water resources, including surface and ground water hydrology, water use, and

water quality. The EIS should describe the surface water bodies and ground water aquifers that could be

affected by the proposed action and should consider both regional and site specific data. The EIS should

provide a map showing the relationship of the site to major hydrogeologic systems. Describe flood

plains, wetlands, streams, reservoirs, etc. The EIS should include a description of site-specific and

regional data on the characteristics of surface and ground water quality in sufficient detail to provide the

necessary data for other reviews dealing with water resources. The EIS should include a discussion of

water quantity available for use and possible conflicts between Federal, State, regional, local and

American Indian tribe, in the case of a reservation, water-use plans, policies, and controls for the site.

Consumptive water uses that could affect the water quality and supply of the proposed action or that may

be adversely affected by the proposed action should be identified including water source, locations of

diversions and returns, amount used and seasonal use patterns, and water rights. Also, recreational,

navigational, and other non-consumptive water uses including those that could be affected by offsite area

construction and operation by location, activity, and amount used, and seasonal use patterns should be
5-9

provided. Finally, this section should identify water uses that provide potential pathways for both

radiological and nonradiological effluents including water sources, locations of diversions for

consumptive uses, locations of receptors for non-consumptive uses, amount used, and seasonal use

patterns.

Additional sources of information should be utilized when needed to complete the analysis. Sources

include local water supply companies or agencies, river basin commissions, State agencies (e.g., water

resources, fish and wildlife), Federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S.

Geological Survey) and American Indian tribal agencies. From the information gathered from these

resources, compile and tabulate water uses by the categories and characteristics, but limit the analysis to

consideration of past, present, and known future water uses. The EIS preparer should ensure that wateruse data and information are adequate to serve as a basis for assessing the impacts of proposed project

construction and operation on consumptive and non-consumptive water uses.

5.3.5 Ecology

This section describes the principal ecological (terrestrial and aquatic) features of the site and vicinity,

transportation corridors, and region, with emphasis on the plant and animal communities that may be

affected by the proposed action. This information should include transient and migratory species to

reflect any seasonal variations in ecological populations. 

The EIS should include a description of ecological resources (e.g., endangered, threatened, and important

species including estimates of their abundance) and special habitat needs (e.g., cover, forage, and prey

species) of species in the area. The EIS should include information on the species and habitats as

described in Table 2.

A complete species list may be prepared as an appendix to the EIS. Additionally, a summary should be

provided of the consultations with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and American Indian tribal

agencies, including the FWS and the State fish and wildlife agency, with details provided in an appendix.

In addition to NEPA, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and 50 CFR 402, require the NRC to

meet certain requirements in the protection of endangered and threatened species and critical habitat. 

The environmental PM is referred to Appendix D for a detailed description for completing the Section 7

consultation requirements.

5.3.6 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality

This section should provide a detailed description of the meteorological/climatological conditions and

baseline air quality of the site and region around the proposed action. 

The EIS should provide a description of relevant meteorological, climatological, and air quality data

sufficient to establish regional and local baseline conditions for the site. The information provided in

this section will be used in the analysis of impacts on air quality. The EIS should include:

 Description of the existing regional air quality for completeness and accuracy; and 

 Air pollutants for which there are non-attainment or maintenance areas in the region.
5-10

Table 2. Important species and habitats

Species Habitat

Rare species

 Listed as threatened or endangered at

50 CFR 17.11 (Fish and Wildlife) or

50 CFR 17.12 (Plants).

 Proposed for listing as threatened or

endangered, or is a candidate for listing.

 Listed as a threatened, endangered, or

other species of concern by the State or

States in which the proposed facilities are

located.

Commercially or recreationally valuable species.

Species that are essential to the maintenance and

survival of species that are rare and commercially

or recreationally valuable (as defined previously).

Species that are critical to the structure and

function of the local terrestrial and aquatic

ecosystems.

Species that may serve as biological indicators to

monitor the effects of the facilities on the

terrestrial and aquatic environments.

Wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, or preserves, if

they may be adversely affected by the

proposed action.

Habitats identified by State or Federal

agencies as unique, rare, or of priority for

protection, if these areas may be adversely

affected by the proposed action.

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990), floodplains (Executive Order 11988), or other

resources specifically protected by Federal

regulations or Executive Orders, or by State

regulations.

Land areas identified as "critical habitat" for

species listed as threatened or endangered by

the FWS.

5.3.7 Noise

This section describes the current sources and levels of noise. This discussion should be consistent with

the terms concepts described in EPA (1974) and American Society for Testing and Materials (1996)

material. The EIS should include a comparison of the estimated sound levels to appropriate limits. The

EIS should provide a description of the analysis and assessment of current and historical trends, noise

levels, applicable sound level standards, and current practices to minimize adverse noise impacts.

5.3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources

In addition to NEPA, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and 36 CFR 800, require the

NRC to meet certain requirements in the protection of cultural and historical resources. The

environmental PM is referred to Appendix D for a detailed description for completing the Section 106

consultation requirements.
5-11

The environmental PM should consider historic, archaeological, and traditional cultural resources in

sufficient detail to provide the basis for subsequent analysis and assessment of possible impacts. 

Historic and cultural resources include districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects of historical,

archaeological, architectural, or cultural significance. The environmental PM should be aware of results

of any surveys conducted; the location and significance of any properties that are listed in or eligible for

inclusion in the National Register as a historic place; and any additional information pertaining to the

identification and description of historic properties that could be impacted by the proposed action. 

The construction, subsequent operation, and/or decommissioning of a facility could impact historic

properties directly (e.g., destruction or alteration of the integrity of a property) or indirectly (e.g.,

prohibiting access or increasing the potential for vandalism). In considering the areal extent of the

review, note that a facility can have a visual or audible effect on historic resources that are located some

distance from the proposed facility.

The NRC can authorize the applicant/licensee to initiate consultations with the SHPO to determine if

there are any historic properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The review

should also include historic properties included in State or local registers or inventories and any

additional important cultural, traditional, or historic properties. If necessary, during scoping, discuss

with the SHPO any organizations or individuals that might be able to assist in identifying and locating

archaeological and historic resources (for example, university and American Indian tribal archaeological

and historical staffs).

If a property appears to meet the National Register criteria, or if it is questionable whether the criteria are

met, the staff may request, in writing, an opinion from the U.S. Department of the Interior regarding the

property’s eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. The request for determination of eligibility

should be sent directly to the Keeper of the National Register, National Park Service, US. Department of

the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20013-7127. Guidance from the National Park Service can be found on

the WWW at <http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/> (NPS, 2003a).

The Archeology and Ethnography Program of the National Park Service may be a useful source of

expertise in the area of historic and cultural preservation and is staffed with professionals who may be

able to assist the NRC staff in the environmental review and in analyzing the results of the applicant’s

surveys and investigations. Further information can be found on the WWW at

<http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/> (NPS, 2003b).

To discourage property vandalism and scavenging, particularly in the case of archaeological sites, it may

be necessary to provide information to the SHPO for handling in a confidential manner. Summary

information, which does not include site-specific information, could be included in the EIS

documentation. State and tribal laws/policies addressing the handling of confidential and sensitive

information vary and may not coincide with Federal regulations, regardless of how the information is

marked by a licensee/applicant or NRC. Hence, specific requests for maintaining confidential or

sensitive information should be discussed with States and tribes.

Contact the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation if guidance is needed, if there are substantial

impacts on important properties, in the event of a disagreement, or if there are issues of concern to

American Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations.
5-12

The EIS should summarize the applicant’s and staff’s review and include the following information:

 Historic properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register;

 Historic properties included in State or local registers or inventories;

 Any additional important cultural, traditional, or historic properties;

 Efforts to locate and identify previously recorded archaeological and historic sites;

 Overall results and adequacy of any surveys (archival or field) that were conducted by the

applicant; and 

 A list of organizations and individuals contacted by the applicant/licensee or the staff who

provided significant information concerning the location of cultural and historic properties.

5.3.9 Visual/Scenic Resources

This section describes the landscape characteristics, manmade features, and view of the proposed action

site.

The EIS should include the staff’s assessment of the applicant/licensee’s rating of the aesthetic and

scenic quality of the site in accordance with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Visual Resource

Inventory and Evaluation System (BLM, 1984, 1986a, 1986b, 2002). Particular attention should be paid

to viewsheds and likely activities in the proposed action that may reduce the visual/scenic resource. This

description will be used later in evaluating the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives on

visual/scenic resources. 

5.3.10 Socioeconomic

This section describes population distribution and community characteristics within the region that are

likely to be affected by the proposed action and each alternative. The EIS should include descriptions of

relevant past and current population distributions. Both permanent and transient populations should be

identified. Describe low-income and minority populations. This description will be used to assess

impacts (including radiological impacts) on social, economic, and community resources. 

The following information should be presented in the EIS:

 Population characteristics (e.g., ethnic groups, and population density);

 Economic trends and characteristics, including employment and income levels;

 Housing, health and social services, and educational resources;

 Area’s tax structure and distribution; and 
5-13

 Summary of any coordination with appropriate local and regional agencies or groups who collect

these types of data.

5.3.11 Public and Occupational Health

This section describes levels of background radiation, major sources and levels of background chemical

exposure, occupational injury rates, and health effects studies performed in the region.

The EIS should include information on current background levels, historical exposure levels for actions

similar to the proposed action, and a summary of any public health studies performed in the region

sufficient to establish baseline information for analysis of impacts to public and worker health.

5.3.12 Waste Management

This section summarizes the historical baseline data regarding the production, handling, packaging, and

shipping of waste. The EIS should discuss disposal practices for solid, hazardous, radioactive, and

mixed wastes including disposal capacity. The baseline conditions will be used in the analysis of

nonradiological and radiological impacts due to waste management.

5.4 Environmental Impacts

This section summarizes the known and potential impacts (e.g., direct, indirect, and cumulative) of the

proposed action and each alternative. These impacts should consider normal operational events as well

as reasonably foreseeable accidents (e.g., design basis events for 10 CFR 72 licensees or credible

consequence events for 10 CFR 70 licensees). When analyzing impacts, resources should be considered

separately, and where necessary, in combination (e.g., noise impacts on wildlife, or transportation

impacts on land use).

Activities (i.e., construction, operation and decommissioning) should be evaluated in sufficient detail to

determine the significance of potential impacts and to recommend how these impacts should be treated in

the process (e.g., consideration of alternative designs or practices that would mitigate adverse

environmental impacts). 

Evaluation of each identified impact should result in one of the following determinations:

 The impact is small and mitigation is not required. 

 The impact is adverse but can be mitigated by specific design or procedure modifications that the

reviewer has identified and determined to be practical. 

 The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such magnitude that it should

be avoided. 
5-14

5.4.1 Land Use Impacts

This section should describe the impacts to land use for each alternative. The following information

should be presented in the EIS:

 Long-term restrictions of land use resulting from the proposed action and long-term changes in

land use of the site and vicinity;

 Short-term changes in land use of the site and vicinity;

 Restrictions or modifications of lands classified as floodplain, wetlands, or coastal zone; as

described in Section 5.4.5;

 Conflicts between Federal, State, local, or American Indian land use plans;

 Mitigation measures for adverse impacts (e.g., earth leveling, revegetation, landscaping, cleanup

and disposal of debris, erosion control structures, land management practices, stabilization of

spoil piles, and stabilization of dikes on cooling lakes); and

 Prevention of current or planned mineral resources exploitation (e.g., sand and gravel, coal, oil,

natural gas, or ores). 

5.4.2 Transportation Impacts

This section describes transportation impacts, both incident-free and accidents, for each alternative. The

discussion of transportation impacts should include all phases of the project from any newly constructed

transportation corridors or increased usage of existing corridors for construction of the project, through

transportation issues during operation of the facility, to any increased transportation which may occur

during decommissioning. Guidance for this review is provided in NUREG-0170, "Final Environmental

Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes" (NRC, 1977a).

The analysis should consider transportation mode, routes, risk estimates, and impacts of transportation

on the environment, including increases and decreases in usage of transportation corridors. Consider

new construction that may be needed to upgrade existing or create new transportation routes and modes.

The following information should be included in the EIS:

 Transportation mode, routes, and risk estimates and impacts and their significance for each

alternative;

 Potential mitigative measures proposed to decrease the transportation impacts for each

alternative including the degree that these measures are effective in mitigating the impacts for

each alternative; and

 Comparison of the offsite dose consequences and resulting health effects as calculated by the

applicant/licensee and those contained in the SER. Review of the dose consequence analysis

including the direct, indirect, and cumulative socioeconomic impacts and the impacts to biota. 
5-15

The EIS author should coordinate this section with the transportation analysis conducted for the

SER.

5.4.3 Geology and Soils Impacts

This section summarizes potential geological impacts, which may also be assessed in the staff’s SER. 

The analysis should be incorporated by reference from the SER. Examples of geological environmental

impacts include soil compaction, soil erosion, subsidence, landslides, and disruption of natural drainage

patterns. 

5.4.4 Water Impacts

This section describes the surface and ground water impacts from the proposed action and each

alternative, including water use, and water quality. The description should include consideration of sitespecific and regional data on the water-use characteristics, water quality, and hydrology of ground and

surface water. The description should include an analysis and evaluation of construction, operation and

decommissioning activities in sufficient detail to determine the significance of potential water impacts

and to recommend how these impacts should be treated in the process (e.g., consideration of alternative

designs or practices that would mitigate adverse environmental impacts). The details of these supporting

analyses (e.g., actual environmental measurements, modeling assumptions and results) should be

disclosed by reference or placed in an appendix to the EIS.

The analysis should consider the following:

 Changes to the hydrological system that could cause ground and surface water impacts at and

near the site [The analyses of water system alterations and water-supply/water consumption

comparisons should be included. These changes could include water quantity and availability,

water flow, and movement patterns, and erosion, deposition, and sediment transport. All water

system characteristics should be included in this analysis (e.g., all sources of water, points of

discharge, and water diversions) that modify the availability of water. The analyses should

include short-term and long-term effects and include discussions of flood plain alterations.];

 Impacts resulting in reduced water availability [Identify the location of those water users likely

to be affected, and consider adverse effects (e.g., lowered ground water table, reduced well

yields, lowered surface-water levels at intake structures) to determine their impacts on individual

water users or water-use areas. The reviewer should consider seasonal requirements for water

and temporal variations in water availability. The reviewer should also consider the potential for

an incompatibility between water availability as affected by project activities and existing and

known future water rights and allocations. The nature and extent of these future water

inequalities should be identified.]; and

 Water quality potentially impacted by modifications to the ground and surface water system or

users [The analysis should consider short-term effects as well as long-term effects caused by

each alternative. Alternatives should be identified that avoid adverse effects and incompatible

development in the flood plain. The reviewer should identify alternative designs, construction

and operational practices, or procedures that could mitigate or avoid the impacts.]
5-16

The following information should be included in the EIS:

 A description of the impacts to water quality/availability in the region;

 Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from each alternative (radiological and

nonradiological);

 Assessments of both short- and long-term effects;

 A comparison of water quality impacts to appropriate standards;

 A description of the aquatic transport and diffusion characteristics relevant to the alternatives

which should include references to the models used and identification of the input data

considered;

 A dose assessment of the radiological impacts based on sufficient aquatic transport parameters

and population data; and

 A description of mitigative measures for water quality/availability impacts.

5.4.5 Ecological Impacts

This section summarizes the ecological (terrestrial and aquatic) impacts of the proposed action and each

alternative. An assessment of both onsite and offsite activities including transportation corridors should

be provided. The assessment should be in sufficient detail to: (i) predict and evaluate the significance of

potential impacts to important species and their habitats; and (ii) evaluate how these impacts should be

considered in the process. 

The analysis should consider activities that:

 Create obstacles to the movements of vertebrates or result in increased dispersal of invertebrate

species known to be important as disease vectors or pests;

 Disturb benthic (i.e., lake, sea, or river bottom) areas [All dredged areas or areas affected by

dredging may be considered as temporarily lost habitat, therefore dredging should be limited, if

possible.];

 Potentially increase surface run-off [Good construction practices will generally control surface

run-off. Where drainage courses represent an especially important resource, attention should be

given to measures for their protection.];

 Involve dewatering of wetlands [Guidelines under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (i.e.,

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and the Marine

Sanctuaries Act of 1972 should be followed in evaluating the significance of dewatering on

wetlands. Generally, dewatering of biologically productive wetlands may be considered an

adverse impact that should be avoided. The percentage loss of such wetlands in the region

should be considered to place the loss in perspective for the licensing decision. Because of the
5-17

importance of wetlands, alternatives to avoid any loss of this habitat should always be

considered. Contact with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch District Office,

may be necessary to obtain a wetland delineation and/or permit to modify a wetland.];

 Involve dredge spoils and placement of fill [Drainage from dredge spoil areas should comply

with existing EPA guidelines. The analysis should consider whether adequate practices have

been provided for management of this stage of construction. Filling of biologically productive

wetlands should generally be avoided. Dumping of dredge spoils should be performed under the

cognizance of the EPA and the Regulatory Branch District Office of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers.];

The depth and extent of the input to the EIS should be governed by the attributes of the ecological

resources that could be affected and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts to those

resources.

The following information should be included in the EIS:

 Results of consultations performed as required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act;

 Loss of habitat for endangered or threatened species in the context of guidelines under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 [Where loss of habitat for commercially or recreationally

important species occurs, the environmental PM should consider the effects on the harvestable

crop. It should generally be concluded that loss of up to 5 percent of such habitat in the site

vicinity will have negligible impact on the crop and need no further analysis. Where losses

exceed 5 percent, the environmental PM should consider the loss in relation to regional

abundance of these species.];

 Practices to minimize soil erosion and the number of hectares disturbed;

 Clearing of vegetation from stream banks, making certain that it is limited to that necessary for

placement of structures or decontamination of hazardous or radiological constituents;

 Secondary impacts on wildlife, such as altered behavior resulting from construction noise, in

addition to direct impacts on animals such as loss of habitat and road kills; and

 Lost important terrestrial and aquatic species and habitats from the viewpoints of their

uniqueness within the region under consideration, relative impacts, and long-term net effects.

5.4.6 Air Quality Impacts

This section describes the air quality impacts from the proposed action and each alternative and the

atmospheric transport and diffusion processes important in determining impacts. The description should

include an analysis and evaluation of construction, operation and decommissioning activities in sufficient

detail to determine the significance of potential air quality impacts and to recommend how these impacts

should be treated in the process (e.g., consideration of alternative designs or practices that would

mitigate adverse environmental impacts). The details of this supporting analyses (e.g., actual
5-18

environmental measurements, modeling assumptions and results) should be disclosed. Adverse

cumulative effects of each alternative should be identified. 

The analysis should utilize models and assumptions that have been approved or recognized for use in

appropriate regulatory guidance for air quality monitoring and/or dose assessments. At least one annual

data cycle should be used for transport and diffusion calculations. Data should be presented in the

appropriate periods. For example, if emissions are continuous, annual data should be used; if emissions

are intermittent, consideration should be given to the frequency and duration of the event. Data, such as

averages and extremes, should be based on a period of record that represents long-term conditions in the

area.

The following information should be included in the EIS:

 A description of the impacts to air quality in the region;

 Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from each alternative (radiological and

nonradiological);

 Assessments of both short- and long-term effects (hourly and annually);

 A comparison of air quality impacts to appropriate standards;

 Description of necessary air permits;

 A description of the atmospheric transport and diffusion characteristics in the region and at the

site, which should include references to the models used and identification of the input data

considered;

 A dose assessment of the radiological impacts based on sufficient meteorological and population

data;

 A description of visibility impacts; and

 A description of mitigative measures for air quality impacts.

5.4.7 Noise Impacts

This section describes the analysis and assessment of predicted noise levels from the proposed action and

each alternative. The description should include an analysis and evaluation of construction, operation

and decommissioning activities in sufficient detail to determine the significance of potential noise

impacts and to recommend how these impacts should be treated in the process (e.g., consideration of

alternative designs or practices that would mitigate adverse environmental impacts). Details of

supporting analyses (e.g., actual environmental measurements, modeling assumptions and results) should

be disclosed. Known and/or predicted adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each alternative

should be identified. 
5-19

If the site is remote from communities (ecological and human) and does not represent an audible

intrusion, and it is found that the applicant can comply with appropriate guides and standards, these facts

should be stated with only a very brief discussion noting that under these conditions noise impacts will

be minimal. If the foregoing conditions are not met, or if there are no applicable standards, predicted

impacts should be described along with conclusions regarding the significance of the effect on the

community.

If the site is located near communities (ecological and human) and noise impacts are a potential concern,

the following information should be included in the EIS:

 A comparison of the current equivalent sound levels in the vicinity of the proposed action and

applicable sound level standards (from consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and

affected American Indian tribal agencies) with predicted noise levels (e.g., sound contour maps)

reported as Leq or Ldn using the dBA scale;

 Major sources of noise (for locations described above), including all models, assumptions and

input data;

 Proposed methods to reduce noise levels (as appropriate); and 

 Estimated cumulative effects.

5.4.8 Historic and Cultural Impacts

This section describes the staff’s assessment of potential impacts of proposed project activities on historic

properties and cultural resources in the site and vicinity. Historic properties include districts, sites,

buildings, structures, or objects of historical, archaeological, architectural, or traditional cultural

significance (NPS, 2002). In addition to NEPA, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,

and 36 CFR 800, require the NRC to meet certain requirements in the protection of cultural and historical

resources. The environmental PM is referred to Appendix D for a detailed instructions on completing

the Section 106 consultation requirements.. Elements of Section 110 of National Historic Preservation

Act require Federal agencies to manage and protect identified, eligible historic properties located on

lands under their jurisdiction. A source of expertise in the area of historic and cultural preservation is the

Archaeology and Ethnography Program of the National Park Service, Department of Interior (NPS,

2003b).

The environmental PM should consider the following in preparing the analysis:

 Construction and/or operation activities that could result in potential impacts to historical

properties or cultural resources; 

 Proposed activities to ensure that the applicant is committed to using currently acceptable

practices to minimize impacts;

 36 CFR 800, which describes how to Federal agencies meet the statutory responsibilities under

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act;
5-20

 That there are generally two types of impacts on a resource: direct impacts (e.g., destruction

during excavation), and indirect impacts (e.g., visual impact, denial of access, or increased

potential for vandalism);

 Certain properties are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register, and assistance from the

SHPO/THPO, the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, or other qualified individuals

may be necessary to complete the analysis;

 Adequacy of proposed methods to mitigate any adverse impacts on these resources such as

alternative locations, designs, practices, or procedures that would mitigate predicted adverse

impacts;

 Cost of the recovery required by the Historic and Archaeological Preservation Act of 1974 in the

consideration of alternatives;

 Evaluations that may not justify preservation of the resource [In such cases the environmental

PM may request that the applicant recover archaeological, historic, architectural, and cultural

data related to the resource. This recovery may include recording by photographs and measured

drawings, archaeological excavations to uncover data and material, removal of structures or

salvage of architectural features, and other steps that will ensure full knowledge of the lost

resource. Salvaged artifacts and materials should be deposited where they are of public and

educational benefit.];

 Any procedures developed by the applicant/licensee that will be used during construction in the

case of discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources;

 The potential for human remains to occur in the project areas should be evaluated [An

inadvertent discovery of such items during construction may necessitate a work stoppage and

consultation under Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act procedures.]; and

 Circumstances in which to contact the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation if guidance is

needed (i.e., if there are substantial impacts on important properties, in the event of a

disagreement, or if there are issues of concern to American Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian

organizations).

The following information should be included in the EIS:

 Results of consultations performed as required by Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act;

 If appropriate, a statement that properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National

Register will not be affected;

 Discussion of potential impacts (e.g., direct, indirect, and cumulative) to properties that are listed

in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register; 
5-21

 Description of any adverse impacts on historic properties not eligible for inclusion in the

National Register; and 

 Description of any measures and controls that are available to limit adverse impacts.

5.4.9 Visual/Scenic Impacts

This section describes the significant impacts on visual quality resulting from the proposed action and

each alternative. Scenic qualities are impacted by surface disturbance, which creates a contrast with the

natural environment. The greater the amount of ground disturbance, the greater the impact to scenic

quality. The description should include an analysis and evaluation of construction, operation and

decommissioning activities in sufficient detail to determine the significance of potential visual/scenic

impacts and to recommend how these impacts should be treated in the process (e.g., consideration of

alternative designs or practices that would mitigate adverse environmental impacts). The environmental

PM may assess the licensee’s rating of aesthetic and scenic quality of the site in accordance with the

BLM Visual Resource Inventory and Evaluation System (BLM, 1984, 1986a, 1986b, 2002) as

appropriate.

The EIS should describe the impacts of the proposed action and each alternative on the visual quality of

the vicinity. Significant visual quality impacts should be thoroughly described, while less-significant,

yet still noteworthy, impacts can be summarized. The EIS should describe how impacts could be

minimized. The description of mitigation measures should provide a short discussion of costs of the

mitigation measures.

5.4.10 Socioeconomic Impacts

This section describes the socioeconomic impacts within the region. Based on these descriptions, the

environmental PM should identify and analyze project-induced changes to demographic, regional,

community, social, political, and economic systems.

The EIS should describe impacts from the proposed action and each alternative relative to the current and

predicted population distributions. Both permanent and transient populations should be considered.

The following information should be presented in the EIS:

 Impacts to population characteristics (e.g., ethnic groups, and population density);

 Impacts to economic trends and characteristics, including employment and income levels;

 Impacts to housing, health and social services, and educational resources; and

 Impacts to the area’s tax structure and distribution.
5-22

5.4.11 Environmental Justice

The Commission has directed the staff to develop an environmental justice (EJ) policy statement. After

the policy statement is completed, necessary updates to the EJ guidance will be incorporated. In the

interim, the following draft guidance on environmental justice is being provided. 

This section evaluates environmental impacts on low-income or minority populations by proposed

project activities if disproportionately high low-income or minority populations are identified. Impacts

that may have environmental justice implications may include health, ecological (including water quality

and water availability), social, cultural, economic and aesthetic resources.

The EIS should follow the detailed guidance provided in Appendix C. The EIS should include a

discussion of the methods used to identify and quantify impacts on low-income and minority

populations, the location and significance of any environmental impacts during construction on

populations that are particularly sensitive, and any additional information pertaining to mitigation. The

following information should be included in the EIS:

 An assessment (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) of the degree to which each minority

or low-income population is disproportionately receiving adverse human health or environmental

(including socioeconomic) impacts during construction, operation, or decommissioning as

compared with the other population in the vicinity. In addition, there should be an assessment

comparing the impacts with the larger overall geographic area encompassing all of the

alternative sites.

 An assessment (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) of the significance or potential

significance of such environmental impacts on each low-income and minority population. 

Significance is determined by considering the disproportionate exposure, multiple-hazard, and

cumulative hazard conditions.

 An assessment of the degree to which each low-income and minority population is

disproportionately receiving any benefits compared with the entire geographic area.

 A discussion of any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce environmental

justice concerns.

 When alternative sites are being evaluated, the same reviews should be available for each site.

 A brief description of pathways by which any environmental impact during construction may

interact with cultural or economic facts that may result in disproportionate environmental

impacts on low-income and minority populations.

5.4.12 Public and Occupational Health Impacts

5.4.12.1 Nonradiological Impacts

This section describes the pathways by which nonradiological releases could be transmitted to the

environment and ultimately transferred to living organisms. The analysis should be based on the
5-23

information from Section 5.3.12, Public and Occupational Health to assess the potential impacts,

mitigation measures and cumulative effects. The analysis should consider potential pathways for the

transfer of nonradioactive materials from the proposed action and alternatives to the environment and

ultimately to living organisms. The analysis should identify all pathways necessary to calculate public

and occupational exposure. 

The following information should be included in the EIS:

 A description of chemical sources (location, type, strength); 

 Estimates of public and occupational exposures, a brief discussion of how the estimates were

calculated, and a comparison of these exposures with the requirements of 40 CFR 190 and 29

CFR 1900;

 Brief discussion of environmental monitoring programs to verify compliance; and

 Discussion of mitigative measures and cumulative effects and how requirements have been met.

5.4.12.2 Radiological Impacts

This section summarizes the direct and indirect radiological impacts, mitigation measures, and

cumulative impacts from each alternative. This section is divided into Sections 5.4.12.2.1, Pathway

Assessment and 5.4.12.2.2, Public and Occupational Exposure Impacts.

5.4.12.2.1 Pathway Assessment

This section should describe the pathways by which radiation and radioactive releases can be transmitted

to the environment and ultimately transferred to living organisms. The scope and depth of the review

should include consideration of: (i) the pathways by which radioactive releases can be transported to

individual receptors; (ii) the location of these receptors; and (iii) the credible threat to the environment

posed by the facility, action, or activity.

The following information should be included in the EIS:

 Typical pathways by which radioactive materials could be transported from the various

alternatives to receptors in unrestricted areas;

 Pathways identified as important for the various alternatives and a brief discussion of the staff’s

analysis to determine these pathways;

 Nearest receptors identified by the reviewer; and

 Brief discussion of food production, processing, and consumption in the area. 
5-24

5.4.12.2.2 Public and Occupational Exposure Impacts

This section should describe the radiation dose to humans. The staff reviewer should evaluate the

baseline information (Section 5.3.12, Public and Occupational Health) to assess the potential impacts,

mitigation measures, and cumulative impacts.

The following information should be included in the EIS:

 Description of radiation sources (location, type, strength) related to the proposed action; 

 Estimates of dose to an average member of the critical group and occupational dose estimates, a

brief discussion of how the estimates were calculated, a comparison of these doses with the

requirements of 10 CFR 20, and the conclusions with respect to compliance with 10 CFR 20;

 Brief discussion of environmental monitoring programs to verify compliance (Section 4.5,

Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs);

 Discussion of mitigative measures; and

 Comparison of the offsite dose consequences and resulting health effects for reasonably

foreseeable (i.e., credible) accidents as calculated by the applicant and those contained in the

SER. The environmental PM should coordinate this section with the analysis conducted for the

SER.

5.4.13 Waste Management Impacts

This section describes the staff’s review, analysis, and evaluation of the applicant/licensee’s solid,

hazardous, and radioactive waste management program including the assessment of impacts resulting

from storage or transportation. A discussion of mixed waste is also included in this section.

The EIS should be of sufficient depth and detail to confirm, with reasonable assurance, the quantitative

impact of the waste management systems. Facility owners/operators are required by RCRA regulations

to maintain sufficient information to identify their mixed wastes. The information required includes

RCRA waste codes for the hazardous components, the source of the hazardous constituents, a discussion

of how the waste was generated, the generation rate and volumes of mixed waste in storage, and any

information used to identify mixed wastes or make determinations that the wastes are prohibited by land

disposal restrictions. Each owner/operator is required (under RCRA regulations) to develop a wasteminimization plan that identifies process changes that can be made to reduce or eliminate mixed wastes,

methods to minimize the volume of regulated wastes through better segregation of materials, and the

substitution of nonhazardous materials.

The following information should be presented in the EIS:

 Descriptions of the sources, types, quantities, and composition of solid, hazardous, radioactive

and mixed wastes expected from the proposed action;
5-25

 Description of proposed waste management systems designed to collect, store, and dispose of all

wastes generated by the proposed action;

 Anticipated disposal plans for all wastes (i.e., transfer to an offsite waste disposal facility,

treatment facility, or storage onsite); and

 A waste-minimization plan that identifies process changes that can be made to reduce or

eliminate waste. This should contain a description of methods to minimize the volume of waste.

5.5 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures that could reduce adverse impacts should be incorporated in the proposed action and

alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14(f) and 1508.20). The mitigation measures discussed in the EIS must cover

the range of impacts of the proposal. The measures must include such things as design alternatives that

would decrease pollution emissions, construction impacts, esthetic intrusion, as well as relocation

assistance, possible land use controls that could be enacted, and other possible efforts. Mitigation

measures must be considered even for impacts that by themselves would not be considered "significant." 

If the proposed action as a whole is considered to have significant effects, all of its specific effects on the

environment (whether or not "significant") must be considered, and mitigation measures must be

developed where it is feasible to do so (CEQ, 1981). Mitigation measures should be tangible and

specific. For example, mitigation measures that avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce over time, or

compensate are tangible as opposed to measures that include activities such as further consultation,

coordination, and study. A more detailed synopsis is provided in "The NEPA Book," (Bass, Herson, and

Bogdan, 2001).

All relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project should be identified, even if

they are outside the jurisdiction of the NRC. The probability of the mitigation measures being

implemented and the time line for their implementation should also be discussed for both NRC activities

and activities under the jurisdiction of another agency.

The anticipated effectiveness of these mitigation measures in reducing adverse impacts, the technical

feasibility, and the cost-benefit of any recommended mitigation measures should be discussed in the EIS

(costly actions that would yield only minor environmental benefits should not be recommended).

5.6 Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs

This section describes the environmental measurements and monitoring programs for the proposed

action. A more detailed description of the monitoring program is usually provided in the SER prepared

in parallel with the EIS.

Mitigation monitoring activities proposed to meet the intent of NEPA [40 CFR 1505.2(c)] should be

clearly distinguished from monitoring required by program-specific guidance and/or discretionary

monitoring activities.
5-26

5.6.1 Radiological Monitoring

This section describes the proposed monitoring program utilized to characterize and evaluate the

radiological environment, to provide data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactivity, and to

provide data on principal pathways of exposure to the public.

The following information should be provided in the EIS:

 Maps or aerial photographs of the facility with proposed monitoring and sampling locations

clearly identified along with effluent release points;

 Brief description of the monitoring program including:

- Number and location of sample collection points, measuring devices used, and pathway

sampled or measured;

- Sample size, sample collection frequency, and sampling duration; and

- Type and frequency of analysis including lower limits of detection;

 Principal radiological exposure pathways (Section 5.4.12.2.1, Pathway Assessment); and 

 Location and characteristics of radiation sources and radioactive effluent (liquid and gaseous,

from Sections 5.4.4, Water Impacts and 5.4.6, Air Quality Impacts).

5.6.2 Physiochemical Monitoring

This section should describe the proposed monitoring program to characterize and evaluate the chemical

and physical environment, to provide data on measurable levels of chemicals and baselines for physical

parameters of importance (i.e., weather conditions).

The purpose of a chemical environmental monitoring program is to provide a basis for evaluating

changes in the environment from the proposed action. The baseline monitoring program should

characterize the environment before the proposed action so that a reasonable comparison can be made

after the proposed action begins. The baseline program can also be used for all or some of the

operational chemical environmental monitoring program.

The EIS should describe the applicant’s/licensee’s chemical monitoring program. Two aspects of

monitoring should be considered:

 Baseline monitoring is used to support the applicant’s baseline descriptions and provide

information for operational comparison; and

 Operational monitoring establishes the impacts of operation of the facility and detects any

unexpected impacts arising from facility operation.

Each of these aspects is discussed in greater detail below.
5-27

Baseline Monitoring

Information from the applicant’s/licensee’s baseline monitoring program is used to aid in the assessment

of site acceptability/condition and to support the staff’s database to identify impacts that could result

from the selected alternative. Generally, data are needed on a seasonal basis and should be sufficient to

characterize seasonal variations throughout at least one annual cycle.

The environmental PM should analyze the available data to determine that they are adequate to support

the environmental descriptions of Section 5.3, Description of the Affected Environment, and the impact

analyses of Section 5.4, Environmental Impacts. The following factors should be considered in the

analysis:

 Location and number of monitoring stations (and wells) as required to consider the following

factors:

- Meteorological, soil, surface water, and ground water system characteristics in the site

vicinity [e.g., surface-water flow fields in the site vicinity, ground water flow

(e.g., saltwater intrusion)].

 Impact of sanitary and chemical waste-retention methods on ground water quality:

- Type of sanitary and chemical waste-retention system; and

- Transient hydrological and meteorological parameters in the site vicinity.

 Sampling frequency and times to ensure that important temporal variations (e.g., tidal variations

and intense rainfall) are adequately monitored.

For review of on-site meteorological instrumentation, the analysis should ensure that the basic

meteorological parameters measured by instrumentation include wind direction and wind speed at two

elevations, and ambient air temperature difference between two elevations. Guidance on meteorological

data to be used as input to atmospheric dispersion modeling and assessment is given in Regulatory

Guides 1.111 (NRC, 1977b) and 1.21 (NRC, 1974). Guidance on instrument types, sampling heights,

and locations is given in Regulatory Guide 1.23, Sections C.1 and C.2 (NRC, 1972). Guidance on

effluent and environmental monitoring at uranium mills is given in Regulatory Guide 4.14 (NRC, 1980).

Operational Monitoring

The operational monitoring program is designed to establish the impacts of operation of the facility and

to detect any unexpected impacts arising from facility operation. Operational monitoring may be

required by other permitting agencies.

The environmental PM should verify that sufficient information has been provided to adequately assess

the environmental monitoring program (e.g., measuring sediment transport and floodplains or wetlands)

to: (i) describe the appropriate local and regional chemical characteristics; (ii) ensure environmental

protection; and (iii) provide an adequate database for evaluation of the effects of facility operation.
5-28

The following information should be included in the EIS:

 Description of the results of the baseline monitoring program, including monitoring station

locations and the methods, frequency, and duration of monitoring used in each case [Tables and

maps should be used, if appropriate.];

 Intensity of sampling needed for each anticipated impact. It should be commensurate with the

degree of impact expected;

 Validity of data; and

 Adequacy of data measurement techniques. 

5.6.3 Ecological Monitoring

This section describes the major components of the applicant’s proposed ecological monitoring program. 

Monitoring programs should cover elements of the ecosystem for which a causal relationship between

construction, operation, or decommissioning and adverse change is established or strongly suspected.

The environmental PM should describe the applicant’s/licensee’s ecological monitoring program. Two

aspects of monitoring should be considered:

 Baseline monitoring to support the applicant’s baseline descriptions and provide information for

operational comparison; and

 Operational monitoring to establish the impacts of operation of the facility and detect any

unexpected impacts arising from facility operation.

Each of these aspects is discussed in greater detail below.

Baseline Monitoring

The program of ecological field monitoring is used to support the applicant’s descriptions of the

ecological environment. Baseline monitoring is needed to establish a database from which to observe

potential future impacts. Generally, data are needed on a seasonal basis and should be sufficient to

characterize seasonal variations throughout at least one annual cycle. Additional data may be needed on

a site-specific basis.

The environmental PM should analyze the available data to determine that they are adequate to support

the environmental descriptions of Section 5.3, Description of the Affected Environment; and the impact

analyses of Section 5.4, Environmental Impacts. The following factors should be considered in the

analysis:

 The location and number of monitoring stations as required to consider the following factors:

- Distribution and abundance of "important" species, habitats, and communities [Critical

life history information should include parameters such as feeding areas, wintering areas,
5-29

and migration routes to the extent that the proposed action is expected to affect these

parameters.]; and

- Descriptions of any modifications that may affect the existing patterns of plant and

animal communities (e.g., changing agricultural practices, development of holding ponds

or reservoirs, and developing access routes).

Operational Monitoring

A program of operational ecological monitoring may be necessary to monitor the environmental impacts

of facility or site operation. It continues the studies conducted during pre-operational monitoring. An

operational monitoring program may be included with an application for an operating license, and for

license renewal applications. Operational monitoring programs may not be fully developed at the time of

applying for a construction permit.

When evaluating the ecological monitoring programs, the following features should be considered:

 Ensure that the applicant/licensee has, to the extent feasible, described the general scope and

objectives of its intended programs and has provided a tentative list of parameters that should be

monitored. The application should include:

- Duration over which the parameters will be monitored; and

- Provisions for updating the program.

 Establish whether adequate data will be provided as outlined above [If the monitoring programs

are judged to be inadequate or to include unnecessary elements, the environmental PM should

evaluate potential additions and deletions.];

 Consider the following features for the monitoring programs:

- Relationship to environmental monitoring conducted by other agencies in the vicinity of

the facility or site should be described;

- Basis and objective of each element of the monitoring program should be clearly stated,

as well as its relationship to the overall environmental monitoring program;

- If outputs of a preceding monitoring program or project demonstrate no significant

impacts, then provisions to study such effects in successive monitoring programs should

be reduced or deleted;

- The program should allow for periodic modification based on the results of previous

monitoring to ensure that the current monitoring effort is sufficient and justified when

compared to a current assessment of the effects that the proposed action/alternative are

having on the environment; and
5-30

- Intensity of sampling required for each anticipated impact should be commensurate with

the degree of impact expected [The reviewer should balance the potential impacts of any

sampling program against the potential benefits when making this evaluation.];

 Measurement and sampling methods (e.g., sampling locations and equipment, the pattern,

frequency, and duration of sampling and sample size) should be described;

 Statistical validity, including the mean, standard deviation, confidence limits, and sample size

should be clearly indicated; and

 If population dynamics models were used in the impact analyses, determine if sampling data are

available to support the model. If not, suggest such sampling if verification of the model is

necessary.

The following information should be included in the EIS:

 Description of the results of the baseline monitoring program, including monitoring station

locations and the methods, frequency, and duration of monitoring used in each case. Tables and

maps should be used if appropriate;

 Intensity of sampling needed for each anticipated impact [Sampling intensity should be

commensurate with the degree of impact expected.];

 Validity of data; and

 Adequacy of data measurement techniques.

5.7 Cost-Benefit Analysis

This section describes the major costs and benefits for each alternative. Consideration of the costs and

benefits should be presented in the EIS (10 CFR 51.71). The costs and benefits should not be limited to

a simple financial accounting of project costs for each alternative. Costs and benefits should also be

discussed for qualitative subjects (i.e., environmental degradation or enhancement). Extensive or

detailed analysis should be presented in an appendix to the EIS to avoid diverting attention away from

primary issues such as public health and safety. The cost-benefit analysis is not simply a mathematical

formula from which to justify economic parameters; other applicable qualitative factors should be

discussed and weighed in the decision.

The environmental PM should describe the costs and benefits for the proposed action and each

alternative. Qualitative environmental costs and benefits can be compared to the discussion of

environmental impacts within the environmental report. Standard project costs can be reviewed utilizing

standard cost estimating databases. Socioeconomic costs and benefits can be reviewed and compared

against similar projects as applicable. NUREG/BR0058 (NRC, 1995a) provides guidance for

determining public health and safety impact valuation. NUREG1530 (NRC, 1995b) provides

background material and information relating to NUREG/BR0058. The reviewer should also verify that

analyses were performed in accordance with appropriate cost benefit guidance. Future costs and benefits

should be discounted to present worth as discussed in "Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations Under
5-31

Executive Order 12866" found on the WWW at

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/inforeg/riaguide.html> (OMB, 1996). This site also provides general

guidance on calculating costs and benefits. The methods used for discounting should be explained, and

applied consistently to both costs and benefits. NUREG1727, NMSS Decommissioning Standard

Review Plan (NRC, 2000), provides guidance on determining costs and benefits for decommissioning

projects as well as providing guidance on determining ALARA and prohibitive costs related to ALARA.

The cost benefit analysis provides input to determine the relative merits of various alternatives; however,

the NRC must ultimately base its decision on public health and safety issues.

5.8 Summary of Environmental Consequences

This section should summarize any adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided and for which

no practical means of mitigation are available, the relationship between short-term uses of the

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or

irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved. As appropriate, this summary can be

tabulated.

The environmental PM should ensure the following analysis is completed:

 Develop a list of: 

- Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts;

- Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources (those materials that would be

irretrievably committed during construction, operation, and decommissioning );

- Short- or long-term impacts (consider that occupation of land for an indefinite period

represents the maximum impact on long-term productivity, unless other long-term

preemptions have been identified; identify through consultation with the appropriate

reviewers other uses of the environment that will be precluded by facility construction,

operation, and decommissioning and classify these as either short-term or long-term

preemptions; determine how any short-term or long-term benefits of the proposed action

affect any such preemptions.); 

- Procedures and practices to mitigate or avoid these impacts or commitments; and 

- Impacts or commitments that remain after all practical means to avoid or mitigate the

impact have been taken;

 Categorize the identified impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) according to the resource

(e.g., water resource);

 The categories may be further divided into construction, operational, and decommissioning

impacts, if so desired;
5-32

 Ensure that each identified impact has been appropriately categorized. When a particular action

or operation results in multiple impacts (e.g., access road construction and use may have impacts

affecting land use, terrestrial ecology, and socioeconomic), ensure that the impacts are addressed

in each appropriate category;

 Determine the magnitude of the impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) or commitments; and

 Evaluate the time scale of each impact (e.g., 46 months during construction, throughout the

facility lifetime, indefinitely).

The information from Sections 5.3, Description of the Affected Environment; and 5.4, Environmental

Impacts should be summarized for this section. The EIS includes a discussion of the predicted shortterm unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of each alternative and the predicted long-term

environmental impacts. Short-term represents the period from start of construction to end of the

proposed action, including prompt decommissioning. Long-term represents the period extending beyond

the end of the proposed action. The discussion should also include an evaluation of the extent to which

the proposed action will preclude options for other future use of the environment. "Irreversible" impacts

refer to commitments of environmental resources that cannot be restored. "Irretrievable" applies to

material resources and will involve commitments of materials that, when used, cannot be recycled or

restored for other uses by practical means. The following information should be listed in the EIS for the

proposed action and each alternative:

 Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts;

 Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources; 

 Short-term and long-term impacts; and 

 Short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term

productivity.

For new facilities the maximum long-term impact to productivity would result if the facility is not

dismantled at the end of the period of facility operation, and consequently the land occupied by the

facility structures would not be available for any other use. For operating or decommissioning facilities

the maximum long-term impact to productivity would occur if the restricted release criteria are used for

decommissioning.

After reviewing the impacts and mitigation actions, organize these impacts by environmental categories

and prepare a brief paragraph summarizing the nature and magnitude of each category of impact in

sufficient detail to allow for a comparative analyses of the environmental consequences of each

alternative. Table 3 illustrates an example format of a table used to describe the nature and magnitude of

each impact.
5-33

Table 3. Example of environmental impacts

Impact Category

Adverse Impacts

Based on Applicant’s

Proposal

 Actions to

Mitigate Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse/

Irreversible and

Irretrievable

Commitments of

Resources/Short- and

Long-Term Impacts

Regional Setting

Geology and Soil

Water Resource

Ecological

Air Quality

Noise

Historic and Cultural

Visual/Scenic

Socioeconomic

Environmental Justice

Public and Occupational

Health

Waste Management

5.9 List of Preparers

This section should contain a list of preparers and credentials who participated in producing the EIS.

5.10 Distribution List

This section should contain a list of all parties to whom the EIS was distributed.

5.11 References Cited

All references used in the preparation of the EIS should be listed, including those cited in the text of the

EIS and those that were not specifically cited but served as useful guidance during document

development. Additionally, it is helpful to provide ADAMS Accession numbers, if applicable, to assist

the public in finding relevant documents. Guidance in NUREG-0650 (NRC, 1999) should be useful for

determining reference format.
5-34

5.12 Supplemental Information of Environmental Impact Statement Document

Appendices should be included at the end of the EIS that include information that is supportive of the

findings in the EIS. Examples include:

 Scoping report;

 Glossary;

 Consultation letters;

 Dose assessments;

 Issues Eliminated from detailed study; and

 Technical evaluations.

5.13 References

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1996. "Standard Guide for Selection of

Environmental Noise Measurements and Criteria." ASTM E1686. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.

Bass, R.E.; Herson, A.I.; and Bogdan, K.M.; 2001. "The NEPA Book: A Step-by-Step Guide on how to

Comply with the National Environmental Policy Act." Solano Press Books, Point Arena, CA.

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality) 1981, "Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s

National Environmental Policy Act Regulations." CEQ, Executive Office of the President, Washington,

D.C. <http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40P1.HTM >. (December 18, 2002).

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1974. "Information of Levels of Environmental Noise

Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety." EPA 550/9-74-004. 

EPA, Washington, DC. March.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 1984. "Visual Resource Management." BLM Manual 8400. 

BLM, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC. April.

<http://www.blm.gov:80/nstc/VRM/8400.html>. (January 13, 2003).

BLM, 1986a. "Visual Resource Inventory." BLM Manual Handbook H84101. BLM, U.S.

Department of Interior, Washington, DC. January. <http://www.blm.gov:80/nstc/VRM/8410.html>. 

(January 13, 2003). 

BLM, 1986b. "Visual Resource Contrast Rating." BLM Manual Handbook H84311. BLM, U.S.

Department of Interior, Washington, DC. January 1986b.

<http://www.blm.gov:80/nstc/VRM/8431.html>. (January 13, 2003).

BLM, 2003. "U.S. Department of the InteriorBureau of Land Management Visual Resource

Management." <http://www.blm.gov:80/nstc/VRM/index.html>. (January 13, 2003).

NPS (National Park Service), 2002. "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation."

Bulletin No. 15. NPS, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

<http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/>. (January 13, 2003).
5-35

NPS, 2003a. "National Register of Historic Places Publications Page." NPS, U.S. Department of

Interior, Washington, DC. <http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/>. (January 13, 2003).

NPS, 2003b. "NPS Archeology and Ethnography Home Page." NPS, U.S. Department of Interior,

Washington, DC. <http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/>. (March 17, 2003).

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1972. "Onsite Meteorological Programs (Safety Guide

23) (Draft SS 926-4, Proposed Revision 1, published September 1980) (Draft ES 926-4, Second

Proposed Revision 1, published April 1986)". Regulatory Guide 1.23, Revision 1. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. April.

NRC, 1974. "Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of

Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants."

Regulatory guide 1.21, Revision 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.

NRC, 1975. "Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants." 

Regulatory Guide 4.1, Revision 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. April.

NRC, 1977a. "Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and

Other Modes." NUREG0170. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.

NRC, 1977b. "Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in

Routine Release from Light-Water Cooled Reactors." Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

NRC, 1980. "Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium Mills." Regulatory

Guide 4.14, Revision 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. April.

NRC, 1995a. "Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission." NUREG0058. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. November.

NRC, 1995b. "Reassessment of NRC’s Dollar Per Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy."

NUREG1530. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. December.

NRC, 1997. "Questions Related to the Parks Township Environmental Impact Statement." 

Memorandum to Papereillo from Olmstead. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

October 30.

NRC, 1999. "Preparing NUREG-Series Publications." NUREG0650. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC.

NRC, 2000. "NMSS Decommissioning Standard Review Plan." NUREG1727. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. September 2000.

NRC, 2001. "Regulations Handbook." NUREG/BR0053, Revision 5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. March.
5-36

OMB (Office of Management and Budget), 1996. "Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations Under

Executive Order 12866." OMB, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC. January 11.

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/inforeg/riaguide.html>. (January 13, 2003).
6-1

6 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT: FORMAT AND 

TECHNICAL CONTENT

This chapter provides information on the content of the ER and is also applicable to supplemental ERs.

This chapter generally follows the outline of an EIS as presented in Chapter 5, though an ER may also be

used in support of an EA. The applicant/licensee may benefit from a pre-licensing meeting between the

licensing PM and the environmental PM to discuss the information needed to support the environmental

review (e.g., information normally contained in the ER). The goal of these meetings is to define the

scope and detail required within the ER. Chapter 5 describes how the NRC staff uses the ER information

to prepare an EIS.

The scope of the ER should be balanced against the credible threat to the environment posed by the

proposed action (e.g., facility construction, facility operation, or decommissioning). The ER should

present a detailed and thorough description of each affected resource for evaluation of potential

impacts to the environment. It may not be necessary for every resource to receive the same level of

detailed review and every action may not require all the information discussed in this chapter. 

Likewise, the proposed action may present unique issues and require additional information not

identified in this chapter. This is consistent with one of the goals of NEPA, which is to concentrate on

issues significant to the proposed action and their potential environmental impacts.

General ER requirements are provided in the NRC implementing regulations for NEPA (e.g.,

10 CFR 51.45 for general requirements, 10 CFR 51.54 for manufacturing licenses, 10 CFR 51.60 for

materials licenses and 10 CFR 51.62 for 10 CFR 61 disposal sites).

6.1 Introduction of the Environmental Report

The introduction should be brief, and should include a description of the proposed action, a brief

summary of pertinent statutes and regulations, location of the proposed action and relevant background

information. Key dates and deadlines should also be listed to establish the time frame for the proposed

action. 

6.1.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The applicant/licensee should explain why the proposed action is needed. This section of the ER

describes the underlying need for the proposed action and should not be written merely as a justification

of the proposed action, nor to alter the choice of alternatives. Another common mistake is to identify

compliance with NEPA and CEQ regulations as the need. Examples of need include a benefit provided

if the proposed action is granted or descriptions of the detriment that will be experienced without

approval of the proposed action. In short, the need describes what will be accomplished as a result of the

proposed action.
6-2

6.1.2 The Proposed Action

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Brief description of the proposed action, including the name of the applicant/licensee;

 Regional and site area maps, including nearby towns and natural features;

 Schedule of the major steps comprising the proposed action, such as construction, operation,

decommissioning (i.e., start and completion dates of major activities); and 

This section should also describe the desired outcome or goal of the proposal. For example, at a

decommissioning site, the licensee must meet the 10 CFR 20, Subpart E, radiological criteria for license

termination. For a new fuel cycle facility, the applicant/licensee must meet the 10 CFR 70 criteria.

6.1.3 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Required Consultations

For some of these consultations, NRC may designate the applicant/licensee as responsible for performing

the consultation process. The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It

may not be necessary for the evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the

information requested below:

 Name of each consultation, review, approval, and authorization, and the applicable law,

ordinance, or regulation;

 Activity to be covered by the consultation, review, approval, or authorization (e.g., permit);

 Current status of each consultation, review, approval, and authorization;

 Potential administrative delays or other problems preventing agency consultation, review,

approval, or authorization; and

 Documentation of any consultation or survey conducted, such as wildlife surveys (periodic or

one-time) or archaeological surveys.

6.2 Alternatives

6.2.1 Detailed Description of the Alternatives

The applicant/licensee should discuss alternatives considered. Identify the no-action alternative, the

proposed action, and any reasonable alternatives. Discuss the technical design requirements for the

proposed action and the reasonable alternatives. It is possible to have options under an alternative (e.g.,

the possibility of additional ground water remediation) and those options should be discussed.
6-3

6.2.1.1 No-Action Alternative

The applicant/licensee should identify the no-action alternative in order to provide a baseline to compare

the proposed action and reasonable alternatives. The no-action alternative is the status-quo. The

following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Description of the no-action alternative; and 

 Summary of the major impacts should the no-action alternative be chosen.

6.2.1.2 Proposed Action

The applicant/licensee should describe the proposed action as described in the following, as applicable. 

It may not be necessary for the evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the

information requested below:

 Detailed description of the proposed action, the general project progression and pre-operational,

operational, and post-operations activities, as appropriate;

 Full names of all organizations sharing ownership of the proposed action;

 The major impacts from performing the proposed action;

 Measures used to mitigate impacts;

 Restoration actions; and

 Proposed monitoring.

Additionally, the applicant/licensee should describe the current state of the site or facility. The following

information should be presented in the ER, as applicable:

 Site location, including distance and direction from the nearest major city, nearby towns, nearby

inhabitants, and landmarks, including highways, rivers, or other bodies of water;

 Facility latitude and longitude coordinates;

 Areal extent of the site and facility layout;

 The following maps which include the facility area and scale of the map:

- Sufficiently detailed map showing highways and railroad lines that cross the site; 

- Aerial view or perspective drawing of the site with an indication of the facility boundary

(in at least one drawing the facility site boundary should occupy about 10 percent of the

view);
6-4

- Layout of facilities and other features within the site boundary with the same scale as

those provided for Section 6.4, Environmental Impacts;

 List of buildings or areas used for chemical storage, waste management, vehicle cleaning,

administration, operations and maintenance, generating electricity, health and security, parking,

etc.;

 Underground storage tanks, wells, pipelines, and sewage system;

 Description of types of operations that will be conducted on the site;

 Identification of radionuclides and other hazardous materials used;

 Summary of how materials are stored, handled, utilized and disposed; and

 Air, ground water, and surface water, monitoring stations.

6.2.1.3 Reasonable Alternatives

The applicant/licensee should summarize the history and process used to formulate the reasonable

alternatives. The following information should be provided for each reasonable alternative, as

applicable. It may not be necessary for the evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to

require all the information requested below:

 A description of the alternative;

 The major impacts; 

 Measures used to mitigate impacts;

 Restoration and management actions; and

 Proposed monitoring. 

6.2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Summary of alternatives not considered to be reasonable; and

 Summary of why these alternatives were eliminated from further study.

6.2.3 Cumulative Effects

Discuss any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions which could result in cumulative

impacts when combined with the proposed action.
6-5

6.2.4 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts

The applicant/licensee should present the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives in a summary

chart or table.

6.3 Description of the Affected Environment 

The description of the affected environment focuses on baseline conditions, i.e., the status quo. The

baseline conditions will be used to assess the impacts discussed in Section 6.4, Environmental Impacts.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Land use;

 Transportation;

 Geology and soils;

 Water resources;

 Ecology;

 Meteorology, climatology, and air quality;

 Noise;

 Historical and cultural resources;

 Visual/scenic resources;

 Socioeconomic;

 Environmental justice;

 Public and occupational health; and

 Waste management.

6.3.1 Land Use 

The applicant/licensee should describe land uses near the site. This section provides input to various

sections including, but not limited to, Sections 6.4.1, Land Use Impacts; 6.4.4, Water Resources Impacts;

6.4.12, Public and Occupational Health Impacts; and 6.6, Environmental Measurements and Monitoring

Program.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Maps showing major land use, public, and trust land areas;

 Description of the regional setting, transportation corridors, and offsite areas;

 Land areas devoted to major uses according to U.S. Geological Survey land use categories;

 Information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

on the relative value of the facility if it involves farmland;
6-6

 Land-use plans including current, future, and proposed (those which have been formally

proposed by the appropriate governing body in a written form and are being actively pursued by

officials of the jurisdiction) plans;

 Staged plans, which must go through phases of development, including those that are

incomplete;

 Special land-use classifications (e.g., American Indian or military reservations, wild and scenic

rivers, State and national parks, national forests, designated coastal zone areas, wildlife refuges,

wilderness areas, and prime and unique farmlands);

 Mineral resources;

 Principal agricultural products, location, and average annual yields (including growing and

grazing period, fraction of daily intake from pasture, fraction of the year that leafy vegetables are

grown, and amount consumed);

 Present commercial fish and invertebrate catch; and

 Unusual animals, facilities, agricultural practices, game harvests, or food processing operations. 

6.3.2 Transportation

The applicant/licensee should describe transportation facilities at and near the site. This section provides

input to various sections including, but not limited to, Sections 6.4.7, Noise Impacts and 6.4.12, Public

and Occupational Health Impacts.

The following information on existing transportation corridors should be presented in the ER, as

applicable. It may not be necessary for the evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to

require all the information requested below:

 Proposed routes for transportation corridors that will be used for transportation access to and

from the facility site; and

 Corridor lengths, widths, and areas including:

- Identification of offsite transportation areas by land use, size, and location; and

- Land use restricting transportation corridors contained in any easements. 
6-7

6.3.3 Geology and Soils

The applicant/licensee should identify the geological, seismological, and geotechnical characteristics of

the site and vicinity. This section provides input to various sections including, but not limited to,

Sections 6.4.3, Geology and Soils Impacts; 6.4.4, Water Resources Impacts; 6.4.12., Public and

Occupational Health Impacts; and 6.6, Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Program.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Stratigraphy and structures, including descriptions of geological units, major structural and

tectonic features (e.g., faults), and any other significant geological conditions;

 Geotechnical investigations conducted to characterize the site;

 Characteristics of soil, including a physical description of the soil units and descriptions of

features related to soils at the site and nearby; and

 Analysis and evaluation of the local and regional seismicity data, volcanism, or any information

that may indicate a geologic hazard at the site.

6.3.4 Water Resources

The applicant/licensee should describe site-specific and regional data on the physical and hydrological

characteristics of ground and surface water in sufficient detail to provide the basic data for the evaluation

of impacts on water bodies, aquifers, aquatic ecosystems, and social and economic structures of the area. 

This section provides input to various sections including, but not limited to, Sections 6.4.4, Water

Resource Impacts; 6.4.12, Public and Occupational Health Impacts; and 6.6, Environmental

Measurements and Monitoring Program.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Maps showing:

- The spatial and temporal relationship of the site to the major surface and subsurface

hydrological systems such as aquifer systems and drainage basins;

- Surface and subsurface systems that could be affected by facility withdrawals and/or

discharges (cross sections where feasible);

 Mean, range, and temporal and spatial variations of the subsurface and surface water quality

characteristics including water temperature, chemical, biological, and physical characteristics

typically monitored [WWW at <http://www.epa.gov/storet>, (EPA, 2003a)];
6-8

 Descriptions of preexisting environmental conditions and their effects on subsurface and surface

water quality (e.g., water bodies at or near the site that do not meet established water quality

standards) and quantity;

 Historical and current hydrological data from non-related projects in the region or area of

influence (e.g., reservoirs built and operated during the period of record; scheduled construction

of dams; local drinking water, agricultural, or industrial wells), and projected data describing

future trends, if available;

 Interpolated and extrapolated measurements using acceptable geostatistical techniques if data are

incomplete or unavailable;

 Summary of methodology used to estimate hydrological parameters;

 Water rights and resources;

 Quantitative description of subsurface and surface water uses such as withdrawals, consumption,

and returns, including but not limited to, domestic, municipal, agricultural, industrial, mining,

recreation, navigation, and hydroelectric power;

 Quantitative and qualitative description of recreational, navigational, instream, and other nonconsumptive water uses including the use rate with time variation;

 Descriptions of past, current, and future pollutant sources with discharges to water including

locations relative to the site and the affected water bodies, and the magnitude and nature of the

pollutant discharges, including spatial and temporal variations;

 Description of wetlands [WWW at

<http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg/techbio.htm> (USACE, 2003)]; and

 Summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body

restrictions on water use imposed by Federal or State regulations.

Surface Water Characteristics for the following categories:

 Freshwater streams, lakes and impoundments, and estuaries and oceans;

 Flood frequency distributions, including levee failures;

 Flood control measures (reservoirs, levees, flood forecasting);

 Location, size, and elevation of outfall;

 Velocity distribution (horizontal and vertical) and waterbody cross section within the influence

of any outfall;

 Bathymetry near any outfall;
6-9

 Estimated erosion characteristics and sediment transport for surface-water bodies and wetlands,

including rate, bed, suspended load fractions, and gradation analyses;

 Description of the floodplain and its relationship to the site [WWW at

<http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/> (FEMA, 2003)]; and

 Description of the design-basis flood elevation; and, where applicable, the design-basis flood

discharge.

Freshwater streams (for the watershed containing the site):

 Major streams, size of drainage areas, and gradient;

 Historic monthly flow information, including maximum, average-maximum, average, averageminimum, and minimum flow;

 Historical drought stages and discharges by month, and the 7-day once-in-10-yr low flow; and

 Important short-duration flow fluctuations (e.g., diurnal release variations from peaking

operation of upstream hydroelectric project).

Lakes and impoundments:

 Elevation-area-capacity curves;

 Reservoir operating rules;

 Annual yield and dependability;

 Variations in inflows, outflows, water-surface elevations, and storage volumes and retention

times;

 Net loss, including evaporation and seepage;

 Current patterns, including frequency distributions of current speed, direction, and persistence;

and 

 Temperature distribution (horizontal and vertical) and stratification and seasonal variations of

density-induced currents.

Estuaries and oceans:

 Shoreline and bottom descriptions, including seasonal variations due to sediment transport;

 Tidal current patterns (velocities and phases), range, and excursion;
6-10

 Non-tidal circulation patterns, including frequency distributions of current speed, direction, and

persistence;

 Temperature and salinity distribution (horizontal and vertical), including temporal variations;

and

 Monthly river discharge including maximum, average-maximum, average, average-minimum,

and minimum discharge and flushing characteristics (only for estuaries).

Ground water characteristics:

 Historical and seasonal trends in ground water elevation or piezometric levels;

 Piezometric contour maps, water table contour maps, and hydraulic gradients (historical, if

available, and current);

 Depth to water table for unconfined aquifer systems;

 Flow travel time (ground water velocities);

 Soil properties, including permeabilities or transmissivities, storage coefficients or specific

yields, total and effective porosities, clay content, and bulk densities;

 Interactions among different aquifers;

 Historical and current data from site wells (e.g., monitoring, background, corrective action, or

other uses);

 Hydrostratigraphy of the site, including cross sections and hydrostratigraphic unit descriptions;

and

 Qualitative description of ground water aquifers, including identification of EPA-designated

sole-source aquifers [WWW at <http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/swp/sumssa.html> (EPA,

2003b)].

6.3.5 Ecological Resources

The applicant/licensee should describe species types, spatial and temporal distribution, and abundance,

especially as they relate to listed and endangered species and critical habitat. This section provides input

to various sections including, but not limited to, Sections 6.4.5, Ecological Resources Impacts; 6.4.12,

Public and Occupational Health Impacts; and 6.6, Environmental Measurements and Monitoring

Program.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:
6-11

 Map(s):

- Important terrestrial resources, habitats, and ecosystems; and

- Topographic maps of the site; 

 General ecological description of the regional setting, the site, and transportation corridors;

 List and description of important species and their spatial and temporal distributions, including

their relative abundance and their life histories, critical life stages, biologically significant

activities, seasonal habitat requirements and population fluctuations, food chain, and other

interspecific relationships;

 List of threatened or endangered species (plants and animals) known to occur, or that could

potentially occur, including their seasons of occurrence, estimates of abundance, local flight

patterns, and critical habitats;

 List of major vegetation layers (e.g., over-story and under-story), their dominant species, and the

relative species abundances;

 Qualitative estimate of the importance of habitat of threatened, endangered, and other important

species relative to the habitat of such species throughout their entire range;

 Locations of travel corridors for important terrestrial species and alternate routes for those

corridors that could potentially be blocked by use of the site;

 List of important ecological systems that are especially vulnerable to change or that contain

important species habitats, such as breeding areas (e.g., nesting areas), nursery, feeding, resting,

and wintering areas, or other areas of seasonally high concentrations of individuals of important

species;

 Characterization of the aquatic environment (including biological, hydrological, and chemical)

and identification of those factors known to influence distribution and abundance of threatened

and endangered aquatic life;

 Location and value of the commercial and sport fisheries and the seasonal distribution of harvest

by species;

 Key aquatic indicator organisms expected to gauge changes in the distribution and abundance of

species populations that are particularly vulnerable to impacts from the proposed action;

 List of important ecological systems onsite or in the vicinity that are especially vulnerable to

change or that contain important species habitats, such as breeding areas (e.g., spawning areas);

nursery, feeding, and wintering areas; or other areas of seasonally high concentrations of

individuals of important species;

 Relative significance of various aquatic habitats in a regional context;
6-12

 Description of current and reasonable foreseeable conditions that are indicative of ecological

stresses including natural and man-made;

 Description of the status of ecological succession of biota (i.e., weed, brush, pole, and mature

stages);

 Description and location of any ecological or biological studies of the site or its environs,

including those that are currently in progress;

 Information on sightings of endangered or threatened species on the proposed site or in the

applicable vicinity (e.g., county, tri-county area, bay area, etc.) [The source of this information

should be identified. Example sources may include the State Department of Natural Resources,

local chapters of recognized bird-watching groups, documented field studies, and State

university/college specialists. The time period in which the information was collected by these

sources should be specified (e.g., during the past 5 years of monthly observation outings.];

 Documentation that the applicant has consulted with the appropriate Federal and State agencies

(e.g., as required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act) and affected American Indian

tribes; and

 Identification of other Federal and State projects within the region that are or could potentially

affect the same threatened and endangered species or their habitats.

6.3.6 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality

The applicant/licensee should characterize atmospheric transport and diffusion processes at and near the

site of the proposed action. This section provides input to various sections including, but not limited to,

Sections 6.4.6, Air Quality Impacts; 6.4.12, Public and Occupational Health Impacts; and 6.6,

Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Program.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

Meteorology and Climatology

 Description of the general climate of the region (e.g., climatological normals of parameters such

as temperature, precipitation, and wind speed/direction);

 Discussion of the severe weather phenomena (e.g., tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms,

atmospheric stagnation episodes) experienced in the region with expected frequencies of

occurrence and measured extremes of parameters such as temperature, precipitation, and wind

speed;

 Monthly and annual air temperature and dewpoint temperature summaries (including averages,

measured extremes, and diurnal range) as near as possible to the site;
6-13

 Monthly and annual summaries of precipitation, including averages and measured extremes,

number of hours with precipitation, and hourly rainfall rate distribution as near as possible to the

site;

 Description of the local airflow patterns and characteristics, using data collected from the onsite

meteorological program or from nearby weather monitoring stations;

 Description of the baseline air quality in the region, identifying pollutants which are in

non-attainment or maintenance areas and the relationship of the site to these areas;

 Monthly and annual wind roses and wind direction persistence summaries at all heights at which

data on wind characteristics are applicable centered on the site, if possible;

 Hourly averages of wind speed and direction at all heights which wind characteristics are

applicable and a summary of atmospheric stability;

 Estimated monthly mixing height data, including frequency and duration of inversion conditions

and methods used to provide the estimates; and

 Topographic data presentation, including a map showing detailed topographic features.

If appropriate meteorological data are not available for the site, applicable data from nearby sources may

be used if sufficient justification for offsite data is provided. Information sources for the above

information include:

 Onsite meteorological program data;

 National Weather Service stations, [WWW at <http://www.nws.noaa.gov/> (NOAA, 2003a)];

 National Environmental Data Index, (WWW at <http://www.nedi.gov/> (NOAA, 2003b); or

 National Climatic Data Center, (WWW at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/> (NOAA, 2003c).

Baseline Air Quality

 General description of regional air quality, sources of information include:

- EPA Air Quality System [WWW at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/> (EPA,

2003c)]; and

- EPA Aerometric Information Retrieval System [WWW at

<http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html> (EPA, 2003d);

 Table comparing regional air quality parameters to National Ambient Air Quality Standards for

the area, if possible;

 Air pollutants for which there are non-attainment or maintenance areas in the region and a map

relating the site to these areas; and
6-14

 Local or regional emission inventory.

6.3.7 Noise

The applicant/licensee should characterize the noise baseline at and near the site of the proposed action. 

This section may require input from various sections including, but not limited to, 6.2.1.2, Proposed

Action; 6.3.1, Land Use; 6.3.6, Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality; 6.3.10 Socioeconomic; and

provides input to various sections including, but not limited to, Section 6.4.7, Noise Impacts.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Boundaries of the extent of the noise analysis;

 Distribution of people, buildings, roads, and recreational facilities that are vulnerable to noise

impacts by the proposed action;

 Current and historical noise levels at sensitive areas, as identified above, as energy equivalent

sound level (Leq) or the day-night average sound level (Ldn) reported on the dBA scale;

 Topography and land use in the vicinity;

 Meteorological conditions in the vicinity;

 Applicable sound level standards (from consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and

affected American Indian tribal agencies); and

 Point and line sources of noise affecting current noise levels.

6.3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources

The applicant/licensee should identify and describes historic, archaeological, and cultural resources. 

Resources can include districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects. This section provides input to

various sections including, but not limited to, Section 6.4.8, Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Extent of historical and cultural resource analyses;

 Known cultural resources in the area and an overview of the area’s cultural setting;

 Archaeological or historical surveys of the proposed site, including the following:

- Physical extent of the survey (if the entire site was not surveyed, the basis for selecting

the area to be surveyed is needed);
6-15

- Brief description of the survey techniques used and the reason for the selection of the

survey techniques used;

- Qualifications of the surveyors; and

- Findings of the survey in sufficient detail to permit a subsequent independent assessment

of the impact of the proposed project on archaeological and historic resources;

 List of cultural and historic properties within the proposed actions site or within the area of

potential effects [These properties are included in State or local registers or inventories of

historic and archaeological resources. Guidance can be found on the US. National Park Service

WWW at <http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications> (NPS, 2003)];

 The results of any consultation with Federal, State, local, and affected American Indian tribal

agencies;

 The comments from any organizations and individuals contacted by the applicant who provided

significant information concerning the location and assessment of cultural and historic

properties; and 

 Statement of the significance or importance of each cultural resource potentially affected.

6.3.9 Visual/Scenic Resources

The applicant/licensee should provide information on the aesthetic and scenic quality of the site, which

provides input to various sections including, but not limited to, Sections 6.4.9, Visual/Scenic Resources

Impacts and 6.4.10, Socioeconomic Impacts.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Boundaries of the viewshed or viewscape of the proposed action;

 Photos viewing the proposed site from different directions;

 Identification of local residents and/or regular visitors to the area who might be affected by

aesthetic impacts;

 Information related to the landscape characteristics including open spaces, mountain ranges,

ecological environment (e.g., flora, fauna, and ecosystems), bodies of water (e.g., waterfalls,

waterways, and oceans), color of soils, recreational areas (e.g., parks wilderness areas),

architectural features, aesthetic (e.g., historical, archaeological, cultural, and natural) features

that would attract tourists, and uncultivated land;

 Location of constructed features including radar towers, transmission towers, and overhead

power distribution line and production activities;

 Visibility from access roads (i.e., existing natural or constructed barriers, screens or buffers);
6-16

 Regionally or locally important or high quality views associated with proposed action sites;

 Photos and information related to the view of the proposed action from different directions

including views from roads, highways, homes, and recreational areas (e.g., forest and wilderness

area and campgrounds);

 Regulatory information related to land-use zoning requirements of the local community or urban

areas, sign ordinances or regulations of the local community or urban area, design guides of the

local community or urban area, and buffer-zone (or greenbelt-zone) requirements of the local

community or urban area;

 Summary of any coordination with appropriate local area community planners and/or urban

planners; and

 Rating of the aesthetic and scenic quality of the site in accordance with the BLM Visual

Resource Inventory and Evaluation System (BLM, 1984, 1986a, 1986b, 2002).

6.3.10 Socioeconomic

The applicant/licensee should describe socioeconomic information. This section provides input to

various sections including, but not limited to, Sections 6.4.10, Socioeconomic Impacts; 6.4.11,

Environmental Justice; and 6.4.12, Public and Occupational Health Impacts. This section may also be

linked to Sections 6.3.1, Land Use, 6.3.9, Visual/Scenic Resources, 6.4.1, Land Use Impacts, and 6.4.9,

Visual/Scenic Impacts because of land use questions.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Population characteristics (e.g., ethnic groups, and population density);

 Economic trends and characteristics, including employment and income levels;

 Housing, health and social services, educational, and transportation resources;

 Area’s tax structure and distribution; 

 Summary of any coordination with appropriate local and regional agencies or groups who collect

these types of data;

 Map identifying places of significant population grouping, such as cities and towns;

 Population characteristics (trends) and projections [sources of information include the WWW at

<http://www.census.gov> (CB, 2003)] and the bases for population projections;

 Areas where minority or low-income populations are disproportionately high (see Environmental

Justice instructions in Appendix C); and

 Sources of information, assumptions and techniques used to develop information.
6-17

Current and projected population levels for the life of the facility should be determined. The population

trends at the proposed site should be discussed along with historic and projected growth rates for the

region. Appropriate governmental and industrial projections should be evaluated. Any unusual

programs or developments in the region should be highlighted if they may have an impact on the area

population.

6.3.11 Public and Occupational Health

The applicant/licensee should describe existing public and occupational health issues, as appropriate.

This section provides input to various sections including, but not limited to, Section 6.4.12, Public and

Occupational Health Impacts.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Major sources and levels of background radiation exposure, including natural and man-made

sources; express levels in mSv/yr (mrem/yr);

 Current sources and levels of exposure to radioactive materials;

 Major sources and levels of chemical exposure; express levels in appropriate units;

 Historical exposures to radioactive materials;

 Occupational injury rates and occupational fatality rates; and

 Summary of health effects studies.

6.3.12 Waste Management

The applicant/licensee should describe current waste generation rates and sources for all types of waste. 

This section provides input to various sections including, but not limited to, Section 6.4.13, Waste

Management Impacts. This section may be linked to Sections 6.4.1, Land Use Impacts; 6.4.4, Water

Resources Impacts; 6.4.5, Ecological Resources Impacts 6.4.6; Air Quality Impacts; 6.4.12.2.1, Pathway

Assessment; and 6.6, Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Descriptions of all (i.e., nonradioactive, radioactive, mixed, and hazardous) current waste

systems, including quantities, composition, and frequency of waste generation [Effluent

discharges do not need to be discussed if previously covered (i.e., air effluents in Air Quality

section and liquid effluents in the Water Quality section)]; 

 Information on current disposal activities including size and location of disposal sites as well as

the plans for ultimate treatment and/or restoration of retired disposal sites (other than licensed

commercial sites);
6-18

 Identification of all sources of radioactive liquid, solid, and gaseous waste material within the

facility; and

 Identification of direct radiation sources stored onsite as solid waste (e.g., independent fuel

storage).

6.4 Environmental Impacts

Analyze and describe the impacts for each resource described in Section 6.3, Description of the Affected

Environment, for the no-action alternative, the proposed action, and each alternative. These impacts

(e.g., direct, indirect, and cumulative) should consider normal operational events as well as reasonably

foreseeable accidents (e.g., design basis events for 10 CFR 72 licensees, credible consequence events for

10 CFR 70 licensees). When analyzing impacts, resources should be considered separately, and where

necessary, in combination (e.g., noise impacts on wildlife, or transportation impacts on land use), as

appropriate

Activities (i.e., construction, operation and decommissioning) should be evaluated in sufficient detail to

determine the significance of potential impacts and to recommend how these impacts should be treated in

the process (e.g., consideration of alternative designs or practices that would mitigate adverse

environmental impacts). 

6.4.1 Land Use Impacts

This section describes the impacts to land use for each alternative. The following information should be

presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the evaluation of potential impacts from

the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Land-use impact;

 Land-use impacts of any related Federal action that may have cumulatively significant impacts;

 Area and location of land that will be disturbed on either a long-term or short-term basis; and

 Impacts from institutional controls.

6.4.2 Transportation Impacts

This section describes the impacts to transportation corridors including the effects of transportation of

radioactive materials. The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may

not be necessary for the evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the

information requested below:

 Construction of access road or railroad to facility;

 Transportation route and mode for conveying construction material to the facility;

 Traffic pattern impacts (e.g from any increase in traffic from heavy haul vehicles);
6-19

 Impacts of construction transportation such as fugitive dust, scenic quality, and noise;

 Mitigation measures proposed by applicant; and 

 Any consultations with Federal, State, and local agencies.

Transportation of Radioactive Material 

The following information should be provided in the ER:

 Transportation mode (i.e., truck, rail, or barge) and routes from originating site to destinations;

 Estimated transportation distance from the originating site to the storage site;

 Treatment and packaging procedure for radioactive wastes;

 Radiological dose for incident-free scenarios to public and workers; and

 Impacts of operating transportation on the environment (e.g., fire from equipment sparking).

6.4.3 Geology and Soils Impacts

This applicant should summarize known and potential geological impacts, mitigation measures and

cumulative effects in this section. The major analysis for this section is usually found in the SER and

only needs to be summarized in this section. Examples of geological environmental impacts include soil

compaction, soil erosion, subsidence, landslides, and disruption of natural drainage patterns. More

likely, geological resources may exert an impact on the proposed action and these effects should be

summarized in this section (e.g., seismic or volcanic hazards). 

6.4.4 Water Resources Impacts

In this section, the applicant/licensee evaluates impacts on water use and water quality for each

alternative and identifies the potential impacts for both radiological and nonradiological effluents.

The applicant should consider surface-water and ground water uses that could affect or be affected by the

construction and operation of the proposed project. The analysis includes consideration of impacts on

such water uses as domestic, municipal, agricultural, industrial, mining, recreation, navigation, and

hydroelectric power. The review should be limited to present and known future water uses.

Consider impacts on the physical, chemical, and biological water-quality characteristics of ground and

surface water. Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must

be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply.

Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a

substitute for and does not negate the requirement for the applicant to weigh the environmental impacts

of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the

proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts. Additionally, the State’s standards
6-20

should be considered because the United States Supreme Court granted the States additional authority to

limit hydrological alterations beyond the State’s role in regulating water rights.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Identification of waters receiving effluents and the expected average and maximum flow rates,

physical characteristics (e.g., temperature, sediment load, velocities), and composition of

radiological and nonradiological pollutants in these effluents;

 Impacts on surface water and ground water quality including comparison of predicted effluent

and receiving-water quality with applicable effluent limitations and water-quality standards for

both radiological and nonradiological constituents [Include conclusions regarding project

compliance with these standards, the physical impacts of consumptive water uses (e.g., ground

water depletion) on other water users, and adverse impacts on surface-oriented water users (e.g.,

fishing, navigation, etc.) resulting from facility activities];

 Identification of hydrological system alterations, including construction of cofferdams and storm

sewers; dredging operations; placement of fill material into the water; creation of shoreline

facilities involving bulkheads, piers, jetties, basins, or other structures or activities with potential

to alter existing shoreline processes; construction of intake and outfall structures; water-channel

modifications; construction of roads and bridges; operations affecting water levels (flooding);

dewatering activities; and activities contributing to sediment runoff (e.g., road construction,

clearing and grading, fill or spoil placement); 

 Identification of hydrological system impacts, onsite and offsite (e.g., water quantity and

availability, water flow, and movement patterns), and erosion, deposition, and sediment

transport, water drainage characteristics, the flood handling capability of the floodplains, flow

and circulation patterns, subsidence resulting from ground water withdrawal, and erosion and

sediment transport;

 Withdrawals and returns of ground and surface water during all phases;

 Identification of impacted ground and surface water users, including descriptions of the site and

regional water bodies (including sole-source aquifers) and ground water aquifers (Section 5.3.5,

Water Resources), surface-water and ground water sources used, identification and locations of

ground water and surface water users and areas that could be impacted, the compatibility of

proposed water uses with existing and known water rights and allocations, descriptions of any

transfer of water rights (e.g., from irrigation use to facility consumptive use) and the impacts

associated with such transfers;

 Descriptions of any proposed practices and measures to control impacts to water quality and/or

quantity (e.g., protection of natural drainage channels and water bodies, protection of shorelines

and beaches, restrictions on access to and use of surface water, protection against saltwater

intrusion, and handling of fuels, lubricants, oily wastes, chemical wastes, sanitary wastes,

herbicides, and pesticides); and

 Identification of predicted cumulative effects on water resources.
6-21

6.4.5 Ecological Resources Impacts

This section describes the ecological impacts for the proposed action and each alternative. The following

information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the evaluation of

potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Site map showing proposed buildings, land to be cleared, areas to be cleared along stream banks,

areas proposed for dredge material, areas to be dredged, and waste disposal areas;

 Documentation of Section 7 consultations with the FWS on the impact of the proposed action on

endangered and threatened species and critical habitat, as discussed in Section 1.4;

 Proposed schedule of activities;

 Total area of land to be disturbed;

 Area of disturbance for each habitat type, and an estimate of the amount of these habitats that

will be destroyed relative to the total amount present in the region; 

 Maintenance practices such as use of chemical herbicides, roadway maintenance, and

mechanical clearing that are anticipated to effect biota;

 Area to be used on a short-term basis during construction, and plans for restoration of this land;

 Any proposed activities expected to impact communities or habitats that have been defined as

rare or unique or that support threatened and endangered species;

 Estimate of the potential impacts of elevated construction equipment or structures on species

(e.g., birds collisions, nesting);

 Tolerances and/or susceptibilities of important biota to physical and chemical pollutants;

 Clearing methods, erosion, run-off and siltation control methods (both temporary and

permanent), dust suppression methods, and other construction practices for impact control or

minimization;

 Special maintenance practices used in important habitats (e.g., marshes, natural areas, bogs)

including those that result in unique beneficial effects on specific biota;

 Wildlife management practices; and 

 Practices and procedures or alternative designs to minimize adverse impacts.

6.4.6 Air Quality Impacts

This section describes the air quality impacts of the proposed action and each alternative. The following

information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the evaluation of

potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:
6-22

 Description of gaseous effluents (type, quantity, and origin);

 Table comparing effluent concentrations to regional air quality parameters (effluent

concentrations should be provided for both short and long term impacts);

 Release point characteristics (i.e., elevation above grade, inside vent or stack diameter, physical

shape, flow rate, effluent temperature, exit velocity, release frequency, or other appropriate

information to allow calculation of transport and diffusion);

 Description of gaseous effluent control systems;

 Detailed descriptions of the models and assumptions used to determine normalized concentration

and/or relative deposition [The meteorological data used in these models should be identified

(Section 6.3.6, Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality).];

 Normalized concentration and/or relative deposition at points of potential maximum

concentration outside the site boundary, at points of maximum individual exposure, and at points

within a reasonable area that could be impacted (Section 6.3.6, Meteorology, Climatology, and

Air Quality);

 Description of visibility impacts;

 Description of mitigative measures for air quality impacts; and

 Description of cumulative air quality impacts.

6.4.7 Noise Impacts

This section describes noise impacts. The following information should be presented in the ER, as

applicable. It may not be necessary for the evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to

require all the information requested below:

 Predicted noise levels (sound contour maps are recommended), reported as energy equivalent

sound levels or day-night average sound levels (Leq or Ldn) using the dBA scale;

 Major point and line sources (for locations described above), including all models, assumptions

and input data;

 Comparison to appropriate standards or guidelines (EPA, 1974; ASTM, 1996);

 Potential impacts to sensitive receptors (i.e., hospitals, schools, residences, wildlife); 

 Mitigation measures to reduce impacts of noise; and

 Description of noise related cumulative impacts.
6-23

6.4.8 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts

This section describes impacts to historic and cultural resources. Adverse effects occur when a proposed

action’s effect on a cultural resource diminishes the integrity of its location, design, setting, materials,

workmanship, feeling or association. Adverse effects include, but are not limited to: (i) physical

destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property; (ii) isolation of the property from or

alternation of the character of the property’s setting when that character contributes to the property's

qualification of the National Register; (iii) introduction of visual, audible or atmospheric elements that

are out of character with the property or alter its setting; (iv) neglect of a property resulting in its

deterioration or destruction; and (v) transfer, lease or sale of the property.

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Overlay maps where a base map showing known and potential sites is overlain by maps

identifying the nature and extent of the impacts from each alternative [Summary information that

does not include site-specific or property-specific data should be included in cases where specific

information may lead to vandalism or scavenging.];

 Impacts to historic and cultural resources during construction, operation, or decommissioning;

 Indirect impacts (e.g., vandalism on known cultural resource sites in the area of potential effects,

visual impact, denial of access) resulting from land-use changes, secondary growth and

development, or direct construction activities;

 Documentation of SHPO and/or THPO consultations on the impact of the proposed action on

significant cultural and historic resources as discussed in Section 1.4;

 Reference to SHPO and/or THPO comments on the impact of the proposed project on significant

cultural and historic resources as discussed in Section 1.4;

 State laws and plans for historic preservation, if needed;

 Potential for human remains to occur in the project area and plans for complying with Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act regulations in the event of an inadvertent

discovery [An inadvertent discovery of such items during construction may necessitate a work

stoppage of up to 30 days and consultation under this Act’s procedures.];

 Practices and procedures or alternative designs to minimize adverse impacts [Mitigation

measures could include: (i) limiting the magnitude of the undertaking; (ii) modifying the

undertaking through redesign, reorientation or construction on the proposed action; (iii) repair,

rehabilitation, or restoration of an affected historic property as opposed, for instance, to

demolition; (iv) preservation and maintenance operations for involved historic properties;

(v) documentation (drawings, photos, histories) of building or structures that must be destroyed

or substantially altered; (vi) relocation of historic properties; and (vii) salvage of archaeological

or architectural information and materials.]; and 

 Description of cumulative impacts on historic and cultural resources.
6-24

6.4.9 Visual/Scenic Resources Impacts

This section describes aesthetic impacts. The following information should be presented in the ER, as

applicable. It may not be necessary for the evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to

require all the information requested below:

 Photos of the site with the alternatives superimposed;

 Rate the aesthetic and scenic quality of the site in accordance with BLM Visual Resource

Management System (BLM, 1984, 1986a, 1986b, 2002);

 Significant visual impacts from each alternative, including;

- Physical facilities that are out of character with overall existing architectural features;

- Structures that may partially or completely obstruct views of existing landscape;

- Structures that create visual intrusions in the existing landscape character (e.g., radar

towers, power lines, etc.);

- Structures that may require the removal of natural or built barriers, screens or buffers,

thus enabling lower quality viewscapes to be seen;

- Altering historical, archaeological or cultural properties or the character of the property’s

setting when that character contributes to the property’s significance; and 

- Structures that create visual audible or atmospheric elements that are out of character

with the site or alter its setting;

 A determination if the visual impact is compatible or in compliance with regulations, ordinances,

and requirements;

 Potential mitigation measures; and

 Description of cumulative impacts to visual/scenic quality.

6.4.10 Socioeconomic Impacts

This section describes socioeconomic impacts such as impacts to housing or schools from an influx of

additional workforce. The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may

not be necessary for the evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the

information requested below:

 Impacts to population characteristics (e.g., ethnic groups, and population density);

 Impacts to housing, health and social services, educational, and transportation resources;

 Impacts to area’s tax structure and distribution; 
6-25

 Summary of any coordination with appropriate local and regional agencies or groups who collect

these types of data;

 Sources of information, assumptions and techniques used to develop information; and

 Description of cumulative impacts to socioeconomic resources.

6.4.11 Environmental Justice

The Commission has directed the staff to develop an environmental justice (EJ) policy statement. After

the policy statement is completed, necessary updates to the EJ guidance will be incorporated. In the

interim, the following draft guidance on environmental justice is being provided. 

This section evaluates environmental impacts on low-income or minority populations by proposed

project activities if disproportionately high low-income or minority populations are identified in Section

6.3.11. Impacts that may have environmental justice implications may include health, ecological

(including water quality and water availability), social, cultural, economic and aesthetic resources.

The ER should follow the detailed guidance provided in Appendix C. In general, the ER includes a

discussion of the methods used to identify and quantify impacts on low-income and minority

populations, the location and significance of any environmental impacts during construction on

populations that are particularly sensitive, and any additional information pertaining to mitigation. 

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 An assessment (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) of the degree to which each minority

or low-income population is disproportionately receiving adverse human health or environmental

impacts during construction or decommissioning as compared with the entire geographic area [In

addition, there should be an assessment comparing the impacts with the larger overall geographic

area encompassing all of the alternative sites.];

 An assessment (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) of the significance or potential

significance of such environmental impacts on each low-income and minority population

[Significance is determined by considering the disproportionate exposure, multiple-hazard, and

cumulative hazard conditions.];

 An assessment of the degree to which each low-income and minority population is

disproportionately receiving any benefits compared with the entire geographic area;

 A discussion of any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce environmental

justice concerns;

 A brief description of pathways by which any environmental impacts may result in

disproportionate environmental impacts to low-income and minority populations; 

 Description of cumulative impacts to low-income and minority populations; and
6-26

 When alternative sites are being evaluated, the same reviews should be available for each site.

6.4.12 Public and Occupational Health Impacts

This section describes public and occupational health impacts from both nonradiological and radiological

sources.

6.4.12.1 Nonradiological Impacts

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Maps, in an appropriate scale, showing the distances from the proposed action to the following

points or areas for radial sectors centered on the cardinal compass directions:

- Nearest site boundary;

- Nearest full time resident;

- Nearest present drinking water intake (from Sections 6.3.1, Land Use, or 6.3.4, Water

Resources); and 

- Nearest sensitive receptors (e.g., schools and hospitals);

 For liquid nonradioactive discharge to water or air, provide the basis for analysis and the

following information (Section 6.4.4, Water Impacts and Section 6.4.6, Air Quality Impacts):

- Transit time to the points of analysis;

- Liquid stream discharge rate; and

- Dilution factor at the points of analysis;

 Physical layout, including the location and orientation of nonradioactive materials that are

expected to be present (Section 6.1.2, The Proposed Action and 6.3.12, Waste Management);

 Location and characteristics of liquid and gaseous releases (from Sections 6.4.4, Water

Resources Impacts, and 6.4.6 Air Quality Impacts);

 Measured nonradiological concentrations, airborne and waterborne, at specific locations where

environmental monitoring data exist (Section 6.6, Environmental Measurements and Monitoring

Programs);

 Calculated airborne and waterborne concentrations at specific locations important to exposure

calculations where environmental monitoring data are not available, including a description of

the methodology;

 Calculated exposure to the public or calculated average annual concentration of nonradioactive

releases to air and water; including all models, assumptions, and input data in order to determine

compliance (e.g, 40 CFR 50, 59, 60, 61, 122, 129, 131, etc.); 
6-27

 Number and principal locations of workers who will be exposed to the sources described above

and the total amount of time per year that they will spend at those locations;

 Calculated exposure to the workforce including all models, assumptions, and input data in order

to determine compliance with 29 CFR 1910;

 Description of mitigative measures; and

 Description of nonradiological cumulative impacts to public and occupational health.

6.4.12.2 Radiological Impacts

This section describes public and occupational health impacts from radiological sources. 

6.4.12.2.1 Pathway Assessment

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Maps, at an appropriate scale, showing the distances from the proposed action to the following

points or areas for radial sectors centered on the cardinal compass directions:

- Nearest site boundary;

- Nearest full time resident;

- Location of average member of critical group;

- Other important receptors (i.e: milk and meat producing animals, and vegetable gardens)

and locations;

- Nearest present and known future locations from which an individual can obtain aquatic

food and/or drinking water (Sections 6.3.5, Water Resources and 6.3.2, Land Use),

transit time from the proposed action, and population served; and

- Nearest present and known future areas designated for recreational purposes

(Section 6.3.2, Land Use) and transit time from the proposed action;

 Potential pathways for releases; 

 For each radioactive discharge to water or air, provide the basis for analysis and the following

information (Sections 6.4.4, Water Resources Impacts and 6.4.5, Air Quality Impacts):

- Transit time to the points of analysis;

- Discharge rate; and

- Dilution factor at the points of analysis;

 Distributional data for radial sectors centered on the cardinal compass directions for radial

distances (immediate area to affected region) including:
6-28

- Projected population during and after each alternative (Section 6.4.10, Socioeconomic

Impacts);

- Current annual meat production, current annual milk production, current annual

vegetable production, and current commercial fish and invertebrate catch (Section 6.3.2,

Land Use); and

- Affected current and known future drinking water intake locations and the populations

served and the daily water consumption at each location (Section 6.3.5, Water

Resources);

 Crop yield, annual production, growing period, crop type, and amounts consumed and fractional

ingestion of contaminated food and water for:

- Irrigated land using water withdrawn within the affected region of the proposed action,

include irrigation rate; and 

- Land affected by airborne emissions and deposition;

 Animal husbandry, facilities, agricultural practices, game harvests, or food processing operations

having the potential for contributing incrementally to either individual or population doses.

6.4.12.2.2 Public and Occupational Exposure

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Physical layout of the site, including the location and orientation of radioactive materials that are

expected to be present (Section 6.2.1.2, Proposed Action);

 Location and characteristics of radiation sources and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluent

(Sections 6.4.4, Water Resource Impacts, and 6.4.6 Air Quality Impacts);

 Measured radiation dose rates, airborne radioactivity concentrations, and waterborne

radioactivity concentrations at specific locations where environmental radiological monitoring

data exist;

 Calculated radiation dose rates, airborne radioactivity concentrations, and waterborne

radioactivity concentrations at specific locations important to dose calculations where

environmental radiological monitoring data are not available, including a description of the

methodology;

 Calculated total effective dose equivalent to an average member of the critical group or

calculated average annual concentration of radioactive material in gaseous and liquid effluent;

including all models, assumptions, and input data in order to determine compliance with 10 CFR 

20 and 40 CFR 190;

 Calculated dose to the workforce including all models, assumptions, and input data in order to

determine compliance with 10 CFR 20;
6-29

 Summary of external radiation monitoring and airborne radiation monitoring programs

(Section 6.6, Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs);

 Description of mitigation measures; and

 Description of cumulative impacts to public and occupational radiological exposure.

For accidents, include:

 The list of reasonably foreseeable (i.e., credible) accidents (e.g., design basis events for 10 CFR

72 licenses, credible consequence events for 10 CFR 70 licenses, etc.) identified as having a

potential for releases to the environment and the analysis of the dose consequences from these

accidents. 

6.4.13 Waste Management Impacts

This section describes waste generation and management impacts. The following information should be

presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the evaluation of potential impacts from

the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Descriptions of the sources, types, quantities, composition of solid, hazardous, radioactive and

mixed wastes expected from the proposed action;

 Description of proposed waste management systems designed to collect, store, and dispose of all

wastes generated by the proposed action;

 Anticipated disposal plans for all wastes (i.e., transfer to an offsite waste disposal facility,

treatment facility, or storage onsite);

 A waste-minimization plan that identifies process changes that can be made to reduce or

eliminate waste, including a description of methods to minimize the volume of waste; and

 Description of waste management cumulative impacts.

6.5 Mitigation Measures

The ER should summarize mitigation measures that could reduce adverse impacts. These mitigation

measures should be incorporated in the proposed action and alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14(f) and

1508.20). The anticipated effectiveness of these mitigation measures should be addressed in reducing

adverse impacts. Residual impacts or unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after mitigation

measures have been applied should be analyzed, as well as any further impacts caused by the mitigation

measures themselves. The technical feasibility and the cost-benefit of any potential mitigation measures

including costly actions that would yield only minor environmental benefits, should be noted.

6.6 Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs

This section describes all environmental measurement and monitoring programs as they apply to

baseline, operation, and decommissioning conditions for the proposed action and each alternative.
6-30

6.6.1 Radiological Monitoring

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Maps or aerial photographs of the site with proposed monitoring and sampling locations clearly

identified along with effluent release points;

 Principal radiological exposure pathways (Section 6.4.12.2.1, Pathway Assessment);

 Location and characteristics of radiation sources and radioactive effluent (liquid and gaseous,

from Sections 6.4.4, Water Resource Impacts, and 6.4.6, Air Quality Impacts);

 Detailed description of the monitoring program including:

- Number and location of sample collection points, measuring devices used, and pathway

sampled or measured;

- Sample size, sample collection frequency, and sampling duration; and

- Method and frequency of analysis including lower limits of detection;

 Discussion justifying the choice of sample locations, analyses, frequencies, durations, sizes, and

lower limits of detection; and

 Quality assurance procedures.

6.6.2 Physiochemical Monitoring

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Maps or aerial photographs of the site clearly identifying proposed monitoring and sampling

locations, effluent release points, and parameter being measured/analyzed;

 Chemical parameters (e.g., nitrogen dioxides or particulates from an industrial off-gas discharge

unit, chlorides or pH from a wastewater outfall);

 Physical parameters (e.g., wind speed and direction, temperature, precipitation, etc.);

 Detailed description of the monitoring program including:

- Number and location of sample collection points, measuring devices used, and pathway

sampled or measured;

- Sample size, sample collection frequency, and sampling duration;
6-31

- Method and frequency of analysis including lower limits of detection;

- Discussion justifying the choice of sample locations, analyses, frequencies, durations,

sizes, and lower limits of detection;

- Quality assurance procedures;

- Description of action levels and corrective action requirements;

- Physical parameters (e.g., air temperature, wind speed, ground water levels, surface

water flow rates); and

- Map showing detailed topographic features of the site (as modified by the facility),

including major structures and the meteorological tower/s (if applicable).

6.6.3 Ecological Monitoring

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Maps showing features of the site and transportation corridors that will be modified, including

major ecological communities, important habitats, and sampling stations and monitoring

locations;

 List and description of the important ecological resources that are likely to be affected;

 List of monitoring program elements or parameters including action or reporting levels for each

element;

 Type, frequency, and duration of observations or samples taken at each location, and appropriate

rationale and sampling design;

 Statistical validity of any existing or proposed sampling program [For quantitative descriptions

of samples collected within each area of interest and each time of interest, descriptive statistics

should include: the mean, standard deviation, standard error, and confidence interval for the

mean. In each case, the sample size should be clearly indicated. If diversity indices are used to

describe a collection of organisms, the specific diversity indices used should be stated. Also, the

methods used for observing natural variations of ecological parameters should be described. If

these methods involve indicator organisms, the criteria for their selection should be stated.];

 Sampling equipment used;

 Method of chemical analyses, as applicable;

 Data analysis and reporting procedures;

 Documentation of applicant consultations with the FWS, appropriate State agencies (e.g., fish

and wildlife agency), and American Indian tribal agencies; and
6-32

 Documentation of the environmental monitoring programs in policy directives designating a

person or organizational unit responsible for reviewing the program on an ongoing basis.

Procedures should establish criteria for (as applicable):

 Data recording and storage;

 Reporting results to the NRC or consulting agency; and

 Actions to be taken for anomalous results or when results do not meet requirements.

6.7 Cost Benefit Analysis

This section describes the costs and benefits for the proposed action and each alternative. NUREG/BR0058 and NUREG-1530 (NRC, 1995a; 1995b) provide detailed guidance. The discussion of costs and

benefits will include both the costs of each alternative and a qualitative discussion of environmental

impacts. Provide assumptions and uncertainties in the analyses.

The following information (major costs and benefits) should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It

may not be necessary for the evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the

information requested below:

 Qualitative discussion of environmental degradation (including air, water, soil, biotic, as well as

socioeconomic factors such as noise, traffic congestion, overuse of public works and facilities,

and land access restrictions);

 Decreased public health and safety;

 Capital costs of the proposed action and alternatives, including land and facilities;

 Operating and maintenance costs;

 Post-operation restoration (not applicable when the alternative is restoration);

 Post-operation monitoring requirements;

 Other costs of the alternative (e.g., lost tax revenue, decreased recreational value, degradations in

transportation corridors. as appropriate);

 Qualitative discussion of the environmental benefits; 

 Increased public health and safety;

 Capital benefits of the alternative;

 Tax revenues received by local, State, and Federal governments;

 Incremental increases in regional productivity;
6-33

 Enhancement of recreational values;

 Creation and improvement of transportation corridors and facilities; and

 Other benefits. 

6.8 Summary of Environmental Consequences

The following information should be presented in the ER, as applicable. It may not be necessary for the

evaluation of potential impacts from the proposed action to require all the information requested below:

 Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts;

 Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources used in project construction, operation,

and decommissioning;

 Short-term and long-term impacts; and

 Short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term

productivity.

6.9 List of References

To be completed by the applicant/licensee indicating items referenced in ER.

6.10 List of Preparers

To be completed by the applicant/licensee indicating personnel completing the ER.

6.11 References

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1996. "Standard Guide for Selection of

Environmental Noise Measurements and Criteria." ASTM E1686. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA..

BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 1984. "Visual Resource Management." BLM Manual 8400. U.S.

Department of Interior, Washington, DC. April. <http://www.blm.gov:80/nstc/VRM/8400.html>. 

(January 13, 2003).

BLM, 1986a. "Visual Resource Inventory." BLM Manual Handbook H84101. U.S. Department of

Interior, Washington, DC. January. <http://www.blm.gov:80/nstc/VRM/8410.html>. (January 13,

2003). 

BLM, 1986b. "Visual Resource Contrast Rating." BLM Manual Handbook H84311. U.S. Department

of Interior, Washington, DC. January 1986b. <http://www.blm.gov:80/nstc/VRM/8431.html>. (January

13, 2003).
6-34

BLM, 2003. "U.S. Department of the InteriorBureau of Land Management Visual Resource

Management." U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

<http://www.blm.gov:80/nstc/VRM/index.html>. (January 13, 2003).

CB (U.S. Census Bureau), 2003. "Census Bureau Homepage." U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, DC. <http://www.census.gov>. (March 14, 2003).

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 2003. "FEMA: Flood Hazard Mapping." Federal

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. <http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/>. (February 25,

2003).

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1974. "Information of Levels of Environmental Noise

Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety." EPA 550/9-74-004. 

EPA, Washington, DC. March.

EPA, 2003a. "EPA > Water > Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds > Monitoring and

Assessing Water Quality > STORET." EPA, Washington, DC. <http://www.epa.gov/storet/>. 

(February 25, 2003).

EPA, 2003b. "EPA National Summary of Sole Source Aquifer Designations." EPA, Washington, DC. 

<http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/swp/sumssa.html>. (February 25, 2003).

EPA, 2003c. "EPA - TTN AIRS AQS-Air Quality System." EPA, Washington, DC. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/>. (March 14, 2003).

EPA, 2003d. "EPA AirData - Access to Air Pollution Data." EPA, Washington, DC. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html>. (March 14, 2003).

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2003a. "NOAA - National Weather

Service." U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. <http://www.nws.noaa.gov/>. (March 14,

2003).

NOAA, 2003b. "NEDI (National Environmental Database Index) - Homepage." U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, DC. <http://www.nedi.gov/>. (March 14, 2003).

NOAA, 2003c. "NCDC - National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Page." U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, DC. <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/>. (March 14, 2003).

NPS (National Park Service), 2003. "National Register of Historic Places Publications Page." NPS, U.S.

Department of Interior, Washington, DC. <http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/>. (January 13, 2003).

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1995a. "Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission." NUREG-0058. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC. November.

NRC, 1995b. "Reassessment of NRC’s Dollar Per Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy."

NUREG1530. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. December.
6-35

OMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget), 1996. "Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations

Under Executive Order 12866" OMB: Washington, DC.

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/inforeg/riaguide.html> (January 13, 2003).

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2003. "Technical and Biological Information." U.S.

Department of Defense, Washington, DC. 

<http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg/techbio.htm>. (February 25, 2003).
A-1

APPENDIX A

APPLICATION OF THE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE LICENSE TERMINATION

RULE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS FOR

UNRESTRICTED RELEASE DECOMMISSIONING SITES
A-2

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
1

Overview from NUREG-1496, Volume 1, Section 3

2

Note: The GEIS does not apply to uranium mills or tailings, low level waste, or high level waste.

A-3

License Termination Rule

GEIS Reference Facilities1,2 Checklist

The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) reference facilities were developed to broadly and

generically represent categories of licensee facilities. Specific facilities will not exactly match the

descriptions of the reference facilities. The primary purpose of comparing a specific facility to the

reference facility with regard to dose assessment is to determine whether the specific facility has

important contaminants, potential scenarios, or pathways that were not analyzed for the reference

facilities or which may be sufficiently different from those in the GEIS to change conclusions regarding

environmental impacts. In general, if a specific facility has contaminants, concentrations, and spacial

distributions less than or generally equivalent to those used for the reference facilities, the GEIS should

be applicable. Potential limitations of the GEIS dose assessments, as well as a summary of the

characteristics of the reference facilities, are shown below.

1. GEIS Dose Assessment Scenarios: Potential Limitations

a. Building Occupancy (structures)

i. Structures are assumed to have a 70-year life span following license termination. A

shorter expected life span is acceptable. Expected life spans significantly longer than 70

years may require additional analysis if long-lived radionuclides are involved.

ii. If Radon (Rn-222) due to licensee activities or co-mingled material is expected to

approach or exceed the EPA guideline of 4 pCi/l indoor air concentration, additional

dose assessment may be required.

iii. Contamination significantly more extensive than that analyzed in the GEIS should be

evaluated on a site-specific basis. Areas and concentrations analyzed in the GEIS are

shown in the tables in the following sections.

iv. Radionuclides present on the site that contribute significantly to dose but which were not

analyzed in the GEIS for the subject facility type will need to be evaluated separately.

Checklist for Structures

Yes No

  Additional analysis required due to expected >70 year building lifespan following

decommissioning and long-lived contaminants.

  Indoor Radon (Rn-222) concentration expected to approach or exceed the EPA guideline of 4

pCi/l.

  Contamination significantly more extensive than that shown in Tables 1 through 6 in the

following sections.

  Radionuclides present that contribute significantly to dose, were not analyzed in the GEIS,

and could change the conclusions in the GEIS regarding environmental impacts.
A-4

b. Residential (soil)

i. Assumes people live and work on site over a 1,000 year period.

ii. If the site is subject to weather or other events (tornadoes, flash floods, etc) that could

result in extensive redistribution or mass movement of contaminates, additional analysis

may be required.

iii. Pre-existing contamination of ground water must be evaluated on a site-specific basis.

iv. 10 CFR 20.302/20.2002 or other burials or disposal areas may need additional sitespecific evaluation.

Checklist for Soil

Yes No

  Site subject to weather or other events that could redistribute contaminants in ways not

analyzed in the GEIS.

  Contaminated groundwater present.

  On-site burials or disposal areas.

2. Example fuel cycle facilities: power, test, and research reactors; uranium fuel fabrication; uranium

hexafluoride conversion facilities; and independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI). 

The power, test, and research reactors, and the ISFSI have been consolidated into a single analysis

in the GEIS based on common radionuclide contaminants (60Co and 137Cs), and are represented by

the analysis for the power reactor.

The uranium fabrication facility is used as the reference for both the fabrication and hexafluoride

facilities.

Facility Characteristics Applicable to Dose Modeling

1. Soil Surface Activities for the Radionuclides of Interest(1)

Radionuclide Surface Concentration (pCi/g)

Co-60 60

Cs-137 20

Uranium 1,000

(1) From NUREG-1496, Table C.7.1.2
A-5

2. Total and Contaminated Surface Areas for Structures and Soils at Reference Sites(1)

Reference

Facility

Structures

Radionuclide

Activity(2),

 dpm/100 cm2

Structures Surface Areas

Soil Surface Area, ft2

ft2

% Contaminated

Floor Wall Floor Wall Total Site Contaminated

PWR 7.5 x 106 Co60

2.4 x 106

 Cs137

250,000 300,000 10 2 50 x 106 3,000

Uranium Fuel Fab 18,000 U 240,000 240,000 50 5 4.7 x 106 100,000

(1) The estimated surface areas listed above (reproduced from NUREG-1496, Appendix C, Table C.7.1.1) are based on limited

information and in many cases represent an engineering judgment based on the size of the building structural facilities and types of

operation. These estimates are considered to be conservatively large, i.e., they probably overestimate the actual areas involved.

(2) Radionuclide activity shown is for building surfaces. Radionuclide activity for soil surfaces is given below. 

3. Contamination Distribution Used in the GEIS1

Reference

Facility

Soil Area Soil Depth Soil

Volume

BelowBuilding

Soil Depth

BelowBuilding Soil

Volume

ft2 cm m3 cm m3

Nuclear Power

Plant

3,000 4 - 100 12 - 250 3 - 21 15 - 100

Uranium Fuel

Fabrication

100,000 44 - 300 4,000 -

28,000

18 - 29 82 - 129

(1) From NUREG-1496, Appendix C, Attachment C, Table C.1.10 and C.2.6

3. Example Non-Fuel-Cycle facilities: universities; medical institutions; sealed source manufactures;

industrial users of radioisotopes; research and development laboratories; and rare metal refineries.

The sealed source manufactures and R&D laboratories are consolidated into a single analysis. The

analysis of the rare metals processing facility is used to represent all other non-fuel-cycle facilities

with low to medium to significant contamination. 

Materials licensees who use only sealed sources or short-lived radioactive materials are not

expected to require decontamination of buildings or soil, and therefore the impacts and costs of

decommissioning are expected to be minimal. The GEIS does not include a detailed analysis of

these licensees. If a licensee in this category does require more extensive analysis, the applicability

of the GEIS should be evaluated by comparison to the other non-fuel-cycle reference facilities

based on the radioisotopes and contamination levels involved.
A-6

Facility Characteristics Applicable to Dose Modeling

4. Total and Contaminated Surface Areas for Structures and Soils at Reference Sites(1)

Reference

Facility

Structures

Radionuclide

Activity(2),

 dpm/100 cm2

Structures Surface Areas

Soil Surface Area, ft2

ft2

% Contaminated

Floor Wall Floor Wall Total

Site

Contaminated

Sealed Source

Manufacturer

102,000 Co60

 33,300 Cs137

6,000 4,600 10 5 40,000 5,000

Rare Metal

Extraction

18,000

Thorium

150,000 180,000 40 10 740,000 100,000

(1) The estimated surface areas listed above (reproduced from NUREG-1496, Appendix C, Table C.7.1.1) are based on limited

information and in many cases represent an engineering judgment based on the size of the building structural facilities and types of

operation. These estimates are considered to be conservatively large, i.e., they probably overestimate the actual areas involved.

(2) Radionuclide activity shown is for building surfaces. Radionuclide activity for soil surfaces is shown below. 

5. Soil Surface Activities for the Radionuclides of Interest(1)

Radionuclide Surface Concentration (pCi/g)

Co-60 60

Cs-137 20

Thorium 200

(1) From NUREG-1496, Table C.7.1.2

6. Contamination Distribution Used in the GEIS1

Reference

Facility

Soil Area Soil Depth Soil

Volume

BelowBuilding

Soil Depth

BelowBuilding Soil

Volume

ft2 cm m3 cm m3

Sealed Source 5,000 4 - 90 20 - 425 3 - 21 0 - 2

Rare Metals

Extraction

100,000 10 - 60 1,000 -

5,700

0 - 2 0 - 6

Slag Pile Volume: 7,000 m3

(1) From NUREG-1496, Appendix C, Attachment C, Table C.3.6 and C.4.6
B-1

APPENDIX B

CATX CHECKLIST
B-2

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
B-3

CATX Checklist

Action Name:

Action Location:

Action Description:

CATX Category:

YES NO Need

Data

A. Is the action consistent with the Statements of Consideration for the

categorical exclusion chosen?

B. Is the action likely to significantly affect any aspect of the natural

environment?

C. Is the action likely to significantly affect any aspect of the cultural

environment including those that might be related to environmental justice?

D. Is the action likely to generate a great deal of public interest about any

environmental issue?

E. Is there a high level of uncertainty about the action’s environmental

effects?

CONCLUSION:

 1. The action is a CATX and requires no further environmental review.

 2. The action is a CATX but requires additional documentation, see Section 2.1, NUREG-1748,

attach documentation.

 3. The action requires an EA.

 4. The action requires an EIS.

__________________________________

Licensing Project Manager Date 
B-4

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
B-5

INSTRUCTIONS

• Action Name: Give the project name and license and docket number.

• Action Location: For actions with specific or general locations, give the address. In other cases

it may be necessary to provide other information such as county or township name or 

latitude/longitude.

• Action Description: Be as brief as possible but provide sufficient information to determine the

CATX category in which the proposed action fits and to complete the rest of the checklist.

• CATX category: List the categorical exclusion applicable to the action.

The following checklist consists of questions about the likelihood that a particular kind of environmental

consequence will result from the proposed action. The licensing PM may consult with technical staff and

EPAB, as necessary.

Based on internal review, external review (where appropriate), and research, check "YES," "NO," or

"NEED DATA" for each question. Attach documentation as needed to support the answer. If the

"NEED DATA" box is checked, the licensing PM may consult with the EPAB PM about what data are

needed and/or how to get it. The following sections provide considerations when completing the

checklist.

Checklist Question A: Is the action inconsistent with the Statements of Consideration for the categorical

exclusion chosen?

Refer to the Statements of Consideration for the final rule (Chapter 2, NUREG-1748 reproduces

the majority of this text). Evaluate the proposed action to determine if the text from the final rule

considered the proposed action as a categorical exclusion. If the proposed action is not

consistent (i.e., outside the envelope of what was considered), check the YES box; or if it is

unclear, an EPAB PM should be consulted.

Checklist Question B: Is the action likely to significantly affect any aspect of the natural environment?

Consider whether the proposed action is likely to affect/alter:

• Endangered or threatened species, or it’s critical habitat;

• Natural ecosystems;

• Water supplies of humans, animals, or plants;

• Wetlands; or

• Any other environmental media or resource not listed above.

Checklist Question C: Is the action likely to significantly affect any aspect of the cultural environment

including those that might be related to environmental justice?

Consider possible impacts on historic, cultural, and scientific resources. Consider whether the

action is likely to have physical, visual, or other effects on:
B-6

• Districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that are included in the National

Register, or a State or local register of historic places;

• Places of traditional cultural value for Native American group or other community;

• Known archeological sites, or land identified by archeologists consulted by NRC as

having high potential to contain archeological resources; 

• Any practice of religion (e.g., by impeding access to a place of worship); or

• Minority or low income groups that are disproportionate with its impacts on other

groups. Consider unique practices or lifestyles (e.g., subsistence fishing in a pollutant

discharge area) and any adverse economic impacts on such a group.

Checklist Question D: Is the action likely to generate a great deal of public interest about any

environmental issue?

Consider whether the proposed action is likely to generate a great deal of public interest. If so,

consider whether this public interest is likely to focus on environmental issues. For example, a

proposal for research and development activities near a National Park area may be of interest to

national activist groups, but this is not an environmental issue unless it can be reasonably argued

that the location of this proposed action will generate effluents or have some other impact on the

natural or cultural environment. Public interest can be raised on a number of issues: impacts on

historic buildings, archeological sites, and other cultural resources.

Checklist Question E: Is there a high level of uncertainty about the proposed action's environmental

impacts?

Consider whether there is anything not known about the proposed action's potential impacts, and

then whether this information gap has any significance. For example, when considering

installation of monitoring equipment, it might not be known whether there are archeological sites

in the vicinity. If the installation will result in ground disturbance, this uncertainty should be

resolved before proceeding with the installation. If the installation will not result in ground

disturbance, there may be no need to resolve the uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. Consider whether the action clearly qualifies for the CATX listed. If so, check.

2. Consider whether the action requires additional documentation to verify that the action is consistent

with Statements of Consideration. If so, attach the additional documentation (see Section 2.1, NUREG1748).

3. If the action, even with additional documentation, is not consistent with the Statements of

Consideration, or if additional special circumstances are present, as indicated by a YES to questions B-E,

an EA should be prepared.

4. Usually, an EA will be prepared first, however, if the provisions of 10 CFR 51.20 apply, check this

box and notify EPAB.
C-1

APPENDIX C

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROCEDURES
C-2

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
NOTE: The environmental justice (EJ) guidance contained in this appendix is provided as draft

for interim use. The Commission has directed the staff to develop an EJ policy statement. After

the policy statement is completed, necessary updates to the EJ guidance will be incorporated.

C-3

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN NMSS NEPA DOCUMENTS

I. BACKGROUND

On February 11, 1994, The President signed Executive Order 12898 "Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations" which directs all Federal

agencies to develop strategies for considering environmental justice in their programs, policies, and

activities. Environmental justice is described in the Executive Order as "identifying and addressing, as

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." On December 10, 1997,

the Council on Environmental Quality (the Council or CEQ) issued, "Environmental Justice Guidance

Under the National Environmental Policy Act." The Council developed this guidance to, "...further assist

Federal agencies with their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures." As an independent

agency, the Council’s guidance is not binding on the NRC; however, the NRC considered the Council’s

guidance on environmental justice in this procedure.

II. POLICY

This procedure provides guidance to the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) staff

on conducting environmental justice reviews for proposed actions as part of NRC’s compliance with

NEPA. This guidance does not create any new substantive or procedural NEPA related requirements. 

The guidance is merely intended to improve internal NMSS management by helping to ensure that NRC

is fully discharging its existing NEPA responsibilities.

It is the policy of NMSS to address environmental justice in every Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

and, as appropriate, supplements to an EIS, that is issued by NMSS. Under most circumstances, no

environmental justice review should be conducted where an Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared. 

If it is determined that a particular action will have no significant environmental impact, then there is no

need to consider whether the action will have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on certain

populations. Similarly, the staff should not request public comments on environmental justice issues

when a FONSI is concluded. However, in special cases or circumstances, the reviewer may recommend

to management that staff conduct an environmental justice analysis in preparing an EA. Such

determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis and only where there is an obvious potential that the

consideration of specific demographic information at the site may identify significant impacts that would

not otherwise be considered. Management (Branch Chief level) will decide on a case-by-case basis

when special cases or circumstances exist that require the staff to perform an environmental justice

review for an EA. 

The level of discussion on environmental justice will vary based on the circumstances of each action. 

The actual determination of impacts will not change, but the evaluation and analysis may be expanded. 

Each EIS or special case EA should contain a section that fully describes the environmental justice

review process. Policy implementation guidance is provided in Section III for licensing actions and

Section IV for rulemakings.
NOTE: The environmental justice (EJ) guidance contained in this appendix is provided as draft

for interim use. The Commission has directed the staff to develop an EJ policy statement. After

the policy statement is completed, necessary updates to the EJ guidance will be incorporated.

3

Because of the nature of NMSS facilities a 50 mile radius is not automatically required as is the

case for NRR facilities.

C-4

III. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION FOR LICENSING ACTIONS

A. 1. The first step in evaluating environmental justice potential is to obtain demographic data (census

data) for the immediate site area and surrounding communities. Data for the state and county

will also be necessary. The demographic data should consist of income levels and minority

breakdown. In our experience, the recommended geographic area for evaluating census data is

the census block group. The census block group was chosen because the U.S. Census Bureau

does not report information on income for blocks, the smaller geographic area, and census tracts

are too large to identify minority or low income communities. A minority or low-income

community may be considered as either a population of individuals living in geographic

proximity to one another or a dispersed/transient population of individuals (e.g., migrant

workers) where either type of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure. 

For the purpose of this procedure, minority is defined as individual(s) who are members of the

following population groups: American Indian and Alaska Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian and

Other Pacific Islander; African American (not of Hispanic or Latino origin); some other race;

and Hispanic or Latino (of any race). The 2000 Census introduced the multiracial category. 

Anyone who identifies themselves as white and a minority will be counted as that minority

group. In the small number of cases where individuals identify themselves as more than one

minority, count that individual in a "Two or More Races" group. Low-income is defined as

being below the poverty level as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (e.g., the U.S. Census

Bureau’s Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty). 

Guidelines for determining the area for assessment are provided in the following discussion. If

the facility is located within the city limits, a radius of approximately 0.6 miles (1 square mile)

from the center of the site is probably sufficient for evaluation purposes; however, if the facility

itself covers this much area, use a radius that would be equivalent to approximately 0.6 miles

from the site. If the facility is located outside the city limits or in a rural area, a radius of

approximately 4 miles3

 (50 square miles) should be used. These are guidelines; the geographic

scale should be commensurate with the potential impact area, and should include a sample of the

surrounding population, e.g., at least several block groups. The goal is to evaluate the

“communities,” neighborhoods, or areas that may be disproportionately impacted. One source of

the census data is the Landview computer software by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. This software is updated after

each 10-year census. Other sources include the applicant, local governments, state agencies, or

local universities. It is recommended that you utilize the Census Bureau’s 10-year census for

data on minorities and income level. The reviewer should use the best available information. 

Present the minority and low-income population data for the block groups, county and state in a

table in the EIS or EA.
NOTE: The environmental justice (EJ) guidance contained in this appendix is provided as draft

for interim use. The Commission has directed the staff to develop an EJ policy statement. After

the policy statement is completed, necessary updates to the EJ guidance will be incorporated.

C-5

2. The next step is to compare the percentage of minority population in the block groups in the area

for assessment to the state and county percentages of minority population and to compare the

area’s percentage of economically stressed households to the state and county percentages of

economically stressed households. It is possible that the geographic area could cross county and

state lines and this should be considered when making comparisons. If the percentage in the

block groups significantly exceed that of the state or county percentage for either minority or

low-income population, environmental justice will have to be considered in greater detail. As a

general matter (and where appropriate), staff may consider differences greater than 20 percentage

points to be significant. Additionally, if either the minority or low-income population percentage

exceeds 50 percent, environmental justice will have to be considered in greater detail. 

The criteria listed above should only serve as a guideline for determining the presence of a

minority or low-income population because demographic data may overlook low-income and

minority communities if they constitute a relatively small percentage of the total population in

the block group. The staff should continue to supplement the environmental justice analysis with

the scoping to identify low-income or minority populations. If it is apparent through interviews,

public comment/interest, by investigation, or by other scoping activities, that there is a distinct

minority or low-income population that may be adversely affected by the proposed action, then

the reviewer should proceed with the environmental justice review even if that population was

not identified through the use of demographic data. If no minorities or low-income populations

are identified in the potentially affected area or environmental impact area, then document the

conclusion. The environmental justice review is complete.

B. Staff should look at the demographics of a site early in the review process. Scoping and public

participation are a fundamental part of the NEPA process. Staff’s approach will depend on the

nature of the regulatory action and the demographics at the proposed location. NMSS staff

should ensure that minority and low-income populations are given the opportunity to participate. 

The NRC’s regulations require that any affected Indian tribe be invited to participate in the

scoping process for an EIS. During scoping meetings for an EIS, for example, staff will solicit

input on environmental issues, and the affected communities should be encouraged to develop

and comment on possible alternatives to the proposed agency action. As with any scoping

activities under NEPA, the measures staff may consider for increasing participation of minority

and low-income populations include outreach through groups such as minority business and

trade organizations, schools and colleges, labor organizations, or other appropriate groups. In

addition, if a representative(s) of the affected population has been identified such as an officer of

an organized local group or community leader, the individual(s) should receive notices of

meetings and copies of Federal Register notices. 

When communicating with the public, NMSS staff should consider disseminating information

through alternative media such as translating notices (and other documents) into a language other

than English, where appropriate.

The EIS should note whether an environmental justice concern was identified during scoping.
NOTE: The environmental justice (EJ) guidance contained in this appendix is provided as draft

for interim use. The Commission has directed the staff to develop an EJ policy statement. After

the policy statement is completed, necessary updates to the EJ guidance will be incorporated.

C-6

C. 1. Once it is determined that a site does have a potential for an environmental justice

concern, it is then necessary to determine if there is a "disproportionately high and

adverse" impact (human health or environmental effect) to the minority or low-income

population near the site. Impacts of the proposed action are to be determined in the

usual manner, including cumulative and multiple impacts, where appropriate. The

impacts should be evaluated to determine those that affect these populations. In

considering the impacts to the populations, differential patterns of consumption of

natural resources should be considered (i.e., differences in rates and/or pattern of fish,

vegetable, water, and/or wildlife consumption among groups defined by demographic

factors such as socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and/or cultural attributes). The

impacts to the local area surrounding the site should be summarized in the environmental

justice section of the EIS (or EA if analyzed). It is not necessary to discuss the impacts

at the same level of detail as in the impact sections. It is acceptable to briefly mention

the impact and reference the section where it is discussed in greater detail.

Next, one should assess if the impacts disproportionately impact the minority or lowincome population, i.e., Are the impacts greater for these populations? Are there any

impacts experienced by these populations that are not experienced by others? To

effectively visualize the impacts, it may be helpful to display the minority and lowincome population data spatially. In cases where the population is located next to the

site, the impacts or potential for impact will likely be disproportionate for these

populations. For instance, potential exposure to effluents may be greater to those living

closest to the facility, noise and traffic may disrupt nearby residents to a greater extent

than those living far from the site, and the potential risk due to accidents may be greater

for nearby residents. If there are no disproportionate impacts, no further analysis would

be needed. The reviewer should document the finding in the environmental justice

section.

2. Finally, it is necessary to determine if the impacts are high and adverse. Another way of

stating this: Are the impacts significant, unacceptable or above generally accepted

norms such as regulatory limits or state and local statutes and ordinances. Each impact,

and where appropriate, the cumulative and multiple effect of the impacts, should be

reviewed for significance. If the statement can be made that no combination of the

impacts are significant, then there are no disproportionate adverse and high impacts on

the minority or low-income populations. The reviewer should document the conclusion

in the environmental justice section.

D. If there are significant impacts to the minority or low-income population, it is then necessary to

look at mitigative measures and benefits. The reviewer should determine and discuss if there are

any mitigative measures that could be taken to reduce the impact. To the extent practicable,

mitigation measures should reflect the needs and preferences of the affected minority or lowincome populations. The reviewer should discuss the benefits of the project to surrounding

communities, even though benefits to a specific group may be difficult to determine, particularly
NOTE: The environmental justice (EJ) guidance contained in this appendix is provided as draft

for interim use. The Commission has directed the staff to develop an EJ policy statement. After

the policy statement is completed, necessary updates to the EJ guidance will be incorporated.

C-7

economic benefits. The conclusion at this point is project specific. The conclusion may be that

there are disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations;

however, factors such as the mitigative measures and/or the benefits of a project may outweigh

the disproportionate impacts. In any case, the facts should be presented so that the ultimate

decision maker can weigh all aspects in making the agency decision. The Executive Order does

not prohibit taking an action where there are disproportionate high and adverse impacts to

minority and low-income populations.

E. The results of an environmental justice evaluation should be documented in the EIS or special

case EA. The results should indicate if a disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental impact is likely to result from the proposed action and any alternatives, and

should be written in non-technical plain language. The document should contain a distinct

section on environmental justice even if the demographics do not indicate a potential for an

environmental justice concern. If a site has already received an environmental justice

evaluation, it is acceptable to reference the previous evaluation and provide a summary of the

findings and then add any new information that results from the proposed action. For instance, if

environmental justice is included in a license renewal, it would not need to be completely

readdressed for a license amendment. 

Following an EIS or EA, the NRC announces its decision in a Record of Decision (ROD) or a

FONSI. (For NRC, the ROD is the issuance of the license or license amendment.) For an EIS or

special case or circumstance EA, the ROD or FONSI should document the conclusion of the

findings on environmental justice, including any mitigative measures that will be taken to reduce

the impact.

IV. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION FOR RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES

A. The staff responsible for rulemaking should address environmental justice in the preamble to any

proposed and final rules that require an EIS, a supplement to an EIS, generic EIS, or if warranted

by a special case or circumstance EA/FONSI, as described in Section II, above. 

B. If it is known in advance that a particular rulemaking might impact a specific population

disproportionately, the NRC staff should ensure that the population knows about the rulemaking

and is given the opportunity to participate. Measures to increase public participation are

discussed in Section III. B. above.

C. If an environmental justice analysis is performed for a rulemaking activity, the staff should

include language contained in NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 4, Section 3.13 and 5.13 to the

Federal Register Notice to seek and welcome public comments on environmental justice. The

staff should follow the "Policy Implementation for Licensing Actions," in Section III above, to

perform the environmental justice review.
C-8

D. Public comments on environmental justice issues should be addressed in the preamble to the

final rule when published in the Federal Register. Environmental justice comments should be

addressed at the same level of detail and in the same location as comments received on other

parts of the rule.

E. When a rule is being modified or developed that contains siting evaluation factors or criteria for

siting a new facility, the staff may consider including specific language in the rule or supporting

regulatory guidance to state that an environmental justice review will be performed as part of the

licensing process.
D-1

APPENDIX D

CONSULTATION PROCEDURES
D-2

STATE CONSULTATION ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENTS .......................................................... D-3

SECTION 7 CONSULTATIONS WITH THE U.S. FISH AND

WILDLIFE SERVICE .................................. D-4

SECTION 106 CONSULTATIONS WITH THE STATE

HISTORICAL PRESERVATION OFFICER ............... D-9
D-3

State Consultation on Draft Environmental Assessment

The PM should initially contact the appropriate State official by telephone. The licensing PM should:

Explain the licensing action;

Inform the State official that NRC has completed a draft EA;

Describe any impacts from the Environmental Assessment; and 

Ask the State official if they would like to review the EA.

If the State official wishes to review the EA, negotiate a timeframe that does not exceed 30 days.

The licensing PM should transmit a copy of the EA, requesting the State officials views, including the

date by which comments must be received. In transmitting the EA, the cover letter should be made

publicly available, however the draft EA document should not be made publicly available as it is

considered pre-decisional information. The EA should include the following text in the header/footer:

"Pre-decisional Information: This information is limited to use by [insert State Agencies name]

and their staff. This information shall not be disclosed without prior NRC permission."

If comments are received from the State, the comments should be summarized in the EA. Minor

comments could be characterized as "general agreement" or "no objection" by the State or agency, as

appropriate. For more extensive comments the licensing PM should summarize the details of the

comments and the responses in the EA or place them in a separate document and reference them in the

EA. The EA and comment response document should be placed in the NRC Public Document Room to

ensure public access.

If the State official does not wish to review the EA or does not provide comments within the agreed upon

timeframe, the consultation is complete. The EA should note that the State was consulted and had no

comments.

For rulemaking actions, the draft EA is sent to the State Liaison Officer for comment while the proposed

rule is out for comment. This is accomplished through the Office of State and Tribal Programs. The

"Regulations Handbook" (NUREG-0053) provides additional information.
D-4

SECTION 7 CONSULTATIONS WITH THE 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

NOTE TO USER: This guidance is intended to provide a general road map to complying with Section 7

of the Endangered Species Act and primarily covers informal consultation. Not all of the steps included

here will apply in all situations. If a step does not apply the licensing PM should proceed to the next

specified step. Please note that other types of consultation are addressed in the regulations but are not

discussed in detail here, since they do not represent typical situations; such as formal, early, special, and

emergency consultations and conferences on proposed species. The licensing PM is encouraged to

contact EPAB with any questions. Additionally, the FWS regulations for compliance with the Section 7

can be found at 50 CFR 402 and additional information is available on the WWW at found at:

<http://endangered.fws.gov/consultations/index.html> including the FWS’s Final ESA Section 7

Consultation Handbook (March 1998).

It should be noted that even if the proposed action is categorically excluded from NEPA review, the

licensing PM should still determine if the proposed action requires consultation under Section 7. If so,

the PM should proceed with the appropriate consultation as described below.

Finally, the licensing PM should keep in mind that more may be required at different stages of the

consultation process than has been outlined here, depending on the FWS region involved and the nature

of the proposed action and the affected environment.

For rulemaking actions, consultations will not typically be required as these types of actions are usually

considered administrative in nature, see Step 1 below.

I. Initiate the Section 7 Process

Step 1: Is consultation necessary (i.e., is it an administrative action)?

If the proposed action has the potential to affect the physical environment (i.e., involves construction,

demolition, changes to effluents or monitoring, changes in transportation levels, or any other activity

affecting physical resources), go to Step 2. 

If the proposed action does not have the potential to affect the physical environment (i.e., is an

administrative action, such as changing ownership, changing record keeping requirements, or is another

action with no potential to affect physical resources), then consultation is not required. The licensing PM

should include a justification of why the consultation is not necessary for the proposed action in the

Consultation Section of the EA. For example: 

"The NRC staff has determined that Section 7 consultation is not required because the proposed

action is administrative/procedural in nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat."

Step 2: What is the area of the proposed action (i.e., "action area")?

Determine the action area for evaluating direct, indirect and cumulative impacts (see definition in

Section VI below). Clearly document the rationale for making the determination. Go to step 3.
D-5

II. Informal Consultation with FWS

Informal consultation can include phone calls, meetings, email, conversations, letters, and other informal

communication modes. If an EIS is being prepared for the proposed action, the FWS recommends that

the informal consultation process be initiated prior to public scoping. If assistance is required in making

any of the following determinations, contact an environmental PM in EPAB.

Step 3: Are species/habitat in action area?

Obtain a list of species from the FWS (see example in Appendix E). Review and determine whether

listed species or critical habitat could be located within the action area. Choose the applicable scenario:

a. Species/habitat could be present in the proposed action area. Go to Step 4. 

b. Species/habitat are not present in the proposed action area therefore. Document this finding and

the Section 7 consultation is complete. For example:

"The NRC staff has determined that Section 7 consultation is not required because listed

species/habitat are not present in the proposed action area, therefore the proposed action

will not affect listed species or critical habitat." 

Step 4: Could the proposed action adversely affect species or critical habitat?

An evaluation must be completed to determine if the proposed action could adversely affect a listed

species or critical habitat. If an evaluation is submitted by the applicant/licensee, it can be used to make

a determination. If an evaluation has not been submitted, contact EPAB for assistance. Once the

evaluation is complete, choose the applicable scenario:

a. The proposed action will not affect listed species or habitat. This finding could be based on a

field survey which indicates no listed species or habitat are actually present in the "action area."

"No effect" conclusions do not require FWS concurrence. For major construction activities it

may be beneficial for the administrative record to request a concurring response from the FWS

(see example in Appendix E).

b. The proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect listed species or habitat. 

This is the appropriate conclusion when the effects on listed species or critical habitat are

expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial (see Section VI). This

finding should be forwarded to the FWS for concurrence. Consultation is ended if the FWS

concurs (usually in writing, although you could receive an email or document a phone

conversation, which should be included in the licensing docket). If the FWS does not concur, go

to Step 5. 

NOTE: If the action is a major construction activity and the proposed action may affect listed

species or habitat, a biological assessment must be prepared (see Section V for more information

about biological assessments). Go to Step 7. 

c. The proposed action may affect only proposed species or proposed habitat. Go to Step 6.
D-6

d. The proposed action is likely to adversely affect listed species or habitat. This is the appropriate

conclusion if any adverse effect to listed species or habitat may occur as a direct or indirect

result of the proposed action and the effects on listed species or critical habitat are not expected

to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial (see Section VI). This finding requires

formal consultation with the FWS. Go to Step 7.

These conclusion should be based on either field surveys or other verifiable evidence/documentation and

should be clearly documented. The FWS may request the following supporting documentation:

biological assessment (if applicable) or other studies, map of the vicinity showing the immediate activity

boundary and wider area of impacts, current species/habitat list, and other pertinent information (e.g.,

construction plans). 

Step 5: Mitigation or alternatives possible?

Communicate with the FWS and the applicant/licensee to determine whether any alternative actions or

mitigative measures can be implemented. If a satisfactory alternative or mitigative action is identified,

and the FWS concurs, consultation is complete. If mitigative actions cannot or will not be undertaken,

go to Step 7. 

III. Conference on Proposed Species/Habitat 

Conference with the FWS is only required if it is determined that the proposed activity may jeopardize

the continued existence of a proposed species or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat

(see 50 CFR 402.10). See Chapter 6 of the FWS handbook for further information

Step 6: Is conference required?

Based on the information above, determine whether the proposed action could result in the jeopardy of a

proposed species and/or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat. If so, initiate the

conference process with the FWS (the licensing PM should contact EPAB).

IV. Formal Consultation with FWS

The formal consultation process is described in detail in the FWS handbook, Chapter 4 and at 50 CFR

402.14. When an EIS is concurrently being prepared for a proposed action that requires formal

consultation, the formal consultation should be initiated no later than the time of release of the DEIS. 

Biological assessments must have been completed at the time formal consultation begins. 

Step 7: Contact EPAB.

This step assumes that the licensing PM and/or the FWS have determined that the proposed action may

adversely affect listed species or their critical habitat. Contact staff in EPAB to discuss initiating formal

consultation and conducting biological assessments. 

Step 8: Prepare request for formal consultation.

You must initiate formal consultation with a written request to the FWS that includes the following

information: 

Description of the proposed action; 

Description of the specific area affected (see Step 3 and definition for action area, below);
D-7

Description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be affected;

Description of the nature of potential effects on species/habitat, including a cumulative effects

analysis;

Relevant reports (any NEPA documents, biological assessments, other analyses); and

Other information the FWS may determine necessary.

Note that the FWS requires "the best scientific and commercial data" that is available to you. 

Step 9: Submit your request

Send the package to the FWS and a copy to the environmental PM. The FWS has 90 days from the date it

receives your package to reach a conclusion and 45 days after that to deliver its conclusion (the

biological opinion). The biological opinion will be one of "jeopardy" or "no jeopardy" to listed species

and/or of "adverse" or "no adverse modification" of critical habitat. 

V. Additional Considerations

Biological assessments:

Biological assessments apply to all actions that are major construction activities, unless the FWS concurs

with the NRC’s determination of "no effect" on listed species or habitat. If the licensing PM has

determined a biological assessment is necessary, contact EPAB. Biological assessments must be

submitted to the FWS within 180 days of receipt of a species list from the FWS and before construction

contracts or related activities are begun. If the species list is over 90 days old at the time the assessment

is begun, its current accuracy must be verified. If an EIS is being prepared, biological assessments

should be completed prior to the release of the DEIS. Refer to Section 3.4 of the FWS handbook and 50

CFR 402.12 for detailed guidance on biological assessments. 

National Marine Fisheries Service:

The NMFS (recently renamed NOAA Fisheries) has joint jurisdiction over Section 7 consultations with

the FWS. NMFS consultations take place through the regional offices and are typically conducted when

marine life (e.g., whales, sea turtles, salmon, other ocean dwelling species) or habitat may be affected. 

Some species, however, are under the jurisdiction of both agencies; these cases require that both agencies

be involved in the consultation process. Generally, the licensing PM should contact NMFS when the

proposed action is in a coastal area.

VI. Definitions

action area - all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the

immediate area involved in the proposed action (50 CFR 402.02). The analysis to determine the extent

of the action area must not be limited to either the footprint of the proposed action or to the NRC’s area

of jurisdiction. It should be a biological determination of the reach of the proposed action on listed

species. Subsequent analyses of the environmental baseline, effects of the proposed action, and levels of

incidental take are based upon the action area.

beneficial effects - are contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species.

discountable effects - are those extremely unlikely to occur.
D-8

insignificant effects - relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where a take

occurs.

is not likely to adversely affect - the appropriate conclusion when effects on listed species are expected to

be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial (FWS handbook).

major construction activity - a construction project (or other undertaking having similar physical

impacts) which is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as

referred to in NEPA (50 CFR 402.02 or FWS handbook). As a rule of thumb, actions that require EISs

and have construction-type impacts (e.g., dams, buildings, pipelines, water resource activities) are

typically considered major construction activities. 

may affect - conclusion reached when an action may pose any effects on species or habitat. When a

"may affect" situation exists, either formal consultation is begun or written concurrence with a

conclusion of "not likely to adversely affect" is obtained from the FWS (FWS handbook).
D-9

SECTION 106 CONSULTATIONS WITH THE 

STATE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION OFFICER

NOTE TO USER: This guidance is intended to provide a general road map to complying with Section

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. All of the steps listed here will not necessarily be required

for each individual licensing action. If a step does not apply the licensing PM should proceed to the next

specified step. The licensing PM is encouraged to contact EPAB with any questions. Additionally, the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) regulations for compliance with the Section 106

can be found at 36 CFR 800 and additional information is available on the WWW at

<http://www.achp.gov>.

It should be noted that even if the proposed action is categorically excluded from NEPA review, the

licensing PM must still determine if the proposed action requires consultation under Section 106. If so,

the licensing PM should proceed with the appropriate consultation as described below.

Finally, the licensing PM should keep in mind that more may be required at different stages of the

consultation process than has been outlined here, depending on the parties involved and the nature of the

proposed action and the affected environment.

For rulemaking actions, consultations will not typically be required as these types of actions are usually

considered administrative in nature, see Step 2 below.

I. Initiate the Section 106 Process

Step 1: Does the proposed action qualify as an "undertaking"?

The licensing PM should first determine whether or not an undertaking exists. An undertaking means a

project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of NRC,

including those carried out by or on behalf of NRC; those carried out with NRC’s financial assistance;

those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval; and those subject to State or local regulation

administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by NRC. If the answer to this question is yes; go to

Step 2. NOTE: For NRC licensing actions the answer is always yes.

Step 2: Is the undertaking a type of activity that has the potential to affect historic properties?

Examples of activities with no potential to affect include administrative or procedural license changes

(e.g., changes in ownership, other name changes, recordkeeping requirements, etc. that involve no

physical changes to the environment or structures). For the purposes of this determination, it must be

assumed that historic properties are present. If an undertaking does not present a type of activity (i.e.,

administrative/procedural actions) that has the potential to affect a historic property, then no further

consultation under Section 106 is necessary. The licensing PM should include a justification of why the

consultation process is not necessary for the proposed action in the Consultation Section of the EA. For

example:

"The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity that has

potential to cause effects on historic properties because it is administrative/procedural action. 

Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act."
D-10

If the undertaking is a type of activity that has the potential to affect historic properties; go to Step 3.

II. Identify Historic Properties

Step 3: Determine and document the "area of potential effects"?

The area of potential effects means the geographic area or areas within which the proposed action (i.e.,

"undertaking") may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if

any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an

undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking. It is not

necessarily a contiguous area (for example, several sites where changes may be possible could be the

area of potential effects). In documenting this area to the SHPO, the licensing PM may need to submit

photographs, maps, or drawings. Go to Step 4.

Step 4: Initiation of consultation.

The licensing PM must send a letter to the SHPO/THPO, and consulting parties if applicable, describing

(1) the "undertaking" (i.e., proposed action) and (2) the area of potential effects. The letter should also

explain any actions taken by the applicant/licensee to identify historic properties (NOTE: A currently

licensed site is likely to have documentation regarding surveys for historic properties).

The letter should also request the SHPO/THPOs views on the scope of identification efforts. These

efforts include: 

Determining and documenting the area of potential effects;

Requesting the views of the SHPO on further actions to identify historic properties that may be

affected;

Seeking information, as appropriate, from consulting parties who may have knowledge are

concerns about the area; and

Gathering information from American Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations about

properties which they attach religious and cultural significance.

A map/drawing of the area of potential effect should accompany the letter, if appropriate. For highly

complex projects, the licensing PM may wish to schedule meetings or conference calls with the

consulting parties. Go to Step 5.

Step 5: Identify Historic Properties.

The standard for identification is a "reasonable and good faith effort" to identify historic properties (e.g,

those properties listed in or eligible for the National Register and National Historic Landmarks) and

depends on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, previous identification work. The steps

taken for identification of a historic property include: preliminary work, actual efforts to identify

properties and an evaluation of identified properties. Appropriate identification may include background

research, consultation, oral history interviews, sample field investigation, and field surveys. Go to Step

6.

Step 6: Evaluate historic significance.

Based on the information gathered, the licensing PM makes a determination of eligibility by applying the

National Register criteria to properties identified in the area of potential effects. This determination is
D-11

made in consultation with the SHPO. Old determination of eligibility needs to be reevaluated due to

passage of time. If no historic properties are found or no historic properties are affected, the licensing

PM should notify the consulting parties and the Section 106 process is complete. The licensing PM

should include a description of the consultation process for the proposed action in the EA or EIS. 

If historic properties may be affected or the SHPO/THPO objects to a no historic properties affected

finding; go to Step 7 (NOTE: the Council may need to be contacted as discussed in Step 8).

III. Assess adverse effects

Step 7: Contact EPAB.

This step assumes that the licensing PM and/or the SHPO has determined that historic properties may be

affected by the proposed action. Contact EPAB to discuss the following steps and obtaining outside

assistance if necessary. Go to Step 8.

Step 8: Apply criteria of adverse effect.

Adverse effects occur when the proposed action may directly or indirectly alter characteristics of a

historic property that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register. Reasonably foreseeable effects

caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative

also need to be considered.

Examples of adverse effects include physical destruction or damage; alteration not consistent with the

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards; relocation of a property; change of use or physical features of a

property’s setting; visual, atmospheric, or audible intrusions; neglect resulting in deterioration; or

transfer, lease, or sale of a property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate protections. 

If a property is restored, rehabilitated, repaired, maintained, stabilized, remediated or otherwise changed

in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards, then it will not be considered an adverse effect

(assuming that the SHPO agrees). Where properties of religious and cultural significance to American

Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations are involved, neglect and deterioration may be recognized

as qualities of those properties and thus may not necessarily constitute an adverse effect. 

Alteration or destruction of an archaeological site is an adverse effect, whether or not recovery of

archaeological data from the site is proposed. The Council has issued guidance to help agencies and

others reach agreement on the treatment of such properties. 

The consulting parties must be consulted if NRC applies the criteria of adverse effect. If no adverse

effects are found, document the findings and provide to the SHPO. If the SHPO fails to respond within

30 days, the licensing PM can consider the SHPO in agreement. No further consultation is required the

licensing PM should include a description of the consultation process for the proposed action in the EA

or EIS. 

If the finding is also submitted to the Council, the licensing PM may proceed with the proposed with the

Council’s concurrence on the finding or if no response is received within 15 days.

It should be noted that special procedures apply to adverse effects on National Historic Landmarks.
D-12

If adverse effects from the proposed action are present, or there is disagreement with the SHPO or

Council, go to Step 9. 

IV. Resolve adverse effects

Step 9: Continue consultation.

When adverse effects are found, consultation must continue among the consulting parties. The licensing

PM should notify the Council when adverse effects are found. The licensing PM should also provide

project documentation to all consulting parties to assist in resolving the effects and provide the public

with an opportunity to express views. 

When resolving adverse effects without the Council, the licensing PM consults with the SHPO and other

parties to develop a Memorandum of Agreement (Agreement). If this is achieved, the Agreement is filed

with the Council and is the formal conclusion of Section 106. When the Council is involved, the same

process occurs, but the Council must also concur on the the Agreement. 

If adverse effects are not resolved with an Agreement, go to Step 10.

V. Failure to resolve adverse effects

Step 10: Proceeding with proposed action.

When consultation is terminated, the Council will render advisory comments to the NRC. This must be

considered when the final decision on the undertaking is made. 

VI. Additional Considerations

Roles of Participants:

Participants in the Section 106 review process and their roles and responsibilities are outlined in 36 CFR

800.2. Potential participants include: 

Agency Official (800.2(a)) 

Council (800.2(b)) 

SHPO (800.2(c)(1)) 

American Indian tribes when the undertaking occurs or affects historic properties, on their tribal

lands (800.2(c)(2)(i)) 

American Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations (800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

Representatives of local governments (800.2(c)(3)) 

Applicants for Federal assistance, permits, licenses and other approvals (800.2(c)(4)) 

Additional consulting parties (800.2(c)(5)) 

The public (800.2(d))

In addition, through the identification and evaluation process (800.4), and when National Historic

Landmarks may be directly and adversely affected (800.10), the Secretary of the Interior, represented by

the National Park Service, may be involved as well. 
D-13

Involving the Public:

Public involvement is a critical aspect of the Section 106 process. Section 800.2(d) contains a standard

that Federal agencies must adhere to as they go through the Section 106 process. 

The type of public involvement will depend upon various factors, including but not limited to, the nature

and complexity of the undertaking, the potential impact, the historic property, and the likely interest of

the public in historic preservation issues. 

Section 800.2(d)(2) sets a notice and public information standard. The public must be notified, with

sufficient information to allow meaningful comments, so that they can express their views during the

various stages and decision-making points of the Section 106 process. 

It is intended that Federal agencies have flexibility in how they involve the public, including the use of

the NEPA and other agency planning processes, as long as opportunities for such public involvement are

adequate and consistent with subpart A of the regulations. Section 800.2(d)(3) provides reminders of

this flexibility. 

Consultation:

"Consultation" is a dynamic, good-faith process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of

other participants and, where feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding matters arising in the

Section 106 process. The Section 110 standards and guidelines issued by the Secretary of the Interior

provide additional guidance on consultation as part of Standard 5: "An agency consults with

knowledgeable and concerned parties outside the agency about its historic preservation-related

activities." 

Throughout the Section 106 process, the Agency Official (i.e., the Division Director responsible for the

approving the proposed action) is to involve the consulting parties described in Section 800.2(c) in

findings and determinations made during the Section 106 process. Additional guidance for Federal

agencies on consultation is found in Section 800.2(a)(4). 

During resolution of adverse effects (Section 800.6), the purpose of consultation is to seek ways to avoid,

minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects, and to incorporate the results of that consultation into a

Memorandum of Agreement. 

Seeking Information:

The licensing PM should involve the consulting parties in findings and determinations made during the

Section 106 process. The SHPO reflects the interests of the State and its citizens in the preservation of

their cultural heritage and must be consulted in making determinations. For a tribe that has assumed the

responsibilities of the SHPO for section 106 on tribal lands under section 101(d)(2) of the act, the Tribal

Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) appointed or designated in accordance with the act is the official

representative for the purposes of Section106. Tribes that have not been certified still have the same

consultation and concurrence rights as THPOs when the undertaking takes place, or affects historic

properties, on their tribal lands. The practical difference is that during undertakings with THPOs, the

THPO would be consulted in lieu of the SHPO, while non-certified tribes would be consulted in addition

to the SHPO. The licensing PM should identify and consult with any American Indian tribe or Native

Hawaiian organization (not limited to activities in Hawaii) that attaches religious and cultural significane

to historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking. The applicant/licensee and any local
D-14

governments with jurisdiction over the area of potential effects is entitled to participate as a consulting

parties. Certain individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking may

participate as consulting parties due to the nature of their legal or economic relation to the undertaking or

affected properties, or their concern with the undertaking’s effects on historic properties. In addition, the

licensing PM should contact the SHPO/THPO to identify any other parties entitled to be consulting

parties (see 36 CFR 800.2(c) for more detail). 

Documentation:

The Agency Official is supposed to ensure that a determination, finding, or agreement reached through

the Section 106 process is supported by sufficient documentation to enable any reviewing parties

(including the public) to understand its basis. 

Section 800.11 contains details of documentation standards, as well as general guidance on the adequacy

of documentation, its format, and issues of confidentiality. 

VII. Definitions

The following is a partial list of definitions as provided in 36 CFR 800:

Act - means the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470w-6. 

Historic property - means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included

in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the

Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such

properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an American

Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria. 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register - includes both properties formally determined as such in

accordance with regulations of the Secretary of the Interior and all other properties that meet the

National Register criteria. 

National Historic Landmark - means a historic property that the Secretary of the Interior has designated a

National Historic Landmark. 

National Register - means the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the

Interior. 

National Register criteria - means the criteria established by the Secretary of the Interior for use in

evaluating the eligibility of properties for the National Register (36 CFR 60). 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) - means the official appointed or designated pursuant to

section 101(b)(1) of the act to administer the State historic preservation program or a representative

designated to act for the State historic preservation officer. 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) - means the tribal official appointed by the tribe’s chief

governing authority or designated by a tribal ordinance or preservation program who has assumed the
D-15

responsibilities of the SHPO for purposes of section 106 compliance on tribal lands in accordance with

section 101(d)(2) of the act.

Undertaking - means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect

jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those

carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval; and

those subject to State or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal

agency. 
D-16

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
E-1

APPENDIX E

EXAMPLE LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS
E-2

CONSULTATION LETTERS

Endangered Species Consultation ............................... E-3

SHPO Consultation ................................................ E-6

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT "COMPLEX"

LICENSING ACTION ............................................ E-8

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT "SIMPLE" 

LICENSING ACTION .......................................... E-10
E-3

ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSULTATION LETTERS:

"EXAMPLE REQUEST FOR SPECIES LIST"

_____________________________________________________________________________

Name, Title

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Address

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ENDANGERED SPECIES AND

CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PROPOSED [INSERT PROJECT NAME OR TITLE]

Dear ______,

[Provide brief description of the proposed action.]

[Provide a description of the "action area." This may include maps, pictures, coordinates, as

necessary.] Please provide information that you may have regarding the presence of endangered or

threatened species or critical habitat in the action area.

After assessing the information provided by you, we will determine what additional actions are necessary

to comply with the Section 7 consultation process.

If you have any questions, please contact _____________________.

Sincerely,

Name, Title

Branch

Division

Office

Docket No./License No:
E-4

ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSULTATION LETTER:

"EXAMPLE REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON DETERMINATION

OF EFFECT ON ENDANGERED SPECIES"

_____________________________________________________________________________

Name, Title

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Address

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON THE DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS ON

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND THEIR CRITICAL HABITATS FOR THE [INSERT

PROJECT NAME OR TITLE]

Dear ______,

[Provide brief background. Include reference to previous correspondence or telephone

conversations.]

After a review of the potential impacts of the proposed action, we have determined that the proposed

action "may affect" listed species or their designated critical habitat, however, these effects are expected

to be [Choose one of the following:] discountable [OR] insignificant, [see definition in Appendix C

and provide basis for finding], and therefore, have concluded that the proposed action is "not likely to

adversely affect" any endangered or threatened species or critical habitat within the area of influence for

the proposed action. The supporting basis for this conclusion is enclosed [Provide documentation, e.g.,

surveys, analysis, EA, EIS, as applicable]. We request your concurrence with NRC’s determination of

"not likely to adversely affect" any listed species or their critical habitat.

If you have any questions, please contact _____________________.

Sincerely,

Name, Title

Branch

Division

Office

Docket No./License No:
E-5

ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSULTATION LETTER:

"EXAMPLE REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON DETERMINATION

OF NO EFFECT FOR MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES"

_____________________________________________________________________________

Name, Title

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Address

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON NRC’S DETERMINATION OF NO EFFECTS ON

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND THEIR CRITICAL HABITATS FOR THE [INSERT

PROJECT NAME OR TITLE]

Dear ______,

[Provide brief background, including the "major construction activity." Include reference to

previous correspondence or telephone conversations.]

After a review of the potential impacts of the proposed action, we have determined that the proposed

action will have no effect on any endangered or threatened species or critical habitat within the area of

influence for the proposed action. The supporting basis for this conclusion is enclosed [Provide

documentation, e.g., surveys, analysis, EA, EIS as applicable]. We request your concurrence with

NRC’s determination of "no effect" on any listed species or their critical habitat.

If you have any questions, please contact _____________________.

Sincerely,

Name, Title

Branch

Division

Office

Docket No./License No:
E-6

SHPO CONSULTATION LETTER:

"INITIATION OF SECTION 106 CONSULTATION"

_____________________________________________________________________________

Name

State Historical Preservation Officer

Address

SUBJECT: INITIATION OF SECTION 106 PROCESS FOR [INSERT PROJECT NAME OR

TITLE]

Dear ______,

[Provide brief background of the licensing action. Include reference to previous correspondence or

telephone conversations, relevant documentation.]

[Provide a description of the "area of potential affects." This may include maps, pictures,

coordinates, as necessary.]

As required by 36 CFR 800.4(a), the NRC is requesting the views of the State Historical Preservation

Officer on further actions to identify historic properties that may be affected by the NRC’s proposed

action (i.e., [licensing the proposed ___________ or granting the proposed licensed amendment to

__________Facility]). [Describe any additional information you will use such as surveys, interviews

etc., if appropriate] and any information you provide will be used to document affects in accordance

with 36 CFR 800.4(d). 

After assessing the information provided by you, we will determine what additional actions are necessary

to comply with the Section 106 consultation process.

If you have any questions, please contact _____________________.

Sincerely,

Name, Title

Branch

Division

Office

Docket No./License No:
E-7

SHPO CONSULTATION LETTER:

"EXAMPLE REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON DETERMINATION

OF EFFECT FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES"

_____________________________________________________________________________

Name

State Historical Preservation Officer

Address

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON THE DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS ON

HISTORIC PROPERTIES FOR THE [INSERT PROJECT NAME OR TITLE]

Dear ______,

[Provide brief background. Include reference to previous correspondence or telephone

conversations, relevant documentation.]

After a review of the potential impacts of the proposed action, we have determined that [Choose one of

the following:] there are no historical properties within the "area of potential effect" [OR] there are

historical properties present, however we have concluded that the proposed action will not adversely

affect these historic properties. The supporting basis for this conclusion is enclosed [Provide

documentation, e.g., surveys, analysis, EA, EIS, as applicable]. We request your concurrence with

this determination that the proposed action does not adversely affect any historical properties.

If you have any questions, please contact _____________________.

Sincerely,

Name, Title

Branch

Division

Office

Docket No./License No:
E-8

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

"COMPLEX LICENSING ACTION" _____________________________________________________________________________

Due to the length of these example documents, the reader is referred to ADAMS to view example

Environmental Assessment’s for complex licensing actions. NOTE: the term "complex" refers solely to

the EA format as described in Section 3.4 of this guidance.

Environmental Assessment Related to Approval of the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan,

ADAMS Accession No.: ML030340122.

Environmental Assessment Related to Nuclear Fuel Services License Amendment Request to Construct

and Operate Uranyl Nitrate Storage Building, ADAMS Accession No.: ML021790068.

Environmental Assessment related to the International Uranium Corporation’s White Mesa Uranium

Mill Amendment Request for the Receipt and Processing of the Maywood Alternate Feed, ADAMS

Accession No.: ML022350454.
E-9

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

"SIMPLE LICENSING ACTION" ____________________________________________________________________________________

[INSERT DATE]

MEMO TO: Docket File [Insert docket/license number]

FROM: Name, Title

Branch

Division, Office

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR [Insert Title of Proposed Project, County,

State], IN CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO LICENSE [Insert License

No.] FOR [Describe what the license would allow.]

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being performed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the

proposed amendment to [applicant/licensee name, license number, and facility, e.g., ABC’s

Company’s License 123, at Anytown, USA]. [Applicant/licensee name] submitted a license

application [OR] amendment application by letter dated [insert date] to amend its license to allow [brief

description of what the amendment would allow].

Based upon the analysis contained in this EA, the staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the staff has determined that

preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. This conclusion will be documented

in the Federal Register as required by 10 CFR 51.35

License No.: ______________

Attachment: Environmental Assessment
E-10

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

DOCKET NO. XXXX

[Date]

Environmental Assessment Related to Issuance of a License Amendment

of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission XXXX Materials License No. XXXXXX,

[name of licensee] in City, State

Introduction:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has prepared this environment

assessment of the ABC Corporation’s (ABC’s or the licensee’s) decommissioning plan for its Anytown

site. The XYZ facility is operated by ABC in Anytown, State. ABC was authorized by NRC from 1973

to 1998 to use radioactive materials for nuclear medicine purposes at the site. In 1998, ABC ceased

operations at the XYZ facility and requested that NRC terminate its license. ABC has conducted

characterization surveys of the facilities and identified carbon-14 (C-14) and tritium (H-3) contamination

in the XYZ nuclear medicine facilities. The NRC staff has evaluated ABC’s request and has developed

an environmental assessment (EA) to support the review of ABC’s proposed decommissioning plan and

license amendment request, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the staff

evaluation, the conclusion of the EA is a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on human health and

the environment for the proposed licensing action.

[Describe the proposal. Briefly characterize the location and contamination and reference

the decommissioning plan or license termination request.] The XYZ facility incorporates 10

buildings on 40 acres located at 123 East Main Street in Anytown. ABC conducted a characterization

survey of the affected areas and developed a decommissioning plan. The survey confirmed the presence

of H-3 contamination in portions of the facility and was used as the basis for development of the

decommissioning plan. The affected area of the XYZ facility consists of the former nuclear medicine

laboratory and associated rooms in the basement of one building, identified as Building One. ABC

proposed to use the screening values developed by NRC (see NUREG-1757, Vol. 1, Appendix B) as the

derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) for decommissioning and as the basis for demonstrating

that the site meets NRC’s radiological cleanup criteria.

The Proposed Action:

[Describe the proposal. Briefly summarize the remediation activities and reference the

decommissioning plan or license termination request for a more thorough description.] The

proposed action is to amend NRC Radioactive Materials License Number 31-XXXX to incorporate

appropriate and acceptable DCGLs into the license. The licensee’s objective for the decommissioning

project, as stated in the decommissioning plan, is to decontaminate and remediate the affected areas of

Building One sufficiently to enable unrestricted use, while ensuring exposures to occupational workers

and the public during the decommissioning are maintained as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).

ABC’s decommissioning plan for the XYZ facility proposes to use DCGLs that are screening values

developed by NRC (65 FR 37186, June 13, 2000) to demonstrate compliance with the radiological

criteria for license termination in 10 CFR Part 20.1402. The DCGLs will define the maximum amount of

residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment and materials and in soils, that will satisfy the

NRC requirements in Subpart E, 10 CFR Part 20, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination." The

DCGLs proposed to be incorporated into the license are as follows:
E-11

Derived Concentration Guideline Levels

Radionuclide Release of equipment & materials (surfaces) Building surfaces Soil

H-3

C-14

Need for the Proposed Action:

The purpose of the proposed action is to reduce residual radioactivity at the XYZ facility to a

level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license. NRC is

fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to make a decision on a proposed license

amendment for decommissioning that ensures protection of the public health and safety and

environment.

The Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:

[Briefly summarize special environmental or cultural issues that may be associated with a

decommissioning action and may require a particular analysis. Include radiological and

nonradiological direct and indirect impacts - including: ecological; aesthetic; historical; cultural;

socioeconomic; and health. Also, include a paragraph on adverse impacts, cumulative impacts and

the evaluation of the significance of the impacts]

The NRC staff has reviewed the decommissioning plan for the XYZ facility and examined the

impacts of decommissioning. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment

and the environmental impacts associated with the decommissioning of the XYZ facility are bounded by

the impacts evaluated by the "Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on

Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities" (NUREG-1496). 

The staff also finds that the proposed decommissioning of the XYZ facility is in compliance with 10

CFR Part 20.1402, the radiological criteria for unrestricted use.

Since ceasing operations, the XYZ site has been stabilized to prevent contamination from

spreading beyond its current locations. Access to the contaminated areas is controlled to assure the

health and safety of workers and the public. No ongoing licensed activities are occurring in the facilities.

Contamination controls will be implemented during decommissioning to prevent airborne and

surface contamination from escaping the remediation work areas, and therefore no release of airborne

contamination is anticipated. However, the potential will exist for generating airborne radioactive

material during decontamination, removal and handling of contaminated materials. If produced, any

effluent from the proposed decommissioning activities will be limited in accordance with NRC

requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 or contained onsite or treated to reduce contamination to acceptable

levels before release, and shall be maintained ALARA. Release of contaminated liquid effluents are not

expected to occur during the work.

ABC and subcontractors will perform the remediation under the XYZ license, with ABC

overseeing the activities and maintaining primary responsibility. The XYZ facility has adequate

radiation protection procedures and capabilities, and will implement an acceptable program to keep

exposure to radioactive materials ALARA. As noted above, ABC has prepared a decommissioning plan

describing the work to be performed, and work activities are not anticipated to result in a dose to workers

or the public in excess of the 10 CFR Part 20 limits. Past experiences with decommissioning activities at
E-12

sites similar to the XYZ facility indicate that public and worker exposure will be far below the limits

found in 10 CFR Part 20.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

[Describe reasonable alternatives. A no-action alternative should always be considered.]

The only alternative to the proposed action of allowing decommissioning of the site is no action. The

no-action alternative is not acceptable because it will result in violation of NRC’s Timeliness Rule (10

CFR Part 30.36), which requires licensees to decommission their facilities when licensed activities cease,

and to request termination of their radioactive materials license.

Agencies and Persons Consulted:

This EA was prepared by NRC staff [list staff and title] and coordinated with the following

agencies: State Department of Environmental Quality, State Office of Historical Preservation, State Fish

and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. NRC staff provided a draft of its

Environmental Assessment to [State agency] for review.

On [provide date], the [State agency] responded by [telephone, letter, etc] and stated that it

had no comments [Or explain comments.]

Conclusion:

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action complies with 10 CFR Part 20.

Decommissioning of the site to the DCGLs proposed for this action will result in reduced residual

contamination levels in the facility, enabling release of the facility for unrestricted use and termination of

the radioactive materials license. No radiologically contaminated effluents are expected during the

decommissioning. Occupational doses to decommissioning workers are expected to be low and well

within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20. No radiation exposure to any member of the public is expected, and

public exposure will therefore also be less than the applicable public exposure limits of 10 CFR Part 20. 

NRC has prepared this EA in support of the proposed license amendment to incorporate appropriate and

acceptable DCGLs and to use the proposed DCGLs for the planned decommissioning by the licensee at

the XYZ facility. Based upon the analysis contained in this EA, the NRC staff concludes that the

proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human and has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

Sources Used:

The following references are available for inspection at NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room

at <http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html>.

[Reference documents used in preparing EA using a complete reference format, i.e., author, title,

date, and ADAMS reference numbers.]
F-1

APPENDIX F

GLOSSARY
F-2

GLOSSARY

aquiferA body of rock or soil that can conduct groundwater and can yield significant quantities of

groundwater to wells and springs.

aquifer systemA heterogeneous body of interbedded permeable and poorly permeable material that

functions regionally as a water-yielding unit; it comprises two or more permeable beds separated at least

locally by confining beds that impede groundwater movement but do not greatly affect the regional

hydraulic continuity of the system; includes both saturated and unsaturated parts of permeable material. 

archaeologicalthe study of the buildings, graves, tools and other objects which belonged to

people who lived in the past, in order to learn about their culture and society.

ALARAacronym for "as low as is reasonably achievable" means making every reasonable effort to

maintain exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 as is practical consistent

with the purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into account the state of

technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of technology, the economics of

improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and

socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and licensed materials in

the public interest (10 CFR 20.1003).

atmospheric diffusionRefers to the dilution of pollutants in the atmosphere. Diffusion is largely a

result of turbulence in the atmosphere and is dependent on the variability characteristics of the wind at

the site.

atmospheric dispersion and transportRefers to the movement or transport of pollutants horizontally or

vertically by the wind.

atmospheric stabilityAn expression of the resistance of the atmosphere to vertical air motion, or

dispersion. Stable air resists movement of air upward; unstable conditions result in good vertical

dispersion. Atmospheric stability is important to the dispersion and dilution of air contaminants.

atmospheric stagnationPersistent atmospheric conditions with limited vertical and horizontal air

motion, resulting in an increase in the concentration of air contaminants.

benthicReferring to bottom-dwelling aquatic organisms.

biotaThe flora and fauna of an area.

climatologyThe scientific study of climates (manifestation of weather) over long periods of time.

cofferdamA watertight enclosure from which water is pumped to expose the bottom of a body of water

and permit construction (as of a pier).

consumptive useThe total water loss from a water supply or system by evaporation or transpiration

from a vegetated or non-vegetated surface, commercial or industrial process, and all domestic and
F-3

municipal uses. The difference between the quantity of water withdrawn from a source and the quantity

returned to the source or another source of usable water.

cumulative impactThe impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact(s) of an

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts

can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

dBA (decibel, A-weighted)A measurement of sound approximately the sensitivity of the human ear and

used to characterize the intensity or loudness of sound.

decommissioningThe process of safely removing from service a facility in which nuclear materials are

handled, reducing residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use

and termination of the NRC license or restricted release (10 CFR 20.1003).

defoliantA herbicide designed to remove leaves from trees and shrubs or to kill plants.

density-induced currentA gravity-induced flow of one current through, over, or under another, owing

to density differences. Factors affecting density differences include temperature, salinity, and

concentration of suspended particles.

depositionMaterial that is deposited; a deposit or sediment. The laying, placing, or throwing down of

any material.

design basis floodA flood event that is the largest flood against which the various components of a

system or facility is protected.

dewateringPhysical removal of water by damming, pumping, diverting, etc.

dewpoint temperatureThe temperature at which air becomes saturated with water vapor on being

cooled.

dikeAn embankment or ridge of either natural or man-made materials used to prevent the movement of

liquids, sludges, solids, or other materials.

dredgingScooping up or excavating (or removing) of earth material or sediment from the bottom of a

body of water, raising it to the surface. 

ecologicalof or pertaining to the environment as it relates to living organisms.

effectsInclude: (i) direct effect, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place;

(ii) indirect effects caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but still

reasonably foreseeable; and (iii) cumulative effects caused by the aggregate effects of past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future actions. Effects and impacts as used in thi document are synonymous.

effluentA liquid discharged as waste, such as contaminated water from a facility.
F-4

emissionGases, particles, or liquids released into the atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents, and

surface areas of commercial or industrial facilities.

endangered speciesAs defined in the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Section 1532, Definitions), an

endangered species means any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a

pest whose protection under the provisions of this chapter would present an overwhelming and

overriding risk to man. 

environmental impact statementA detailed written statement as required by Section 102(2)(C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act.

environmental project managerThe project manager who is responsible for reviewing EAs and the

environmental review associated with preparation of an EIS. In this document, NUREG-1748, the term

is used to generically describe NRC staff in the Environmental and Performance Assessment Branch.

environmental justiceIdentifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and

low-income populations.

environmental monitoringThe process of sampling and analyzing environmental media in and around a

facility to: (i) confirm compliance with performance objectives; and (ii) detect contamination entering

the environment to facilitate timely remedial action.

environmental reviewThe process in which the NRC looks at environmental impacts/concerns and

documents this review in a NEPA document.

erosionThe wearing away of land surface by wind or water, intensified by land-clearing practices

related to farming, residential or industrial development, road building, or logging.

estuaryRegion of interaction between rivers and near-shore ocean waters, where tidal action and river

flow create a mixing of fresh and salt water. These areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt

marshes, and lagoons. These brackish water ecosystems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and wildlife.

facilityThe building, structure and all components associated with the applicant/licensee for conducting

business. May also include other facilities, as necessary, for cumulative impact assessment.

floodAn event in which a river, lake, ocean, or other water feature to rise above normal limits.

floodplainThe lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining creeks, rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. This

includes, at a minimum, that area subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.

The base floodplain shall be used to designate the 100-yr floodplain (1-percent chance floodplain). 

fugitive dustParticulate matter composed of soil surface; can include emissions from haul roads, wind

erosion of exposed soil surfaces, and other activities in which soil is removed or redistributed.
F-5

geologicOf or related to a natural process acting as a dynamic physical force on the Earth (faulting,

erosion, mountain building resulting in rock formations, etc.).

geologic repositoryA system for disposing radioactive waste in excavated geologic media.

geotechnicalRelated to geotechnics, a term currently employed to cover the fields of soil mechanics,

rock mechanics, engineering geology, and ground improvement. 

groundwaterWater contained in pores or fractures in either the unsaturated zone or saturated zone

below ground level. 

habitatArea in which a plant or animal lives and reproduces.

hazardous materialA substance or material in a quantity and form which may pose an unreasonable

risk to health and safety or property when transported in commerce.

hazardous wasteAs defined in RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6903, Definitions), a hazardous waste is a

solid waste, or a combination of solid wastes, that because of its quantity, concentration, or physical,

chemical, or infectious characteristics may: (i) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in

mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (ii) pose a

substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated,

stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed (40 CFR 261.3).

herbicideA chemical agent (often synthetic) capable of killing or causing damage to certain plants

(usually weeds) without significant disruption of other plants.

historic propertyAny prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or

eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the

Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such

properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an American

Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria [36 CFR

800.16(l)].

hydraulic gradientRefers to the flow of groundwater. Groundwater flows from areas of higher energy

(or hydraulic head) to areas of lower hydraulic head. The change in hydraulic head per unit distance is

the hydraulic gradient. Groundwater (and any contaminants moving with it) will flow from upgradient

areas to downgradient areas. These terms are analogous to "upstream" and "downstream" flow of surface

water.

hydrology(i) The study of water characteristics, especially the movement of water. (ii) The study of

water, involving aspects of geology, oceanography, and meteorology.

impactThe positive or negative effect of an action (past, present, or future) on the natural environment

(land use, air quality, water resources, geological resources, ecological resources, aesthetic and scenic

resources) and the human environment (infrastructure, economics, social, and cultural). (See Effects.)
F-6

impoundmentA body of water confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other barrier.

inversionThe condition in which air temperature increases with increasing altitude over a certain

altitude range. The inversion layer can be at ground level or aloft. The condition results in a layer of

warmer air above cooler air, a circumstance that inhibits atmospheric mixing and dispersion of

pollutants.

Ldn (day-night sound level)The 24-hr time of day weighted equivalent sound level, in decibels, for any

continuous 24-hr period, obtained after addition of ten decibels to sound levels produced in the hours

from 10p.m. to 7a.m. 

Leq (equivalent sound level)The equivalent sound level, in decibels of the mean-square A-weighted

sound pressure during a stated time period, with reference to the square of the standard reference sound

pressure of 20 micropascals. It is the level of the sound exposure divided by the time period.

licensing project managerThe NMSS project manager who has overall responsibility for the proposed

action. In this document, NUREG-1748, the term is used to generically describe NRC staff responsible

for determining if a CATX applies and preparing EAs.

levee(i) A ridge or embankment of sand and silt, built by a stream on its flood plain along both banks

of its channel. (ii) An artificial embankment built along the bank of a watercourse or an arm of the sea, to

protect land from inundation or to confine streamflow to its channel.

meteorologyThe study of the atmosphere and weather conditions in the atmosphere. Knowledge of this

science is required for an understanding of the movement and activities of pollutants released into the

atmosphere.

mitigationActions and decisions that: (i) avoid impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts

of an action; (ii) minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action; (iii) rectify the

impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (iv) reduce or eliminate the

impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or (v)

compensate for an impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

mixed wastea type of waste that contains both hazardous and radioactive source, special nuclear, or

byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

modelA simplified representation of an object or natural phenomenon. The model can be in many

possible forms: a set of equations or a physical, miniature version of an object or system constructed to

allow estimates of the behavior of the actual object or phenomenon when the values of certain variables

are changed. Important environmental models include those estimating the transport, dispersion, and fate

of chemicals in the environment.

mrem/yr (millirem per year)One one-thousandth (0.001) of a rem per year.

mSv/yrOne one-thousandth (0.001) of a sievert per year.
F-7

non-attainment areaAn area in which the maximum allowable air concentration of a given pollutant

has been reached, therefore additional releases of the pollutant are not permitted.

permeabilityThe capacity of such media as rock, sediment, and soil to transmit liquid or gas.

Permeability depends on the substance transmitted (oil, air, water, etc.) and on the size and shape of the

pores, joints, and fractures in the medium and the manner in which they interconnect. "Hydraulic

conductivity" means "permeability" in technical discussions relating to groundwater.

pHA number indicating the acidity or alkalinity of a solution. A pH of 7 indicates a neutral solution. 

Lower pH values indicate more acidic solutions while higher pH values indicate alkaline solutions.

physiochemicalBeing physical and chemical. Of or relating to chemistry that deals with the

physiochemical properties of substances.

piezometric levelSee potentiometric surface.

potentiometric surface(i) The level to which water in a confined aquifer will rise under its own

pressure in a borehole, the confining pressure having been removed. (ii) The level to which water will

rise in a piezometer (a tube inserted into the ground so that the lower end, with a permeable tip, is at a

position from which pre-pressure measurements are required).

proposed actionAction under consideration.

radiationRefers to the process of emitting energy in the form of rays or particles that are released by

disintegrating atoms. NRC is responsible for regulating and licensing the use and possession of certain

radioactive materials and the resulting radiation from byproduct and special nuclear materials.

radioactive wasteSolid, liquid, and gaseous materials from nuclear operations that are radioactive or

become radioactive and for which there is no further use. 

radioactivityA property possessed by some elements, such as uranium, whereby alpha, beta, or gamma

rays are spontaneously emitted.

radionuclideA radioactive atomic nuclide, which is an atomic nucleus specified by atomic weight,

atomic number, and energy state.

reasonable alternativesThose alternatives that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic

standpoint and using common sense.

region (socioeconomic)The relevant region is limited to that area necessary to include social and

economic base data for: (i) the county in which the proposed facility would be located; and (ii) those

specific portions of surrounding counties and urbanized areas from which the construction/refurbishment

work force would be principally drawn, or that would receive stresses to community services by a change

of residence of construction/refurbishment/decommissioning workers. Other social and economic

impacts can generally be presumed to fall within the same area covered by this definition of the region.
F-8

remRem is the special unit of any of the quantities expressed as dose equivalent equal to the absorbed

dose in rads (rad is the special unit of absorbed dose) multiplied by the quality factor (10 CFR 20.1004).

reservoirA natural or artificial lake used for the storage of water for industrial and domestic purposes

and for the regulation of inland waterway levels. Service reservoirs store water for domestic supply

purposes under cover and regulate diurnal fluctuations in demand. Impounding reservoirs provide

storage to cover seasonal or year-to-year variations in inflow. Such reservoirs (feeder reservoirs) may

supply water for domestic or industrial use or for regulating water levels in rivers and canals.

saturated zoneThe portion of the ground wholly saturated with water.

scopeConsists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an EIS.

scopingAn open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying issues

related to a proposed action.

sediment(i) Solid material that has settled down from a state of suspension in a liquid. (ii) Solid

fragmental material transported and deposited by wind, water, or ice, chemically precipitated from

solution, or secreted by organisms, and that forms in layers in loose unconsolidated form (e.g., sand,

mud, till).

seepagePercolation of water through the soil from unlined canals, ditches, laterals, watercourses, or

water storage facilities.

seismicityA seismic event or activity such as an earthquake or earth tremor; seismic action.

sewageWastewater from homes, businesses, or industries.

siteThe area of land owned or controlled by the applicant for the principal purpose of constructing and

operating a facility. As a general rule, the applicant’s "site boundary" should be accepted as defining the

site.

sievert (Sv)The SI unit of radiation dose equivalent, equal to 1 joule of energy per kilogram of

absorbing tissue. The sievert replaces the rem (1 Sv = 100 rem).

significantlySee definition in 40 CFR 1508.27.

spoil(i) The refuse or rubble that accumulates when soil, rock or sand is removed to allow access to

mineral deposits. (ii) The material that is removed from a channel when it is dredged.

sole-source aquiferAn aquifer that supplies 50 percent or more of the drinking water of an area.

spawning areaAn area used by species for reproduction or deposition of its offspring.

specificThe amount of water a unit volume of saturated permeable rock will yield when drained

by gravity.
F-9

storage coefficientThe volume of water an aquifer releases from or takes into storage, per unit surface

area of the aquifer per unit change in head. 

stratificationThe arrangement of the waters of a lake in layers of differing density.

stratigraphyThe study of the formation, composition, and sequence of sediments, whether consolidated

or not.

stressorAn agent, condition, or other stimulus that causes stress to an organism or other system.

subsidenceThe sudden sinking or gradual downward settling of the Earth’s surface with little or no

horizontal motion.

suspended loadThe part of the total stream load that is carried for a considerable period of time in

suspension, free from contact with the stream bed; it consists mainly of clay, silt, and sand. 

tectonicOf, or relating to, tectonics.

tectonicsGeological structural features as a whole. A branch of geology concerned with the structure of

the crust of a planet or moon and especially with the formation of folds and faults in it.

unsaturated zoneThe area between the surface and the upper limit of the saturated zone (water table)

where only some of the spaces (fractures and rock pores) are filled with water.

vectorAn organism, often an insect or rodent, that carries disease.

vicinityThe surrounding area of the proposed action. Depending on the action and environmental

media being considered this can range from less than one mile to 50 miles.

viewshedThe area on the ground that is visible from a specified location.

waste managementAll activities associated with the disposition of waste products after they have been

generated, as well as actions to minimize the production of wastes. DOE has defined waste management

to include waste storage, treatment, and disposal (but not transportation), and the term is used

interchangeably with "waste operations" in DOE planning documents.

water quality(i) The fitness of water for use; and (ii) the physical, chemical, and biological

characteristics of water.

water rightA legal right to the use of water.

weatheringThe breakdown of rock through a combination of chemical, physical, geological, and

biological processes. The ultimate outcome is the generation of soil.

wellAn artificial excavation (pit, borehole, tunnel), generally cylindrical in form and often walled in,

sunk (drilled, dug, driven, bored, or jetted) into the ground to such a depth as to penetrate water-yielding
F-10

rock or soil and to allow the water to flow to or be pumped to the surface or recharged into the

subsurface; a water well.

wetlandThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA define wetlands as those areas that are

inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and

that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in

saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

wind roseA graphic display of the distribution of the wind direction at a location during a defined

period. It is a set of wind statistics that describes the frequency, direction, force, and speed. The

characteristics patterns can be presented in either tabular or graphic forms.
G-1

APPENDIX G

COMMENTS ON DRAFT NUREG-1748
G-2

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
G-3

Background

On October 18, 2001, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a notice in the Federal

Register (66 FR 52951), to notify the public of the availability of draft NUREG-1748, “Environmental

Review Guidance Associated with NMSS Licensing Actions,” and to solicit comments. The document

was issued for interim use and comment, with comments requested by September 30, 2002. Due to

problems with availability, the NRC subsequently published another Federal Register notice on May 29,

2002 (67 FR 37461), to extend the comment period to November 30, 2002. Comments were received

from one external organization.

Comments Provided by Dominion Generation, Dated September 10, 2002

Comment: NUREG-1437 and NUREG-1555 both provide for review of design-basis accidents and

severe accidents from an applicant's ER or FSAR, and review of SAMA analyses from an applicant's ER.

Although this NUREG-1748 guidance document states environmental impacts from accidents are

addressed, it is not seen in the Contents or directed in the text, specifically. The purpose for mentioning

design-basis events above is not clear. It is suggested therefore, that either accident and/or mitigation

analyses discussion be included or directed specifically for consistency of applicant expectations with

other NRC environmental documents, or additional explanation be provided for disposition of accident

analyses.

NRC Staff Response: The purpose for mentioning design basis-events (for 10 CFR 72 licenses) is to

indicate a type of accident (i.e., “reasonably foreseeable”) whose environmental impacts would be

analyzed in an environmental review document.. Stated another way, beyond design basis events (for 10

CFR 72 licenses) and their potential environmental impacts would not be analyzed in the environmental

review document as they are typically not considered “reasonably foreseeable.” The scope of this

document does not provide any additional guidance on accident evaluation or the preparation of safety

evaluation reports and is left to existing guidance within NMSS.

Comment: It is not stated that reviewers should identify and evaluate the quality assurance measures

taken by the applicant in collecting and analyzing data. This is provided as an instruction to reviewers in

NUREG-1555. It is suggested that inclusion of this type of instruction would serve to build public

confidence in NRC processes and applicant credibility.

NRC Staff Response: Wording will be added to indicate that licensing and environmental PMs should

consider quality assurance measures taken by the applicant in collecting and analyzing data.

Comment: It is suggested that a brief discussion of NUREG-1437 content applicability and usefulness

be included in this paragraph. It would serve to further strengthen and clarify the explanation of adopting

generic issue findings, particularly as the process applies to spent fuel storage license renewal actions.

NRC Staff Response: The section on “Tiering” will be updated to provide an example of using

NUREG-1437.

Comment: It is suggested that NUREG-1437 and Supplement I to Regulatory Guide 4.2 be added to the

list of references, to provide reviewers and applicants additional reference guidance regarding license

renewal actions.
G-4

NRC Staff Response: The reference section is related to documents cited in the text. NUREG-1437 will

be added to the references section (see above response). Supplement I to Regulatory Guide 4.2 describes

acceptable format and content guidance related to the application for the renewal of a nuclear power

plant operating license submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 54, "Requirements for Renewal of Operating

Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." While the general methodology is acceptable (e.g., calculating air

impacts in a non-attainment area) the scope is generally not acceptable for NMSS licensing actions. 

Comment: For existing licensed facilities, the above-listed resource areas with low-impact (or

no-changes) should be deleted from evaluation for license renewal and continued operation.

NRC Staff Response: It is noted that certain issues have been generically addressed in NUREG-1437

and codified in 10 CFR 51, Appendix B. For certain NMSS licensees (e.g., 10 CFR 72) there may not be

a need to address these issues. However, this guidance document is written generally to encompass all

NMSS licensing actions, hence the statement at the beginning of Chapter 6, “The Environmental Report:

Format and Technical Content,”

“It may not be necessary for every resource to receive the same level of detailed review

and every action may not require all the information discussed in this chapter.”