Enclosure 

High-Level Waste Repository Safety 

 Director’s Policy and Procedure Letter 011 

Revision 1 

Adoption Determination Review of the U.S. Department of Energy=s 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain 

for Issuance of a Construction Authorization 

1.0 Purpose 

The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidance to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) staff for its adoption determination review of the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s (DOE’s) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a proposed geologic 

repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the issuance of a construction authorization. 

Appendix A contains the procedure’s abbreviations. 

This procedure also applies to the review of any supplemental environmental impact statement1

(EIS) or additional DOE environmental analyses (e.g., environmental impact statements or 

environmental assessments) that address the environmental impacts of constructing, operating, 

monitoring, and closing the proposed repository. For example, on October 12, 2007, DOE 

published for public comment a draft supplemental EIS and a draft, combined supplemental rail 

corridor and rail alignment EIS (see 72 FR 50871, October 12, 2007). 

2.0 Key Activities and Processes 

Pursuant to 10 CFR § 63.31, if DOE submits a license application, NRC would decide whether 

to issue a construction authorization. The construction authorization would be issued only if 

NRC determined that DOE's proposed repository site and design complied with applicable NRC 

safety and environmental regulations. If construction were authorized and the DOE license 

application were updated in accordance with 10 CFR § 63.32(d), NRC would subsequently 

grant or deny a license to receive and possess waste for the purpose of disposal in a geologic 

repository operations area based on requirements set forth in 10 CFR § 63.41 (i.e., construction 

is substantially complete and applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part 51 have been satisfied). 

In accordance with Part 63, the application must consist of general information, a Safety 

Analysis Report and be accompanied by DOE’s FEIS. The NRC staff would conduct an 

acceptance review (or docketing review) of the license application while also conducting an 

adoption determination review of DOE’s FEIS. If the NRC staff were to determine that the 

license application was sufficiently complete in scope and detail to permit the staff to begin its 

technical review, NRC would publish a notice of docketing. This notice would provide an 

opportunity for public participation in the adjudicatory proceeding and present the staff’s position 

on whether it is practicable to adopt the FEIS. Within three years2

 of the notice of docketing, the 

NRC must review the license application, conduct hearings before an independent Atomic

 

1 The term FEIS refers to the 2002 FEIS and any final supplements submitted with the license application. The term EIS is used in 

the generic sense. 

2

 NRC may extend the deadline for one additional year pending compliance with certain reporting requirements [see Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act, Section 114 (d)].
2

Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), and reach a final decision on whether a construction 

authorization will be issued [see Section 114(d) of the NWPA]. 

The adoption determination review may include the following actions: 

 Meet with DOE to discuss the content of the license application, FEIS, and any additional 

environmental analyses. 

 Visit the proposed repository and surrounding area to become familiar with the affected 

environment and potential changes thereto, and gather any additional information needed to 

make an adoption determination. 

 Complete the table in Appendix B before beginning the preparation of a report to support the 

NRC staff’s adoption determination. 

 Prepare an Adoption Determination Report (ADR) that documents the staff’s review of the 

FEIS against the adoption criteria in 10 CFR § 51.109(c). The ADR would provide the staff’s 

determination on whether it is practicable to adopt the FEIS, including the basis for the 

conclusions of the staff’s review. The ADR may be organized according to the subject areas 

in the FEIS and NUREG-1748, Section 5.3, “Description of the Affected Environment.” A 

table with the applicable statutes, regulations, and executive orders could also be included 

in the ADR. 

 Along with the Federal Register notice of docketing, publish a statement of whether it is 

practicable (without further supplementation) to adopt the FEIS (see 10 CFR § 51.26(c)). 

The notice would include a brief summary of the ADR. It would state where the full ADR and 

relevant information would be available. 

 Participate in an ASLB hearing on the practicability of adopting the FEIS. Support hearing 

activities, such as contention and interrogatory responses, depositions, and any evidentiary 

hearing. 

3.0 Guidance for Environmental Review

3.1 General Approach 

If DOE submits a license application, the NRC staff will review the license application and the 

accompanying FEIS to determine whether it is practicable to adopt the FEIS. The adoption 

review would address the adoption criteria identified in 10 CFR § 51.109(c) and include a 

review, using NRC guidance, of the adequacy of the statement under NRC NEPA regulations. 

CEQ regulations may also be used for guidance. 

The NRC staff's adoption review would require input from a number of technical and social 

science disciplines, including, but not limited to: environmental engineering, hydrology, geology, 

ecology, performance assessment, health physics, socioeconomics, historic preservation, air 

quality, and transportation. Input from these disciplines, as well as input from the general 

information, and pre-closure and post-closure review teams, would be considered within the 

context of the statutory and regulatory requirements. 

The adoption review would evaluate whether the FEIS is consistent with NRC’s NEPA 

regulations. This review would consider differences between the descriptions of the proposed 
3

action in the license application and the proposed action in the FEIS that significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment. Additional environmental analysis, new information, or new 

considerations not included in the FEIS would also be evaluated. 

Significance would be judged according to the significance of potential environmental impacts 

associated with the information under review. A standard of significance for assessing 

environmental impacts is incorporated in NUREG-1748, Section 4.2.5.3, “Evaluation of 

Significance.” In developing the standard of significance, the NRC staff considered both 

"context" and "intensity" as defined in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, 

because significance and severity of an impact can vary with the physical setting of a proposed 

action. Each impact (whether beneficial or adverse) is assigned one of three 

significance levels (small, moderate, or large). 

In the adoption determination review, the NRC 

staff would use this measure of significance when 

assessing potential impacts resulting from new 

information or new considerations (see Figure 1). 

3.2 Procedures for Review 

3.2.1 Completeness and Adequacy 

A completeness review is normally conducted as 

part of any environmental review of a license 

application package. 

 

The NRC staff will review the FEIS (i.e., 2002 

FEIS and final supplements) for completeness 

and adequacy at the time of the license application 

submittal. If DOE submits additional environmental 

analyses with its license application, these analyses 

would also be considered during the completeness 

and adequacy review. In assessing the FEIS for 

adequacy, the staff will compare DOE’s FEIS with 

the requirements of 10 CFR § 51.91 and the sections and descriptions of these sections 

identified in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A to determine if the FEIS meets the NRC’s 

regulatory requirements. The staff should also refer to CEQ regulations as guidance during its 

review. The staff will also review DOE’s responses to comments, including responses to NRC 

comments. The completeness and adequacy reviews would be informed by the guidance 

provided in NUREG-1748, Chapter 5, “Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement: Format 

and Technical Content,” which addresses the technical content of an EIS. 

3.2.2 Similarity of Proposed Actions (§ 51.109(c)(1)) 

Under 10 CFR § 51.109(c)(1), the NRC staff would determine whether there are any differences 

between the action proposed to be taken by the Commission and the proposed action described 

by DOE in its license application. This means the staff should compare the proposed action in 

DOE’s FEIS and the proposed action described in the license application. If there are 

differences, the NRC staff will assess whether these differences could significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment. 

Significance Levels 

Based on the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulations, each impact may be assigned one of 

the following three significance levels: 

Small: The environmental effects are not detectable 

or are so minor that they would neither destabilize 

nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the 

resource. 

Moderate: The environmental effects are sufficient 

to noticeably alter but not destabilize important 

attributes of the resource. 

Large: The environmental effects are clearly 

noticeably and are sufficient to destabilize important 

attributes of the resource. 

Source: NUREG-1748 

Figure 1: Determining the Significance of Potential 

Environmental Impacts 
4

3.2.2.1 Review Methods 

 

Identify differences in descriptions of the proposed action by directly comparing the action 

proposed in the license application to the proposed action in the FEIS. Review the specific 

sections of the documents that discuss the proposed action, including: 

 Portions of any additional environmental analyses corresponding to Chapter 1 (Sections 1.1, 

1.2 and 1.4) and Chapter 2 (Section 2.1) of the 2002 FEIS; and 

 Portions of the license application corresponding to Chapter 1 (Section 1.1) and supporting 

material (such as Section 2.1.1.2) of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan (NUREG-1804). 

This comparison is not intended to be a detailed technical review of all of the activities 

associated with the proposed action. The scope of information that could be included in the 

comparison is described in NUREG-1748, Section 5.2.2, “Proposed Action.” The scope could 

include, for example: (1) the nature and extent of present and proposed operations at the site; 

and (2) facilities that could be constructed, modified, or impacted as a result of the proposed 

action. 

If the results of the comparison indicate that there are differences between the descriptions of 

the proposed action (i.e., differences between the proposed action in the license application and 

the proposed action in the FEIS), then determine whether those differences could result in 

significant environmental impacts. This applies to impacts that either were not identified in the 

FEIS or were identified but their significance has likely changed. Refer to NUREG-1748, 

Section 4.2.5.3, “Evaluation of Significance” (summarized in Figure 1). Also, consider mitigative 

actions proposed in the FEIS and evaluate whether they would significantly reduce potential 

environmental impacts (the scope of mitigative actions includes preventive actions). 

3.2.2.2 Acceptance Criteria 

Determine whether either of the following conditions has been met: 

 The proposed action described in the FEIS is the same as the proposed action described in 

 the license application (e.g., construction, operation and closure of a geologic repository at 

 Yucca Mountain). 

 

 The proposed action descriptions (e.g., a change in the design of the repository operations 

 area that was not discussed in the FEIS) are different in the license application and the 

 FEIS, but the differences do not indicate the potential for significant environmental impacts 

 not already evaluated.

If a comparison of proposed actions shows that either of these conditions has been met, 

then the NRC staff should conclude that it is practicable to adopt the FEIS based on 

§ 51.109(c)(1). If neither condition has been met, then the NRC staff should conclude that it 

is not practicable to adopt the FEIS. The NRC staff conclusion regarding whether it is 

practicable to adopt the FEIS would be documented in the ADR. 
5

3.2.3 Significant and Substantial New Information or Considerations (§ 51.109(c)(2)) 

Under 10 CFR § 51.109(c)(2), the NRC staff should determine whether significant and 

substantial new information or considerations have arisen that were not considered in the 

FEIS. 

3.2.3.1 Review Methods 

Review areas of the FEIS and other available information corresponding to the staff’s areas 

of expertise. Determine whether new information or considerations are identified (as listed 

below) and document the substance and source of new information or considerations. 

Then, evaluate whether the new information or considerations could affect the conclusions 

and call into question the adequacy of the FEIS. 

New information or considerations could relate to several areas, including (but not limited 

to): 

 Socioeconomics of the region, including regional demographics and housing information. 

 Water resources. 

 Local plans concerning land use and zoning. 

 Historic and archaeological resources. 

 Endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species and species of concern. 

 Known and reasonably foreseeable Federal and non-Federal projects and other actions 

that may contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts. 

 Construction and operation issues for all proposed repository facilities. 

Considering the areas listed above (and other relevant areas), perform the following 

reviews: 

1. Determine whether DOE explicitly identified new information or new considerations in 

the license application, FEIS, or additional environmental analyses (such as information 

associated with repository design changes). To inform your review, become familiar with 

DOE’s methods of identifying new information or considerations (if DOE has provided 

this information). In addition to information DOE may have identified, the staff should 

document, where applicable, other new information or new considerations that could be 

considered significant or substantial. If new information or considerations are identified, 

answer the following question: 

 Are the analyses and conclusions in the FEIS adequate in light of substantial and 

significant new information or considerations (e.g., is it reasonable to conclude 

that the new information or considerations would not have a significant and 

substantial environmental impact)? 
6

2. Review the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts addressed in the FEIS and any 

additional environmental analyses against relevant information in the license application. 

Answer the following question: 

 Can the staff conclude (without additional analysis or information) that the 

impacts analyzed in the FEIS encompass actions described in the license 

application? 

3. Identify differences in the methodology and analytical approach of the license application 

and the FEIS and any additional environmental analyses. Answer the following 

questions: 

 Are assumptions in the methodological and analytical approaches clearly stated? 

 Are the bases or rationale for approaches adequately documented? 

 

 Are differences explained? Determine whether any differences would result in a 

significant and substantial environmental impact. 

4. Review public comments on DOE’s draft supplemental EISs issued in October 2007. 

Determine whether the comments identify significant and substantial new information 

that is neither adequately considered in the FEIS nor addressed in any additional DOE 

environmental analyses that may be submitted in support of a license application. 

5. Identify significant and substantial new information or considerations resulting from civil 

actions for judicial review under NWPA (see 10 CFR § 51.67). 

6. Review for consistency with any relevant DOE records of decision that are not already 

considered in the FEIS. 

3.2.3.2 Acceptance Criteria 

 

Based on the review above: 

 If no significant and substantial new information or considerations have been identified, 

then the NRC staff should conclude that it is practicable to adopt DOE’s FEIS based on 

§ 51.109(c)(2). 

 If significant and substantial new information or new considerations have been identified 

that do not render the FEIS inadequate in scope or the consideration of impacts, the 

NRC staff should conclude that it is practicable to adopt the FEIS. 

 If significant and substantial new information or considerations have been identified that 

render the FEIS inadequate in whole or in part, then the NRC staff should determine 

whether partial adoption is appropriate and whether supplementation is necessary. The 

existence of substantial and significant new information or considerations does not 

necessarily preclude NRC’s adoption of the FEIS. 

The NRC staff’s adoption position, and its rationale for reaching its position, should be 

documented in the ADR. 
7

3.2.4 Other Federal Statutes, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

In the 2002 FEIS and 2007 supplements, DOE identified a number of Federal statutes, 

regulations, and executive orders that it believes are applicable to the proposed action of 

constructing, operating, monitoring, and closing the proposed repository. With respect to 

these statutes, regulations, and executive orders, DOE has taken actions that it considers to 

be appropriate to meet the relevant requirements. 

The NRC staff should confirm that DOE has identified applicable Federal statutes, 

regulations, and executive orders that address environmental impacts. The NRC staff 

should pursue any additional consultations or actions needed to fulfill the NRC's 

responsibilities related to these Federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders prior to 

any issuance of a construction authorization. When conducting consultations, NRC staff 

should refer to NUREG-1748, Section 4.2.4.1, “Consultations and Cooperating Agencies.” 

Examples of applicable regulations, statutes, and executive orders include: the Endangered 

Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, Executive Order 12898 on 

Environmental Justice, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 

Finally, adoption of the FEIS would have no probative weight with respect to any safety 

finding that the NRC staff must make under 10 CFR Part 63 (53 FR 16131, 16142, 

May 5, 1988). If the staff determines adoption is practicable and later identifies new 

information or considerations that render the adopted portion(s) of the EIS inadequate, a 

supplement could be warranted. Section 4 discusses supplementation. 

4.0 Review or Preparation of EIS Supplements 

If the NRC staff determines that adoption is not practicable, a supplemental EIS may be 

required. Although NRC would expect DOE to prepare this supplement, there could be 

circumstances in which NRC would prepare its own supplement. For any future 

supplements prepared by DOE, the NRC staff would conduct an adoption determination 

review as discussed in Section 3, using the criteria under 10 CFR § 51.109(c). The NRC 

staff would document the results of its review in a supplement to the ADR. If NRC decides 

to adopt any of these supplements, a notice of this determination will be published in the 

Federal Register. If NRC prepares a supplemental EIS, the NRC staff should follow the 

procedures in Part 51. 
Revision History 

Date of Change Section(s) Changed

March 2008 Substantive or clarifying changes 

were made to Sections 3.1 and 3.2.1, 

in addition to a few editorial changes 

throughout the document. 
APPENDIX A 

ABBREVIATIONS 

ADR Adoption Determination Report 

ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NMSS Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

NRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NWPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act
APPENDIX B 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR 

ADOPTION DETERMINATION REPORT (ADR) 

Section/Topic Identification of 

differences between EIS and license application 

Could these differences have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment? Provide basis for view.

Do significant or substantial new information or considerations exist? Document substance and source.

Do signnew infconsideinadequview.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and need for proposed actionThe proposed actionNo-action alternative Other Applicable Regulations

DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Land Use; Geology and soils; Water Resources; Ecology; Meteorology, climatology, and air quality; Noise; Cultural resources; Visual; scenic resources; Socioeconomics; Demography; Public and occupational health; Waste management; Environmental Justice; Transportation

Notes: EIS – Environmental Impact Statement ADR – Adoption Determination Report 
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR ADR, Continued 

Section/Topic Identification of 

differences between EIS and license application 

Could these differences have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment? Provide basis for view.

Do significant or substantial new information or considerations exist? Document substance and source.

Do signnew infconsideinadequview.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Land Use; Geology and soils; Water Resources; Ecology; Meteorology, climatology, and air quality; Noise; Cultural resources; Visual; scenic resources; Socioeconomics; Demography; Public and occupational health; Waste management; Environmental Justice; TransportationCumulative Impacts; Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, and shortterm uses of the environment and maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity
APPENDIX C 

KEY REFERENCES 

1. NRC Regulations at 10 CFR Parts 2, 51, and 63 

2. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 USC 4321 et seq., January 

1970. 

3. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. 42 USC 10101 et seq., January 7, 1983. 

4. U.S. Department of Energy. “Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic 

Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at 

Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada.” August 1999. 

5. U.S. Department of Energy. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic 

Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at 

Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada.” June 2002. 

6. U.S. Department of Energy. “Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a 

Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive 

Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada.” October 2007. 

7. U.S. Department of Energy. “Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a 

Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive 

Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada – Nevada Rail Transportation Corridor, 

and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Rail Alignment for the Construction and 

Operation of a Railroad in Nevada to a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye 

County, Nevada.” October 2007. 

8. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing 

Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,” NUREG-1748. Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards. Washington, DC. August 2003. 

9. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Letter to Spencer Abraham re: Comments on 

the U.S. Dept. of Energy Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic 

Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at 

Yucca Mountain, NYE County, Nevada,” February 2002. ADAMS: ML020170294. 

10. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Yucca Mountain Review Plan: Final Report,” 

Revision 2. NUREG-1804. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 

Washington, DC. July 2003.