U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NRR OFFICE INSTRUCTION 

Change Notice 

Office Instruction No.: LIC-203, Revision 3 

Office Instruction Title: Procedural Guidance for Preparing Categorical Exclusions, 

Environmental Assessments, and Considering Environmental 

Issues 

Effective Date: 

Approved By: 

Date Approved: 

July 1, 2013 

Susan Abraham 

June 24, 2013

Primary Contact: Nancy Martinez 

301-415-2719 

Nancy.Martinez@nrc.gov 

Responsible Organization: NRR/DLR/RERB 

Summary of Changes: This document is the third revision of NRR Office Instruction LIC-203. This 

revision incorporates the amended final rule for 10 CFR 51.22 “Criterion for Categorical Exclusion; 

Identification of Licensing and Regulatory Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion or Otherwise not 

Requiring Environmental Review,” which was published April 19, 2010. This revision incorporates 

updated guidance on the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. In addition, this revision incorporates 

updated guidance on the Endangered Species Act, section 7 formal and informal consultations. Lastly, 

this revision incorporates the Commission’s updated guidance on environmental justice to clarify 

instructions and account for changes in the 2010 Census and clarifies NRR responsibilities under the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Training: E-mail announcement with recommended self-study 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML12234A708 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NRR OFFICE INSTRUCTION 

Change Notice 

Office Instruction No.: LIC-203, Revision 3 

Office Instruction Title: Procedural Guidance for Preparing Categorical Exclusions, 

Environmental Assessments, and Considering 

Environmental Issues 

Effective Date: 

Approved By: 

Date Approved: 

TBDJuly 1, 2013 

Susan Abraham 

June 24, 2013 

Primary Contact: Nancy Martinez 

301-415-2719 

Nancy.Martinez@nrc.gov 

Responsible Organization: NRR/DLR/RERB 

Summary of Changes: This document is the third revision of NRR Office Instruction LIC-203. This 

revision incorporates the amended final rule for 10 CFR 51.22 “Criterion for Categorical Exclusion; 

Identification of Licensing and Regulatory Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion or Otherwise not 

Requiring Environmental Review,” which was published April 19, 2010. This revision incorporates 

updated guidance on the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. In addition, this revision incorporates 

updated guidance on the Endangered Species Act, section 7 formal and informal consultations. 

Lastly, this revision incorporates the Commission’s updated guidance on environmental justice to 

clarify instructions and account for changes in the 2010 Census and clarifies NRR responsibilities 

under the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Training: E-mail announcement with recommended self-study 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML12234A708 

OFFICE PM:DLR:RERB LA:DLR BC:DLR:RERB OGC 

NLO DD:DORL D:DLR NRR:PMDA 

NAME NMartinez YEdmonds MWong BJones LLund JLubinski MGivvinesSAbraham
DATE 11/1/12 9/20/12 12/3/12 5/3/13 3/22/13 5/28/13 X6/ 24/13 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 i 

NRR OFFICE INSTRUCTION 

LIC-203, Revision 3 

Procedural Guidance for Preparing Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, and 

Considering Environmental Issues 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Policy.......................................................................................................................... 1 

2.0 Objective .................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 Background ............................................................................................................... 2

4.0 Basic Requirements.................................................................................................. 3

4.1 RERB Staff ...................................................................................................... 3 

4.2 All NRR Staff ................................................................................................... 3 

5.0 Responsibilities and Authorities ............................................................................. 4

5.1 RERB Staff ...................................................................................................... 4 

5.2 All NRR Staff ................................................................................................... 5 

5.2.1 NRR Responsibilities under NEPA: Cat Ex’s, EAs, and EISs ................... 5 

5.2.2 NRR Responsibilities Regarding Environmental Justice ........................... 8 

5.2.3 NRR Responsibilities under the Coastal Zone Management Act .............. 9 

5.2.4 NRR Responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act ...................... 11 

5.2.5 NRR Responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act ........ 13 

5.2.6 NRR Responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and 

 Conservation Act ..................................................................................... 17 

5.2.7 NRR Responsibilities under the Clean Air Act......................................... 17 

5.2.8 NRR Responsibilities under the Clean Water Act ................................... 19 

5.2.9 NRR Responsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act ....................... 20 

6.0 Performance Measures........................................................................................... 20
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 ii 

7.0 Primary Contact ...................................................................................................... 20

8.0 Responsible Organization ...................................................................................... 20

9.0 Effective Date .......................................................................................................... 20

10.0 References ........................................................................................................ 21

Appendices 

 Appendix A Change History 

 Appendix B Preparation and Use of Categorical Exclusions 

Appendix C Content of NRR Environmental Assessments 

 Appendix D Environmental Justice in NRR NEPA Documents 

Appendix E State Coastal Zone Descriptions and Coastal Zone Management Act 

Consistency Certification Process Flow Chart 

 Appendix F Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Flow Charts 

 Appendix G National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation Flow Chart 

List of Tables 

Table 1 LIC-203 Change History 

 Table 2 Description of coastal zones for States and territories with Federally 

approved coastal management programs 

List of Figures

 Figure 1 Flow chart for determining scope of an environmental review 

 Figure 2 Environmental justice review flow chart 

 Figure 3 Coastal Zone Management Act consistency process flow chart 

 Figure 4 Formal section 7 consultation process flow chart 

 Figure 5 Informal section 7 consultation process flow chart 

Figure 6 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 consultation process flow 

chart 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 iii 

Acronyms Used 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

BA Biological Assessment 

BO Biological Opinion 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CMP Coastal management plan 

COL Combined License 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DLR Division of License Renewal 

DORL Division of Operating Reactor Licensing 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EDO Executive Director for Operations 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EJ Environmental Justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPP Environmental Protection Plan 

EPU Extended power Uprate 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESP Early Site Permit 

FES Final Environmental Statement 

FONSI Finding of no significant impact 

FR Federal Register 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 iv 

FRN Federal Register notice 

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 

ITS Incidental Take Statement 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

NAA Non-attainment Area 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NRO Office of New Reactors 

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

OCRM NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

OGC Office of General Counsel 

PDR Public Document Room 

PM Project manager 

REMP Radiological environmental monitoring program 

RERB Environmental Review Branch, Division of License Renewal 

ROD Record of Decision 

RPB1 Projects Branch 1, Division of License Renewal 

RPB2 Projects Branch 2, Division of License Renewal 

SER Safety Evaluation Report 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 v 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

TAC Technical assignment control 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 
NRR OFFICE INSTRUCTION 

LIC-203, Revision 3 

Procedural Guidance for Preparing Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, 

and Considering Environmental Issues 

1. POLICY

It is the policy of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to establish 

procedures and guidance for its staff to meet the requirements established by applicable 

statute and regulation. The purpose of 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” is to ensure that 

the NRC meets its statutory obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA). 

2. OBJECTIVE

This office instruction, along with the enclosed guidance documents, provides the NRR 

staff with a basic framework for meeting NRC’s responsibility to comply with 

10 CFR Part 51. This office instruction is intended to: 

• Define the responsibilities of the Environmental Review Branch and Guidance 

Update Branch (RERB), Division of License Renewal (DLR) to ensure that NRR is 

consistent in its implementation of NRC regulations and other Federal environmental 

requirements; 

• Define NRR staff responsibilities; and, 

• Provide guidance to NRR staff on the procedural requirements for demonstrating 

compliance with environmental statutes and regulations covering environmental 

issues for regulated facilities. 

This office instruction contains guidance for preparing categorical exclusions and 

environmental assessments (EAs), in accordance with NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51, and 

for considering environmental issues associated with: 

• Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority populations and Low-Income Populations,” including the Commission’s 

“Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC 

Regulatory and Licensing Actions” (69 Federal Register [FR] 52040, August 24, 

2004); 

• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA); 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA); 

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA); 

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 (MSA). 

• Clean Air Act of 1963; and 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 2 of 21 

• Clean Water Act of 1948 and 10 CFR 50.54(aa) 

This office instruction describes how environmental reviews, leading to the preparation 

of an EA or use of a categorical exclusion, should be performed for NRR licensing 

actions. Though this office instruction addresses some aspects of environmental impact 

statements (EIS) preparation, it should not serve as primary guidance when preparing 

an EIS. Specific requirements for preparing EISs are set forth in 10 CFR Part 51. In 

addition, guidance for preparing site-specific supplemental EISs for license renewal 

power reactor applications can be found in NUREG-1555, “Standard Review Plans for 

Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License 

Renewal.” Guidance for preparing EISs for non-power reactors, including medical 

isotope production facilities, can be found in NUREG-1537, “Guidelines for Preparing 

and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors.” 

3. BACKGROUND

On June 21, 2001, Office Instruction LIC-203 was initially issued as a revision to Office 

Letter 906, Revision 2, which included guidance on environmental justice and 

improvements to the format and content of the EA template. Office Letter 906, 

Revision 2, was issued on September 21, 1999, and was entitled, “Procedural Guidance 

for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues.” 

Revision 1: 

Revision 1 of LIC-203 was issued on May 24, 2004. This revision clarified NRR 

responsibilities under the FWCA, provided a policy change in fulfilling NRR 

responsibilities under the NHPA, and contained preliminary guidance on consideration of 

environmental justice matters consistent with a draft Policy Statement issued by the 

Commission on November 5, 2003 (68 FR 62642). 

Revision 2: 

Revision 2 of LIC-203 was issued on February 17, 2009. This revision updated 

guidance on how to conduct environmental justice impact assessments. 

Additionally, Revision 2 incorporated the responsibilities of the NRC under the MSA, 

which requires that Federal agencies consult with the Secretary of Commerce regarding 

EFH for any action undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. EFH 

regulatory requirements are set forth at 50 CFR Part 600. Lastly, Revision 2 also 

clarified NRR responsibilities under the CZMA, amended figures and flow charts, and 

revised the roles and responsibilities to reflect the current NRR office organization. 

Revision 3: 

This revision incorporates the amended final rule for 10 CFR 51.22, “Criterion for 

categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for 

categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review,” which was 

published May 19, 2010. This revision also incorporates updated guidance on the Clean 

Air Act and Clean Water Act. In addition, this revision incorporates updated guidance on 

the Endangered Species Act, section 7 formal and informal consultations. Lastly, this 

revision incorporates the Commission’s updated guidance on environmental justice to 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 3 of 21 

clarify instructions and account for changes in the 2010 Census and clarifies NRR 

responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act. 

4. BASIC REQUIREMENTS

4.1. RERB Staff 

RERB is responsible for providing technical support and implementation 

guidance to the NRR staff for the resolution of environmental issues at NRC 

regulated facilities. RERB is also responsible for coordinating environmental 

issues with other NRC offices to ensure that NRR meets its obligations under 

Federal environmental requirements and properly implements the requirements 

of 10 CFR Part 51. 

4.2. All NRR Staff 

In addition to its regulatory responsibilities embodied in the health and safety 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, NRC has 

responsibilities that are derived from NEPA and from other environmental laws, 

including the CZMA, the ESA, the NHPA, the FWCA, the MSA, the CAA, and the 

CWA. In addition, the NRC is required to follow its environmental justice policy 

statement (69 FR 52040, August 24, 2004), which is based upon Executive 

Order 12898. Some of these laws may require the NRC to consult or coordinate 

with other Federal, State or local agencies, or Tribal governments. NRR staff 

should contact the appropriate subject matter expert in RERB to discuss 

consultation activities associated with the ESA, the CZMA, the NHPA, the MSA, 

and the NRC’s environmental justice policy statement. 

NRR staff must consider these environmental laws and the NRC’s environmental 

justice policy statement when performing regulatory activities such as: 

• Power Uprates: Increasing the authorized power level of commercial power 

reactors beyond the power rating stated in the facility’s Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) or supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GEIS), NUREG1437, regarding the facility being reviewed; 

• Construction Recapture: Changing the license expiration date to recapture 

time between the construction permit and actual operation (construction 

recapture); 

• Reviewing requests for license amendments and exemptions from 

regulations which are not covered by a categorical exclusion; 

• Reviewing decommissioning applications under 10 CFR Part 50; 

• Revising Appendix B (environmental protection plan) of a licensee's operating 

license; 

• Reviewing construction and/or operating applications under 10 CFR Part 50, 

which includes both power reactors and non-power reactors; 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 4 of 21 

• Reviewing license renewal applications under 10 CFR Part 54; and 

• Conducting rulemaking that may lead to environmental impacts. 

When an environmental review of an action is warranted, the NRR Project 

Manager (PM) may request formal guidance in developing EAs from RERB. 

Because environmental reviews of applications are fee recoverable under 10 

CFR Part 170, the NRR PM should provide a Technical Assignment Control 

(TAC) number for tracking and billing purposes when seeking concurrence, 

assistance, or input on environmental reviews. 

Staff need not perform an environmental review when performing licensing and 

regulatory activities eligible for categorical exclusions under 10 CFR 51.22(c), as 

further described in 5.2.1 and Appendix B. The appropriate NRR Division and 

the Office of General Counsel (OGC), with support of RERB, will determine 

whether an action qualifies as a categorical exclusion and, if so, include the 

criterion in the licensing documents. NRR staff is encouraged to seek early 

assistance from RERB in addressing environmental issues that are unique, 

complex, or unfamiliar. 

5. RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES

5.1. RERB Staff 

 RERB will: 

• Review and concur on plant-specific and generic EAs prepared by NRR staff 

for the activities listed above; 

• Review and concur on plant-specific Categorical Exclusions prepared by 

NRR staff for eligible activities under 10 CFR 51.22, when appropriate; 

• Prepare input for and/or originate EAs (including environmental justice 

reviews) when appropriate; 

• Review and provide guidance and support to NRR staff participating in the 

preparation of all EISs (draft, final, and supplements); 

• Participate in environmental rulemaking activities; 

• Review new and emerging environmental issues; 

• Track amendments to existing or issuance of new environmental statues, 

regulations, applicable executive orders and guidance and inform, as 

appropriate, NRR management and other staffs; 

• Review environmental documents submitted by other Federal and State 

agencies, as appropriate; 

• Coordinate ESA section 7 consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Services (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as 

appropriate; 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 5 of 21 

• Consult with NMFS regarding potential impacts to EFH, as appropriate; 

• Consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer(s) (THPO), as appropriate, on matters related to historic and cultural 

resources under Section 106 of the NHPA; 

• Ensure in coordination with the Office of General Counsel that the 

requirements of all environmental laws, regulations and executive orders that 

apply to NRC licensing actions have been met; 

• Coordinate environmental matters with other NRC Headquarters and 

Regional offices, Federal, State, and local agencies, and if appropriate, Tribal 

governments; and 

• Maintain and update this office instruction. 

5.2. All NRR Staff 

Individual NRR staff members are responsible for implementing the procedural 

requirements of this office instruction. NRR staff should consult with RERB when 

reviewing environmental issues or safety issues that require an EA, an EIS, or in 

which the applicability of a categorical exclusion is unclear. 

5.2.1. NRR Responsibilities under NEPA: EISs, EAs, and Categorical 

Exclusions 

Section 102 of NEPA, passed by Congress in 1969, requires the use of a 

systematic approach to integrate the social and natural sciences when 

making decisions that may have environmental impacts. NEPA requires 

that Federal agencies prepare EISs for “major Federal actions” that may 

significantly affect the quality of the human environment as 

documentation of the analysis process. EISs must include a thorough 

analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed action, as well as 

appropriate alternatives to the proposed action. The findings of EISs 

must then be considered in the decision-making process. 

In order to implement the requirements of NEPA, NRR prepares EISs and 

EAs. NRC regulatory requirements regarding these documents can be 

found in 10 CFR Part 51. The NRC has previously determined that 

certain categories of actions do not have significant impacts on the 

environment. For those categories of actions, the NRC has established 

categorical exclusions, which are listed in 10 CFR 51.22(c). If a specific 

action falls within the scope of a listed categorical exclusion (some 

categorical exclusions have criteria), the NRC does not need to prepare 

an EA or EIS, 

Environmental Impact Statements: 

An EIS is prepared for any action determined to be a “major Federal 

action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 10 

CFR 51.20(b) provides a specific list of NRC actions that require 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 6 of 21 

preparation of an EIS. For instance, renewal of a license to operate a 

nuclear power reactor requires the preparation of an EIS. In general, an 

EIS contains detailed analyses of the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action and an analysis of the environmental impacts of the 

alternatives to the proposed action, and involves extensive public 

participation and typically involves coordination with other Federal, State, 

and local agencies, and if appropriate, Tribal governments. 

Environmental Assessments: 

For those actions that are not listed in 10 CFR 51.20(b) or covered by a 

10 CFR 51.22(c) categorical exclusion, the NRC will need to prepare an 

EA. An EA documents the evaluation of whether an action constitutes a 

“major Federal action” significantly affecting the human environment. If 

the review documented in the EA demonstrates that the proposed action 

will not have a significant impact on the environment, a finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI) is prepared in accordance with the criteria of 

10 CFR 51.32; no EIS need be prepared. The FONSI may be set forth in 

the conclusion section of the EA. If the EA demonstrates that the 

proposed action will, or has the potential to, significantly affect the 

environment, but can be mitigated to the point where the action will no 

longer have a significant impact, contact RERB staff for additional 

guidance (this scenario may involve the preparation of a “mitigated” 

FONSI). If the environmental review documented in the EA reveals that 

the proposed action will, or has the potential to, significantly affect the 

human environment, and mitigation is not viable, then the NRC must 

prepare an EIS. Refer to Fig. 1 in Appendix C for a flow chart of the 

process by which a reviewer should determine whether an action requires 

an EA, EIS, or meets the criteria for a categorical exclusion, as defined in 

10 CFR 51.22. For an extended power uprate (EPU), the staff prepares 

an EA that goes into greater depth and provides more opportunity for 

public involvement than a typical EA for licensing actions. RERB staff will 

prepare EAs for all EPU requests. For additional guidance on the 

process of power uprate reviews please refer to NRR Office Instruction 

LIC-112 “Power Uprate Process.” 

Categorical Exclusions: 

A categorical exclusion is prepared for an action that an agency has 

previously determined does not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment. 10 CFR 51.22 identifies 

NRC licensing and regulatory actions that are eligible for categorical 

exclusion. A categorical exclusion should be documented with a brief 

explanation as to how the proposed action would not have any significant 

environmental effects and a description of how the proposed action is 

included under 10 CFR 51.22. Appendix B of this office instruction 

provides guidance on the preparation, use and documentation of 

categorical exclusions. For actions in which it is not clear if they are 

encompassed by a categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 51.22, Appendix 

B.3 provides an analysis and checklist that can be performed to 

determine if a categorical exclusion is appropriate. The NRR PM should 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 7 of 21 

consult with OGC and RERB staff, as appropriate, to determine whether a 

proposed action is eligible for categorical exclusion. 

Environmental Review Process: 

Licensing Action 

Upon receipt of a proposed licensing action, the NRR PM should 

determine what level of environmental review is needed (categorical 

exclusion, EA, or EIS). Refer to Fig. 1 in Appendix C for a flow chart of 

the process by which a reviewer should determine whether an action 

requires an EA, EIS, or meets the criteria for a categorical exclusion. If 

the proposed action is unique or involves unusual circumstances, then 

the NRR PM should consult with RERB staff before initiating the 

environmental review. Additionally, as mentioned previously in this office 

instruction, 10 CFR 51.22(c) lists those NRC licensing and regulatory 

actions that are eligible for categorical exclusion and, therefore, do not 

require preparation of an EA or EIS. The NRR PM should consult with 

OGC and RERB staff, as appropriate, to determine whether a proposed 

action is eligible for categorical exclusion. In such case, a categorical 

exclusion should be prepared in accordance with Appendix B of this office 

instruction. 

If the NRR PM, in consultation with OGC and RERB staff, determines that 

the proposed action is not eligible for a categorical exclusion and it is not 

one of the listed actions that require preparation of an EIS (see 10 CFR 

51.20(b)), then an EA should be prepared in accordance with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 51.30 and this office instruction. 10 CFR 51.30 

requires that an EA: 

1. Identify the proposed action; 

2. Briefly discuss the need for the proposed action; 

3. Discuss the alternatives to the proposed action; 

4. Describe the environmental impacts of the proposed action and 

alternatives; and 

5. List agencies and persons consulted and identify sources used. 

An EA should not duplicate the safety details of the review; only the 

environmental impacts of the proposed action should be considered. 

Appendix C of this office instruction provides detailed guidance for each 

step in the preparation of an EA. 

 The staff should prepare a FONSI if the EA supports a conclusion 

 that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of 

 the human environment. The FONSI may be set forth in the conclusion 

 section of the EA. Preparation and publication of the FONSI in the 

 Federal Register must be in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 

 51.32, 10 CFR 51.34, 10 CFR 51.35 and 10 CFR 51.119. The staff may 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 8 of 21 

 issue a draft FONSI (e.g. EPU EAs) for public comment. Such a draft 

 FONSI must be published in the Federal Register with a minimum 

 comment period of 30 days, in accordance with the requirements set forth 

 in 10 CFR 51.33 and 51.119. 

If the PM believes mitigation of the effects is possible (i.e. a mitigated 

FONSI), contact RERB staff for guidance. If the EA concludes that the 

proposed action will result in significant environmental impacts, then the 

NRR PM should contact RERB to coordinate the preparation of an EIS. 

Should an EIS need to be prepared, RERB will be responsible for 

coordinating the preparation of the EIS with the NRR PM for the facility in 

question. An EA does not need to be prepared before an EIS for those 

specific actions listed under 10 CFR 51.20(b) as requiring an EIS. 

Rulemaking Activities

When an EA is written in support of rulemaking activities that affect NRR, 

the initiating office, if other than NRR, may coordinate with RERB in the 

preparation of an EA. Detailed guidance on incorporation of the NEPA 

process within rulemaking activities is provided in the NRC Regulations 

Handbook, NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 6. 

5.2.2. NRR Responsibilities Regarding Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 was issued by the President on 

February 11, 1994, mandating that Federal agencies make 

“environmental justice” (EJ) part of each agency's mission by addressing 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of Federal programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations. Subsequently, the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) developed guidelines on how to integrate 

environmental justice into the NEPA process entitled Environmental 

Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, 

December 1997. The guidance is available at: 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf. 

On August 24, 2004, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on the 

Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and 

Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which states “The Commission is 

committed to the general goals set forth in E.O. 12898, and strives to 

meet those goals as part of its NEPA review process.” NRR developed a 

corresponding procedure (Appendix D), which incorporates the 

Commission’s policy statement on environmental justice into the licensing 

process. 

Environmental justice reviews will be performed for all actions requiring 

preparation of an EIS (or a supplement thereto). An environmental justice 

review is not usually required for an EA in which a FONSI is made; 

however, special circumstances may warrant an environmental justice 

review. Special circumstances occur when there is a clear potential for 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 9 of 21 

offsite impacts and there are some indications of populations that 

might signal the existence of an EJ issue. If there is a clear potential 

for significant offsite impacts from the proposed action, an EJ review 

might be needed to provide a basis for concluding that there are no 

disproportionately high or adverse impacts. In such circumstances, 

NRR senior management will decide whether an EJ review is warranted 

for an EA on a case-by-case basis. Also, NRR generally conducts an EJ 

review for an EPU, the findings of which are documented in the EA. 

Appendix D provides a more detailed explanation of the process for 

conducting an EJ review and a flow chart (Fig. 2) illustrating the steps in 

the review.

5.2.3. NRR Responsibilities under the Coastal Zone Management Act 

The CZMA of 1972 was promulgated to encourage and assist States and 

territories in developing management programs that preserve, protect, 

develop, and, where possible, restore the resources of the coastal zone. 

A “coastal zone” is generally described as the coastal waters and the 

adjacent shore lands strongly influenced by one another, which may 

include islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, 

beaches, and Great Lakes waters. Appendix E of this office instruction 

lists those States and territories with Federally-approved Coastal 

Management Plans (CMPs) and describes each State or territory’s 

coastal zone. 

The CZMA requires that activities of Federal agencies reasonably likely to 

affect coastal zones be consistent with any applicable State approved 

CMP to the maximum extent practical. Applicants must submit to both 

the NRC and to the State a certification that the proposed activity 

complies with the enforceable policies of the State’s program. If the 

CZMA applies to the project, the NRC cannot issue its license or permit 

until the State has concurred in the applicant’s certification of a coastal 

consistency determination. If the State fails to complete its review of the 

consistency certification within six months, the State’s concurrence with 

the certification is conclusively presumed (10 CFR 930.54(e)). In the 

case where the State objects to the consistency determination, the 

Federal agency will withhold the permit/license approval until the 

Secretary of Commerce presides over such objection. 

Regulations implementing the Federal consistency provisions of the 

CZMA have been promulgated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) at 15 CFR Part 930. NOAA regulations 

specifically require the State’s concurrence with consistency certifications 

for license renewal and major amendments that will affect any coastal use 

or resource. NOAA defines “major amendments” as activities involving a 

change that affects any coastal use or resource in a way that is 

substantially different than the description or understanding of the effects 

at the time of the original activity (15 CFR 930.51(c)). In general, the 

NRR licensing actions requiring a consistency certification are license 

renewal applications, EPU license amendments, and power or non-power 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 10 of 21 

reactor applications that are submitted under Part 50. Additional licensing 

actions that may require a Federal consistency certification are carried 

out by the Office of New Reactors (NRO) and include early site permits 

(ESPs) and combined licenses (COLs). 

PROCEDURE FOR LICENSING ACTIONS 

The following guidance is provided regarding NRC staff’s responsibilities 

under the CZMA consistency certification requirements. Because this 

procedure may not address all situations that may occur, the NRR PMs 

should consult with RERB staff whenever a CZMA consistency 

certification is required. The CZMA Flow Chart (Fig. 3) in Appendix E 

characterizes the steps involved in obtaining the State’s concurrence on a 

consistency certification in more detail. The NRR PM should consult with 

RERB for the following actions: 

1. Determine whether the facility is located in a State’s coastal zone or if 

the licensing action could have a reasonably foreseeable effect on 

any coastal use or resource within the coastal zone (e.g., a coastal 

zone is within a reasonable downstream distance from a facility 

located on a river), as defined in 15 CFR 930.11. Refer to Table 2 in 

Appendix E for a description of coastal zones in States and territories 

with Federally-approved CMPs. 

2. Identify listed activities requiring a consistency certification by 

referencing the NRC entry under the State’s CMP. 

3. Upon receipt of an application for a listed activity (e.g. license 

renewal), ensure that the State has concurred with the licensee’s 

certification of a coastal consistency determination. Approval of the 

requested action shall be withheld until the State has concurred with 

the licensee's consistency determination, or the Secretary of 

Commerce has overridden any State’s objections. 

Note: For license renewals (10 CFR Part 54) and license 

applications under 10 CFR Part 50, RERB will be responsible for 

review of the action and will ensure that the State’s concurrence 

has been provided, as required. 

4. Upon receipt of an application for an unlisted activity (e.g., EPU 

license amendment), determine whether the licensing action could 

have a reasonably foreseeable effect on any coastal use or resource 

within the coastal zone, as defined in 15 CFR 930.11, and consult 

with RERB, as needed. 

• For unlisted actions in which coastal effects may be reasonably 

foreseeable, the NRR PM should consult with RERB and, if the 

applicant has not provided a consistency certification, should 

contact the applicant and the applicable State agency early in the 

review process to ensure timely State determination of the need 

for a consistency review. As provided in 15 CFR 930.54(a)(2), 

notice to the State agency may be constructive if notice is 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 11 of 21 

published in an official federal publication document or through an 

official State clearinghouse (i.e., the Federal Register, draft or final 

EISs that are submitted to the State agency, or a State’s 

intergovernmental review process). If the State has not notified 

the NRC within 30 days from notice of the license or permit 

application that a review is necessary, the State waives its right to 

review the unlisted activity (10 CFR 930.54(a)(1)). The waiver 

does not apply in cases where the State agency does not receive 

notice of the federal license or permit application (15 CFR 

930.54(a)(1)). 

5. For either listed or unlisted activities, upon notification by the State 

that a consistency review is required for the proposed action, the EA 

or EIS should document whether the State’s concurrence on the 

consistency certification has been obtained in the Land Use section. 

Approval of the proposed action (e.g., licensing under 

10 CFR Part 50, license amendment, or applicable rulemaking action) 

by the NRC cannot occur before the State has concurred with the 

licensee's consistency certification, or the Secretary of Commerce has 

overridden any State objection.

5.2.4. NRR Responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act 

Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) in order to protect and recover imperiled species and the 

habitats upon which they depend. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) jointly administer the ESA. The 

FWS manages the protection of and recovery effort for listed terrestrial and 

freshwater species, while the NMFS manages the protection of and 

recovery effort for listed marine and anadromous species. 

The NRC must comply with the ESA when authorizing, funding, or carrying 

out Federal actions such as granting operating reactor license renewals, 

approving extended power uprates, and reviewing license amendment 

requests. 

Section 7 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536) requires that each Federal agency 

ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by an agency is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or 

threatened species (jeopardy), or destroy or adversely modify any critical 

habitat for such species (adverse modification). “Action” may include 

licensing, rulemaking, and/or other regulatory activities. Federal agencies 

should act, if possible (where they have the legal authority), to prevent 

endangered species and their habitats from being threatened or destroyed. 

If an action has the potential to affect any endangered or threatened 

species or critical habitat, the NRC shall consult with the Secretary of the 

Interior (for freshwater and terrestrial species through FWS) or the 

Secretary of Commerce (for marine and anadromous species through 

NMFS). Generally, the NRC consults with the FWS or NMFS for all major 

Federal actions under NEPA that require the preparation of an EIS. The 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 12 of 21 

NRC may also consult with the FWS or NMFS for Federal actions that 

require the preparation of an EA, such as an EPU review. The FWS and 

NMFS joint regulations implementing the ESA at 50 CFR Part 402 allow for 

two types of consultations: informal and formal. 

Informal consultation is a less structured approach to meeting section 7 

requirements than formal consultation and includes phone calls, letters, and 

meetings between the NRC and FWS or NMFS. This type of consultation is 

appropriate if the NRC determines that a proposed action is “not likely to 

adversely affect” listed species or critical habitat. The NRC may prepare a 

biological assessment as part of informal consultation, and the regulations 

do not specify a particular timeline for completion of informal consultation. 

Appendix F of this instruction contains a flow chart (Fig. 5) illustrating the 

informal ESA consultation process. 

The formal consultation process is a more structured approach to meeting 

section 7 requirements. Formal consultation is appropriate if the NRC 

determines that a proposed action “may affect” listed species or designated 

critical habitat. Formal consultation requires the preparation of a biological 

assessment and its submission to the “Director”1

, in accordance with 50 

CFR 402.12. In addition, a request for formal consultation shall be in writing 

and submitted to the Director and include a description of the action to be 

considered; a description of the specific area that may be affected by the 

action; a description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be 

affected by the action; a description of the manner in which the action may 

affect any listed species or critical habitat and an analysis of any cumulative 

effects; relevant reports, including any environmental impact statement, 

environmental assessment, or biological assessment prepared; and any 

other relevant available information on the action, the affected listed 

species, or critical habitat (50 CFR 402.14(c)). The regulations provide that 

formal consultation is to be concluded within 90 days of its initiation, unless 

extended (50 CFR 402.14(e)). Within 45 days after concluding formal 

consultation, the FWS or NMFS shall deliver a biological opinion to the NRC 

and any applicant (50 CFR 402.14(e)). 

The biological opinion may include an incidental take statement, reasonable 

and prudent measures, and terms and conditions which the NRC must 

ensure that its licensee complies with in order to be exempt from the 

prohibitions of section 7(o)(2) of the ESA (50 CFR 402.14(h)-(j)). The 

issuance of the biological opinion terminates formal consultation (50 CFR 

402.14(l)(1)). Appendix F of this instruction contains a flow chart (Fig. 4) 

illustrating the formal ESA consultation process. 

RERB is responsible for initiating consultation (informal or formal, as 

appropriate) and coordinating with FWS and NMFS on an ongoing basis for 

 

1

 The term “Director” is defined in the regulations implementing the ESA as the Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries (NOAA), or his or her authorized representative or the FWS regional director, or his or her 

authorized representative. 50 CFR 402.02. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 13 of 21 

endangered species issues at all operating reactors overseen by NRR. 

RERB should initiate consultation early in the review process to ensure 

adequate time to conclude consultation prior to a licensing decision. If 

consultation is initiated in conjunction with a NEPA review, the status or 

outcome of the consultation should be documented in the EA or EIS. 

NRR PMs should contact RERB for any license amendment requests or 

other actions that have the potential to affect species and habitats protected 

under the ESA; RERB will determine if consultation is required. Note that 

while consultation is required for many Federal actions, reinitiated 

consultation may also be required during regular operations under certain 

conditions such as the take of a species not authorized in a biological 

opinion or the listing of a new species under the ESA. RERB staff is 

responsible for identifying and determining when reinitiating consultations 

are required and coordinating the activities of the consultation; RERB staff 

will notify the NRR PM of these activities. 

More detailed information on section 7 consultations appears in the 

Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting 

Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act, March 1998, published by FWS and NMFS. The handbook is 

available at: 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/pdf/Sec%207%20Handbook.pdf

5.2.5. NRR Responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, was 

promulgated to coordinate public and private efforts to preserve significant 

historic and cultural resources. Section 106 of the NHPA directs Federal 

agencies to take into account the effects of their “undertakings” on historic 

properties and allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

an opportunity to review and comment on the undertaking. ACHP is an 

independent Federal agency charged with implementing Section 106 

throughout the Federal government; ACHP Section 106 implementing 

regulations are at 36 CFR Part 800. The Section 106 process may proceed 

on a separate track from NEPA or may be encompassed within the agency 

NEPA process (see 36 CFR 800.8). “Undertakings” denotes a broad range 

of Federal activities, including the issuance of NRC licenses and permits. 

“Historic property” is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, 

structure, traditional cultural property, or object included in or eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). 

Appendix G (Fig. 6) contains a flow chart illustrating the Section 106 

process. When performing an EA or EIS, the NRC must determine if effects 

exist which may harm any historic property or historic and cultural resources. 

A finding of an adverse effect on historic properties does not necessarily 

require an EIS. The standard Section 106 process is comprised of the 

following steps: 

• Initiate the Section 106 process (36 CFR 800.3). Establish the 

undertaking and identify the appropriate SHPO and/or THPO, as well 

as concerned members of the public. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 14 of 21 

• Identify Historic Properties (36 CFR 800.4). Through consultation with 

the applicable SHPO and/or THPO, determine the scope of effort, the 

area of potential effects, identify historic properties and resources, 

and evaluate the historic significance. 

• Assess Effects (36 CFR 800.5). Determine whether or not the 

proposed action will have an adverse effect upon any historic property 

within the area of potential effects by applying the criteria of adverse 

effect (36 CFR 800.5(a)). 

• Resolve Adverse Effects (36 CFR 800.6). Adverse effects are 

resolved through mitigation and/or consultation.

COORDINATING SECTION 106 CONSULTATIONS WITH NEPA 

In 36 CFR 800.8, “Coordination with the National Environmental Policy 

Act”, compliance with Section 106 can be achieved in conjunction with the 

NEPA process for the same action. NRR staff may use the NEPA 

process to fulfill the requirements of the NHPA when preparing both EAs 

and EISs. Under 36 CFR 800.8(c), an agency can use the NEPA process 

to comply with Section 106 as an alternative to the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. The key to using the NEPA 

process to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA is early coordination. 

The staff should be aware when coordinating Section 106 with NEPA, if a 

MOA is entered into by the NRC as part of the resolution of any adverse 

effects upon historic properties, then the MOA must be referenced in the 

draft EA or draft EIS for public comment. 

When using the NEPA process to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA, 

NRR staff should consult with RERB staff to perform the substantive 

steps that are required by the ACHP Section 106 regulations. The 

following is a list of general principles NRR staff must following in order to 

ensure compliance with Section 106 (more specific procedures are listed 

in the “Procedure for Licensing Actions” below): 

1. Coordinate early. NRR PMs should plan their Section 106 

responsibilities as early as possible in the NEPA process, and plan 

public participation, analysis, and review requirements of both 

statutes. 

2. Identify consulting parties. Identify the appropriate SHPO or THPO, 

American Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, local 

governments, preservation organizations, and individuals who may be 

concerned with the possible effects of the proposed undertaking on 

historic properties in a manner consistent with 36 CFR 800.3(f). 

Typically, public participation will also be required (see 36 CFR 

800.2(d) and 36 CFR 800.3(e)). In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), 

notify the ACHP and the SHPO/THPO that the NRC intends to comply 

with Section 106 through the NEPA process. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 15 of 21 

3. Identify historic properties. Identify historic properties and assess 

effects on them in a manner consistent with Section 800.4 through 

800.5. The scope and timing of identification and effect determination 

may be “phased to reflect the Agency Official’s consideration of 

project alternatives in the NEPA process” and the effort of the Agency 

shall be “commensurate with the assessment of other environmental 

factors.” See 36 CFR 800.8(c)(1)(ii). The staff should be aware of the 

requirements to withhold sensitive information about the location of 

historic properties in accordance with Section 304 of the NHPA. 

Guidance is provided in Guidance for Withholding Information 

Regarding Sensitive Historic Resources at ML111080735. 

4. Engage in consultation. Consult with the SHPO/THPO, American 

Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and other parties during 

NEPA scoping, analysis, and documentation. As commensurate with 

the Agency’s NEPA process, the public must be invited to participate. 

5. Develop an EA or EIS. Develop alternatives and potential mitigation 

measures in consultation with other stakeholders, and describe these 

alternatives and measures in the EA or EIS. Section 800.8(c)(2) 

requires that the EA or the draft and final EIS be reviewed by the 

SHPO/THPO and other consulting parties. NRR must also submit the 

EIS (both draft and final) to the ACHP. If any of these parties object 

within the comment period, and the disagreement cannot be resolved, 

NRR staff will refer the matter to the ACHP. The ACHP then has 30 

days to review the objection. If no objections are received within the 

30 day period, the NRC shall continue its compliance with 36 CFR 

800.8(c). Section 800.8(c)(1)(v)) also requires the NRC to develop, in 

consultation with identified consulting parties, alternatives and 

proposed mitigation measures that might avoid, minimize or mitigate 

any adverse effects of the proposed action on historic properties, and 

to describe such alternatives and proposed mitigation measures in the 

EA or draft EIS. 

PROCEDURE FOR LICENSING ACTIONS 

The following should be used as guidance for licensing actions when 

using the NEPA process to satisfy the NRC’s obligations under Section 

106 (refer to Fig. 6, Appendix G). NRR PMs should consult with RERB 

during this process. 

1. Identify the proposed action. Determine if the proposed undertaking is 

an undertaking as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(y). 

2. Determine if the proposed action has the potential to affect historic 

properties. If the undertaking is a type of activity that does not have 

the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such 

historic properties are present, the NRC has no further Section 106 

obligations. Report this determination in the EA’s FONSI or the EIS’ 

Record of Decision (ROD). If, however, the undertaking is a type of 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 16 of 21 

activity that does have the potential to cause effects on historic 

properties, then the NRR PM should contact RERB for further 

guidance and prepare to take or assist with the steps listed in 

paragraphs 3 through 11 below. 

3. Identification of the Consulting Parties. Identify the appropriate 

SHPO/THPO, Federally-recognized tribes, and other consulting 

parties. Typically, public participation will also be required (see 36 

CFR 800.2(d) and 36 CFR 800.3(e)). 

4. Determine Area of Potential Effects (APE). In consultation with the 

SHPO/THPO, determine the scope of the review (the physical area 

affected by the proposed action). The term “area of potential effects” 

is defined in the ACHP regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(d). 

5. Consultation. In consultation with the applicable SHPO/THPO, 

affected Federally-recognized tribes, and other consulting parties 

(including the public), identify historic properties, evaluate historical 

significance, and assess the effects of the proposed action on historic 

and cultural resources. See 36 CFR 800.4. 

6. Determine if adverse effects exist. Applying the ACHP’s criteria of 

adverse effect (36 CFR 800.5(a), determine if there are any adverse 

effects to historic and cultural resources within the APE. The 

determination of whether there are any adverse effects is made in 

consultation with the applicable SHPO/THPO and any Indian tribe or 

Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural 

significance to identified historic properties. NRR staff shall also 

consider any views concerning such effects which have been 

provided by consulting parties and the public. Any determination by 

the NRC of no adverse effect must be documented in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.11(e) and this documentation must be sent to the 

applicable SHPO/THPO and all other consulting parties (36 CFR 

800.5(c)). The SHPO/THPO has 30 days from receipt of this 

documentation to review the no adverse effect finding. If the 

SHPO/THPO agrees or does not respond by the close of the 30 day 

review period, and no other consulting party objects, then the section 

106 process is closed and the NRC may proceed with the action. The 

determination of no adverse effect and the closure of the section 106 

process shall be documented in the draft or final EA or EIS. 

7. Resolve Adverse Effects. If there is an adverse effect, or if within the 

30 day review period the SHPO/THPO or any consulting party notifies 

the agency official in writing that it disagrees with the finding and 

specifies the reasons for the disagreement in the notification, the 

agency official shall continue to work with the consulting parties to 

resolve the disagreement or request review by the ACHP. The 

resolution of adverse effects is typically memorialized in a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that is entered into by the NRC, 

the SHPO/THPO, the licensee/applicant, and possibly, other 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 17 of 21 

consulting parties. See 36 CFR 800.6(b)(1)(iv) and (c). Mitigative 

actions may be discussed in the EA or EIS or through the MOA. 

8. Issue draft EA or EIS for public comment. 

9. Resolve public comments. 

10. Issue FONSI/ROD. 

11. Proceed with action. 

Note: If a project, activity, or program is categorically excluded under 

10 CFR 51.22(c), the NRR PM should determine if it still qualifies as an 

undertaking requiring a separate review under Section 106 pursuant to 

36 CFR 800.3(a). 

For further guidance on Section 106 consultations, refer to: 

http://www.achp.gov/regs-nhl.html. 

5.2.6. NRR Responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 

1996 (MSA) ensures that renewable fishery resources are not exhausted 

by over harvesting or other environmental damage. Section 305 of the 

MSA (16 U.S.C. § 1855) requires Federal agencies to consult with the 

Secretary of Commerce through NMFS before authorizing any action 

which may adversely affect EFH identified under the Act. The Fishery 

Management Councils, in conjunction with NMFS, designate EFH, which 

can consist of both the water column and the seafloor of an aquatic area 

needed to support one or more life stages of a managed fish species. 

When reviewing an action, the NRR PM should coordinate with RERB to 

determine whether impacts to EFH are reasonably foreseeable due to the 

requested action. NRR actions typically requiring an EFH Consultation 

include license renewal reviews and license amendment reviews for 

extended power uprates. RERB will typically initiate such EFH 

Consultations in conjunction with its NEPA review and document the 

status or outcome of the EFH Consultation in the EA or EIS. If no change 

to any aspect of aquatic resources is anticipated, then an evaluation of 

EFH should not be necessary. 

However, if a change to any aspect of aquatic resources is anticipated, 

then the NRC staff should determine if the requested action will result in 

any adverse effects to designated EFH, and if so, contact NMFS to 

initiate EFH consultation. The consultation process for an environmental 

review requiring an EFH assessment can be found in Essential Fish 

Habitat Consultation Guidance, Version 1.1, published by NMFS. The 

guidance is available at: 

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/efhconsultationguidancev1_1.pdf. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 18 of 21 

5.2.7. NRR Responsibilities under the Clean Air Act 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) regulates air pollutant emissions from stationary 

and mobile sources in the U.S. The CAA authorizes the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR Part 50) to protect public health and welfare 

and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants. NAAQS, also 

called “criteria” pollutants, have been set for six principal pollutants that 

are considered harmful to human health and the environment: carbon 

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur 

dioxide. In order to meet the NAAQS set forth by the EPA, states are 

required to create state implementation plans and update the plans 

periodically. The CAA also includes provisions for the EPA to implement 

the Acid Rain Program, which entails a market-based nationwide cap and 

trade program to reduce sulfur dioxide emitted by electric power plants. 

Additionally, the CAA includes programs and provisions for reducing toxic 

air pollutants and ground-level ozone. Larger industrial and commercial 

sources of air emissions are required to obtain an operating permit from 

the State, which may consolidate the information requirements of the 

programs described above into one permit. 

The 1990 amendments to the CAA include a provision that no Federal 

agency may support any activity that does not conform to a state 

implementation plan designed to achieve the NAAQS. EPA issued the 

General Conformity Rule to implement section 176(c) of the CAA, as 

amended (58 FR 63214, November 30, 1993). The rule ensures that 

Federal actions do not interfere with a state’s plans to bring an area into 

attainment with a NAAQS or any applicable State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) or Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP). EPA issued revised general 

conformity regulations, in a final rule published on April 5, 2010, with an 

effective date of July 6, 2010 (75 FR 17254), to streamline the general 

conformity process. The EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B) 

require Federal agencies to conduct an applicability analysis and possibly 

prepare a written conformity determination if a proposed action occurs in 

a NAAQS nonattainment area (NAA) or maintenance area and the total of 

the action’s direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants and their 

precursors would exceed threshold (i.e., de minimis) emissions levels (40 

CFR 93.153(b)). A NAA is any geographic area of the United States that 

is in violation of any NAAQS and has been designated as non-attainment 

under the CAA. A maintenance area is any geographic area of the United 

States previously designated non-attainment and subsequently 

redesignated to attainment and is subject to the requirement to develop a 

maintenance plan under the CAA. These areas are designated in 40 CFR 

Part 81, Subpart C. If the proposed action does not occur in a NAAQS 

nonattainment or maintenance area, the general conformity rule does not 

apply. 

 PROCEDURES FOR LICENSING ACTIONS 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 19 of 21 

 The following guidance is provided regarding NRC staff’s responsibilities 

 under the CAA. The NRR PM should consult with RERB for the following 

 actions: 

1. Determine if the proposed action is located in an attainment, nonattainment, or maintenance area as identified in 40 CFR Part 81, 

 Subpart C. 

2. Determine if the proposed action will result in an increase in air 

emissions. 

3. For a proposed action that will cause an increase in air emissions and 

is located in a nonattainment or maintenance area, determine if the 

emissions exceed threshold (i.e., de minimis) emissions levels (40 

CFR 93.153(b)). 

4. If project emissions exceed threshold emission levels, determine if a 

conformity analysis is required. For more details on conducting 

conformity determinations, see NRO’s Revision to Staff Guidance for 

Conducting General Conformity Determinations (ML12313A190). 

The EA should identify nonattainment, or maintenance areas of the 

proposed action location and the source of air missions resulting from the 

proposed action. For most NRR licensing actions resulting in an EA, an 

assessment of air impacts is generally not necessary unless the proposed 

action would involve air emissions with potentially significant impacts. If 

the proposed action would change air emissions, the NRR PM should 

consult with RERB to determine if a conformity analysis should be 

performed.

5.2.8. NRR Responsibilities under the Clean Water Act 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 was enacted to “restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s 

waters.” The CWA aims to accomplish this objective by preventing point 

and nonpoint pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned 

treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment, and 

maintaining the integrity of wetlands. The CWA does not directly address 

groundwater or water availability. However, many states regulate surface 

water and/or groundwater withdrawals through a combination of 

registration and/or permitting.

Section 401 of the CWA requires that an applicant for a Federal license or 

permit that may result in a discharge of regulated pollutants into waters of 

the United States first obtain, and provide to the Federal licensing agency 

(i.e. NRC), a Section 401 water quality certification from the water 

pollution agency of the State or authorized tribe with jurisdiction over the 

discharge. This certification denotes that discharges from the activity or 

project to be licensed will comply with applicable CWA requirements and 

specifically, that the discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of 

governing water quality standards. If the applicant has not received a 

Section 401 certification, the NRC cannot issue a license unless the 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 20 of 21 

authorized agency has otherwise waived the requirement. The status of 

compliance in obtaining a Section 401 certification and requirements 

should be documented in the EA. 

Section 402 of the CWA established the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) program, which regulates point source 

discharges of pollutants (effluents) into the waters of the United States. 

NPDES permits are issued by the EPA or an authorized state or territory 

to discharging facilities. To date, 46 states and 1 U.S. territory have been 

delegated and assumed full or partial NPDES permitting authority from 

the EPA. In summary, NPDES permits set specific technology-based 

and/or water quality-based discharge limits, prescribe monitoring and 

reporting requirements, as well as set special conditions applicable to 

each discharger. Authorized states are prohibited from adopting 

standards that are less stringent than those established under the Federal 

NPDES permit program, but may adopt or enforce standards that are 

more stringent than the Federal standards. 

In order to comply with the CWA when reviewing a licensing action, if the 

licensing action would change any discharge to a water body, the NRR 

PM should consult with RERB staff to determine if the change in 

discharge quantity or quality would remain within the limits of the facility’s 

NPDES permit. Note also that any NPDES permit holder is required to 

notify the responsible permitting authority as soon as possible of any 

planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility that could 

change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. The 

status of compliance of the NPDES permit requirements should be 

documented in the EA. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 

need to be considered in the EA irrespective of whether a permit has 

been obtained. In order to adequately assess environmental impacts, the 

State’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, which classifies the quality of each 

State’s water bodies, may also need to be reviewed to determine any 

preexisting and/or potential sources of environmental impacts on the 

affected water bodies. 

5.2.9. NRR Responsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

Drinking water sources are protected by the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 

U.S.C. § 300f et seq.) and other Federal laws. If the NRR PM determines 

that the proposed action may have an impact on any drinking or potable 

water source, the NRR PM should consult with RERB staff. 

6. PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Not applicable 

7. PRIMARY CONTACT

Nancy Martinez 

301-415-2719 

Nancy.Martinez@nrc.gov 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 21 of 21 

8. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION

NRR/DLR/RERB 

9. EFFECTIVE DATE

TBDJuly 1, 2013 

10. REFERENCES

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic 

Licensing and Production and Utilization Facilities.”

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements 

for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

10 CFR Part 170. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 170, “Fees for 

Facilities, Materials, Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services Under 

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended.” 

15 CFR Part 930. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Commerce and Foreign Trade, 

Part 930, “Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs.” 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property, Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 50, “National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.” 

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 51, “Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation 

Plans.” 

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 

81, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 

40 CFR Part 93. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 

93, “Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation 

Plans.” 

40 CFR Part 93. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 93, “Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation 

Plans.” 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 22 of 21 

50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 

402, “Interagency Cooperation – Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended.” 

50 CFR Part 600. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 

600, “Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions.” 

58 FR 63214, Environmental Protection Agency. Determining Conformity of General 

Federal Actions to State of Federal Implementation Plans, Vol. 58, No. 228. November 

30, 1993. 

65 FR 77124, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Coastal Zone 

Management Act Federal Consistency Regulations. Vol. 65, No. 237, pp. 77124-77125. 

December 8, 2000. 

69 FR 52040, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Policy Statement on the Treatment 

of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions. Vol. 69, No. 

163, pp. 52040-52048. August 24, 2004. 

75 FR 17254, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Revisions to the General 

Conformity Regulations; Final Rule. Vol. 75, No. 64, pp. 17254–17279, April 5, 2010. 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). 42 USC 2011, et seq. 

Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA). 42 USC 7401-7671q. 

Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA). Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977, 33 USC 

1251, et seq.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). 16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A).

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. “Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act.” Washington, D.C. Available URL: 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf (accessed August 20, 2012). 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). 16 USC 1531, et seq. 

Executive Order 12898. 1994. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 32.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). 16 USC 661, et seq.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). PL 94-265, as 

amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006, PL 109-479. 16 USC 1855.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008. “Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management” website. National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. Available URL: 

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/welcome.html (accessed August 20, 2012). 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 Page 23 of 21 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance. 

Version 1.1. Silver Spring, MD. Available URL: 

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/efhconsultationguidancev1_1.pdf (accessed August 20, 

2012).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Digest of Federal Resource Laws. Available 

URL: http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/resourcelaws.htm (accessed August 20, 2012). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. 

Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation 

and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Washington, 

D.C. Available URL: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/pdf/Sec%207%20Handbook.pdf 

(accessed August 20, 2012). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Water Resources Development Under the Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act. Arlington, VA. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/fwca.html (accessed August 20, 2012). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, 

D.C. May 1996. ADAMS Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1996. Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing 

Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors. NUREG-1537. Washington, 

D.C. February 1996. ADAMS No. ML042430055. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1999. Standard Review Plans for Environmental 

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1555, 

Supplement 1. Washington, D.C. October 1999. ADAMS No. ML003702019. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2005. U.S. NRC Regulations Handbook. 

NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 6. Washington, D.C. September 2005. ADAMS No. 

ML052720461. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2007. Delegation of Signature Authority. Office 

Instruction ADM-200, Revision 10. Washington, D.C. January 29, 2007. ADAMS No. 

ML070050008.

.
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 A-1 

Appendix A - Change History 

Office Instruction LIC-203 

Table 1. LIC-203 Change History 

Date Description of Changes 

Method Used to 

Announce & 

Distribute 

Training 

06/21/2001 This OI is a conversion of OL-906, Revision 

2, which included guidance on 

environmental justice and improvements to 

format and content of the EA template. 

Changes to the guidance include minor 

clarifications offered by the NRR staff. No 

significant policy or procedural changes 

have been made to the guidance document 

(1) E-mail to all staff 

(2) Copies to SES 

and Licensing 

Assistants 

E-mail 

announcement 

with 

recommended 

self-study 

05/24/2004 This is a revision of NRR Office Instruction 

LIC-203. Changes to the guidance include 

the clarification of NRR Responsibilities 

under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act. There is a policy change in fulfilling 

NRR Responsibilities under the National 

Historic Preservation Act. The Commission 

is presently formulating its policy statement 

on environmental justice matters. When 

finalized, appropriate modifications to this 

OI will be considered. Other than these, no 

significant policy or procedural changes 

have been made to the guidance document.

E-mail to all staff E-mail 

announcement 

with 

recommended 

self-study 

02/17/2009 This document is the second revision of 

NRR Office Instruction LIC-203. This 

revision incorporates the final Commission 

policy on environmental justice; 

incorporates NRR responsibilities under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act; the Clean Air Act, 

and the Clean Water Act; clarifies NRR 

responsibilities under the Coastal Zone 

Management Act and the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act; revises figures and 

tables; removes the environmental 

assessment templates to enable the 

templates to be kept by RERB as a living 

document; and amends the roles and 

responsibilities to reflect the current NRR 

E-mail to all staff E-mail 

announcement 

with 

recommended 

self-study 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 A-2 

office organization. 

X/X/20120

6/24/2013

This document is the third revision of NRR 

Office Instruction LIC-203. This revision 

incorporates the amended final rule for 

10 CFR 51.22 “Criterion for categorical 

exclusion; identification of licensing and 

regulatory actions eligible for categorical 

exclusion or otherwise not requiring 

environmental review,” which was published 

May 19, 2010. This revision incorporates 

updated guidance on the Clean Air Act and 

Clean Water Act. In addition, this revision 

incorporates updated guidance on the 

Endangered Species Act, Section 7 formal 

and informal consultations. Lastly, this 

revision incorporates the Commission’s 

updated guidance on environmental justice 

to clarify instructions and account for 

changes in the 2010 Census and clarifies 

NRR responsibilities under the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

E-mail to all staff E-mail 

announcement 

with 

recommended 

self-study 

 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-1 

Appendix B 

Preparation and Use of Categorical Exclusions 

Categorical exclusions (CATXs) are specific categories of actions that the NRC has previously 

determined will not have an individual or cumulative significant effect on the human 

environment. An agency establishes its list of categorical exclusions by rulemaking. The NRC’s 

list of categorical exclusions is set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c). Experience has shown that these 

activities do not result in any significant effect upon the human environment, and therefore, an 

in-depth environmental review is not necessary for each successive and identical action. The 

purpose of categorically excluding activities that have no individual or cumulative significant 

effects on the environment is to allow the NRC staff to focus on more extensive NEPA analyses 

for those actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 

On April 19, 2010, NRC amended the list of activities included within 10 CFR 51.22(c) based on 

the regulatory experience gained since the initial development of the regulation in March 1984 

(75 FR 20248). Specifically, staff reviewed EAs and associated FONSIs from 1987 to 2007 to 

see which activities repeatedly resulted in no significant impacts to the human environment. 

Based on this review, the scopes of some of the NRC’s categorical exclusions were expanded 

and two new categorical exclusions were added. Section B.2 describes these recent changes. 

The NRC has the option to prepare and issue an EA or EIS for any proposed action, even if the 

proposed action meets the criteria for a particular categorical exclusion (10 CFR 51.22(b)). If a 

proposed action meets the criteria for a particular categorical exclusion, and the NRC staff 

wishes to rely upon that categorical exclusion, then the staff must determine that no 

extraordinary circumstances2

 are present that will preclude use of that categorical exclusion. 

Extraordinary circumstances are those in which a normally excluded action has the potential to 

have a significant environmental effect (see CEQ regulation defining the term “categorical 

exclusion” at 40 CFR 1508.4). Use of a CATX would not be appropriate in those situations in 

which extraordinary circumstances are present; the staff must prepare an EA, or if necessary, 

an EIS. Extraordinary circumstances are discussed further below. 

B.1 Documenting the CATX 

The NRR PM should document any NRR licensing or regulatory action that is determined to fall 

within the scope of a categorical exclusion listed in 10 CFR 51.22. This documentation serves 

as an administrative record that the NRC had a practical rationale for applying the CATX. The 

written analysis showing the application of the CATX can be included within any NRC publicly 

available document, such as the safety or technical review, a Federal Register notice, a letter of 

response to the applicant/licensee or otherwise added to the docket for that particular project. A 

separate stand alone decision document is not required to document the CATX. 

 

2

 The NRC uses the term “special circumstances” in 10 CFR 51.22(b). The term “special circumstances” 

is interpreted to be analogous to “extraordinary circumstances,” the phrase used by CEQ and virtually all 

other Federal agencies. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-2 

At a minimum, such documentation should include (1) an explanation on how the action fits 

within one of the categorical exclusions listed in 10 CFR 51.22 and (2) a statement that no 

extraordinary circumstances would preclude the proposed project from qualifying as a 

categorically excluded action. A template and two examples of CATX documentation are 

provided below. 

General Template: 

This action is categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c) [state subsection(s) that apply],

and there are no extraordinary circumstances present that would preclude reliance on this 

exclusion. The NRC staff has made this finding because this action applies [describe how the 

proposed actions fits within the categorical exclusion and any subcategories or factors 

described within the categorical exclusion]. [The following two sentences are added to 

document that there are no extraordinary circumstances that would prevent the use of 

the categorical exclusion:] In addition, the NRC staff has determined that there would be no 

significant impacts to biota, water resources, historic properties, cultural resources, or 

socioeconomics conditions in the region. As such, there are no extraordinary circumstances 

present that would preclude reliance on this categorical exclusion. [It is the Project Manager’s 

responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the above statements]. Therefore, pursuant to 10 

CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 

prepared in connection with [summarize NRC’s action]. 

Example of a CATX for NRC approval of a licensee’s or applicant’s request for an exemption 

from reporting requirements3: 

NRC approval of this exemption request is categorically excluded under 10 CFR 

51.22(c)(25)(vi)(B), and there are no extraordinary circumstances present that would preclude 

reliance on this exclusion. [The following two sentences apply to the criteria that must be 

met to use one of the exemption request categorical exclusions listed in 

10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)—in this specific example, clause (B), which applies to licensee 

requests for exemptions from reporting requirements:] The [NRR staff director (or his or 

her designee)] has made this finding because this action applies to granting of an exemption 

from the reporting requirements of [identify NRC regulation]. The [NRR staff director (or his 

or her designee)] has determined that approval of this exemption request involves no 

significant hazards consideration; no significant change in the types or significant increase in the 

amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; no significant increase in individual or 

cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; no significant construction impact; and no 

significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. [The 

following two sentences are added to document that there are no extraordinary 

circumstances that would prevent the use of the categorical exclusion:] In addition, the 

NRC staff has determined that there would be no significant impacts to biota, water resources, 

historic properties, cultural resources, or socioeconomic conditions in the region. As such, there 

are no extraordinary circumstances present that would preclude reliance on this categorical 

exclusion. [It is the Project Manager’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the above 

statements]. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or 

 

3

 The NRR PM should be aware that categorical exclusions are appropriate for a limited scope of NRC 

approvals of licensee exemption requests as specified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-3 

environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the approval of this exemption 

request. 

Example of a CATX for NRC approval of a licensee’s request for an amendment to a license 

issued under 10 CFR Part 50: 

NRC approval of this license amendment request is categorically excluded under 10 CFR 

51.22(c)(12), and there are no extraordinary circumstances present that would preclude reliance 

on this exclusion. [The following two sentences apply to the criteria that must be met to 

use the categorical exclusion listed in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(12)—in this specific example, 

issuance of a Part 50 license amendment request relating solely to safeguards matters:] 

The [NRR staff director (or his or her designee)] has made this finding because this action 

applies to granting an amendment to a license issued under 10 CFR Part 50, the requested 

amendment relates solely to safeguards matters, and the amendment would be confined to the 

following activities: (i) organizational and procedural matters; (ii) modifications to systems used 

for security and/or materials accountability; and (iii) administrative changes. The NRC staff has 

determined that approval of this license amendment will not involve any significant construction 

impacts. [The following two sentences are added to document that there are no 

extraordinary circumstances that would prevent the use of the categorical exclusion:] In 

addition, the NRC staff has determined that there would be no significant impacts to biota, water 

resources, historic properties, cultural resources, or socioeconomic conditions in the region. As 

such, there are no extraordinary circumstances present that would preclude reliance on this 

categorical exclusion. [It is the Project Manager’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy of 

the above statements]. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact 

statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of 

the amendment. 

For actions which clearly qualify for a CATX, no coordination with RERB is necessary. In some 

cases, actions are not clearly encompassed by the CATX or there are extraordinary 

circumstances whereby an action normally covered under a CATX listed in 10 CFR 51.22(c) 

could cause significant impacts to the human environment. In such cases, a more detailed 

environmental analysis may be appropriate. It is suggested that the NRR PM coordinate with 

RERB and, if appropriate, OGC, in making determinations on whether a CATX is applicable for 

actions that do not clearly qualify as a CATX. 

An acceptable method for considering extraordinary circumstances and documenting a CATX 

decision is to use a checklist. Section B.3 contains a generic checklist with instructions, which 

can be used to document whether special circumstances are present. 

B.2 Revisions to the List of Categorical Exclusions 

On April 19, 2010, the NRC revised the 10 CFR 51.22 requirements regarding categorical 

exclusions (75 FR 20248). As described above, many of the revisions were based on a review 

of EAs over an extended period to determine which NRC actions consistently resulted in 

findings of no significant impact. Below is a summary of the changes for categorical exclusions 

that may be relevant to NRR. The “Discussion and Findings” are excerpts from the final rule’s 

statements of consideration that explain why the categorical exclusion was revised or added to 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-4 

10 CFR 51.22(c). While this section focuses on a subset of categorical exclusions that are most 

likely to be used by NRR, any of the 25 categorical exclusions described in 10 CFR 51.22(c) 

may be used, if appropriate, for NRR activities. 

Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)

This CATX states: 

Amendments to any part in this chapter which relate to— 

(i) Procedures for filing and reviewing applications for licenses or construction permits or 

early site permits or other forms of permission or for amendments to or renewals of 

licenses or construction permits or early site permits or other forms of permission; 

(ii) Recordkeeping requirements; 

(iii) Reporting requirements; 

(iv) Education, training, experience, qualification or other employment suitability 

requirements; or 

(v) Actions on petitions for rulemaking relating to these amendments. 

Statement of Consideration (75 FR 20253): 

The final rule amends 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3) to delete the specific listing of 10 CFR Parts and to 

add a generic reference to reflect any part of CFR Chapter 10. This revision eliminates the 

need for changes due to new parts being added or deleted. As a result, efficiencies will be 

gained in the rulemaking process. 

This amendment redesignates the existing subparagraph (iv) as subparagraph (v) and adds a 

new subparagraph (iv) to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3) to expand the categorical exclusion to include 

amendments concerning education, training, experience, qualification, or other employment 

suitability requirements established in the regulations. 

Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)

This CATX states4

: 

Issuance of an amendment to a permit or license for a reactor under Part 50 or Part 52 of this 

chapter that changes a requirement or issuance of an exemption from a requirement, with 

respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined 

 

4

 On June 7, 2013, 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) was revised to clarify that this categorical exclusion 

applies to stand alone exemption issuances (78 FR at 34246).

 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-5 

in Part 20 of this chapter; or the issuance of an amendment to a permit or license for a 

reactor under part 50 or part 52 of this chapter that changes an inspection or a surveillance 

requirement; provided that: 

(i) The amendment or exemption involves no significant hazards consideration; 

(ii) There is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of 

any effluents that may be released offsite; and 

(iii) There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation 

exposure. 

Statement of Consideration (75 FR 20253): 

The final rule amends 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) to broaden the scope of the categorical exclusion to 

include the granting of a power reactor licensee exemption request from a requirement 

pertaining to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as 

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. Under the previous provision, the granting of such an exemption 

request would not be covered by this categorical exclusion and therefore, would have required 

the preparation of an EA. The Commission has now determined that there is ample data in the 

form of EAs and FONSIs to justify the categorical exclusion of the granting of these exemptions, 

provided that for each exemption request, the NRC first finds that the safety criteria set forth in 

10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) is met (i.e., the exemption involves no significant hazards consideration, 

there is no significant change in the types of, or significant increase in the amounts of any 

effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in individual or 

cumulative occupational radiation exposure). During the period 2003 through 2007, at least 50 

EA/FONSIs resulted from licensee requests for such exemptions. 

Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10)

This CATX states: 

Issuance of an amendment to a permit or license issued under this chapter which— 

(i) Changes surety, insurance and/or indemnity requirements; 

(ii) Changes recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements; 

(iii) Changes the licensee’s or permit holder’s name, phone number, business or e-mail 

address; 

(iv) Changes the name, position, or title of an officer of the licensee or permit holder, 

including but not limited to, the radiation safety officer or quality assurance manager; or 

(v) Changes the format of the license or permit or otherwise makes editorial, corrective 

or other minor revisions, including the updating of NRC approved references. 

Statement of Consideration (75 FR 20253): 

The final rule amends 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) to delete the specific listing of 10 CFR Parts and to 

add a generic reference to cover any part of 10 CFR, Chapter 1. This revision eliminates the 

need for changes due to new parts being added or deleted. As a result, efficiencies are gained 

in the rulemaking process. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-6 

In addition, 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) is revised to add new subparagraphs (iii), (iv), and (v) to clarify 

that changes to a license or permit that are administrative, organizational, or editorial in nature 

are not subject to environmental review. The NRC has conducted several EAs, each resulting 

in a FONSI, for minor administrative changes to licenses and permits because these actions 

were not specifically identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c). These types of amendments to a license or 

permit facilitate the orderly conduct of the licensee’s business and ensure that information 

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

amendments would also include the changing of references on licenses and other licensee 

documents (e.g., licensee’s operational procedures) to reflect amendments to NRC regulations 

and updated NRC-approved guidance (e.g., NUREG documents). Under the previous 

provision, the NRC was required to prepare EAs and FONSIs for the following administrative 

actions: 

(1) Amendments to reflect changes in ownership; 

(2) Amendments to reflect organization name changes; 

(3) Amendments to reflect corporate restructuring, including mergers; 

(4) Amendments to licenses to reflect changes in references; and 

(5) Amendments correcting typographical and editorial errors on licenses, permits, and 

associated technical specification documents. 

The Commission has consistently determined that these types of amendments have no 

significant effect on the human environment. 

Background for 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25):

This CATX states: 

Granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation of this chapter, provided 

that— 

(i) There is no significant hazards consideration; 

(ii) There is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of 

any effluents that may be released offsite; 

(iii) There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational 

radiation exposure; 

(iv) There is no significant construction impact; 

(v) There is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological 

accidents; and 

(vi) The requirements from which an exemption is sought involve: 

(A) Recordkeeping requirements; 

(B) Reporting requirements; 

(C) Inspection or surveillance requirements; 

(D) Equipment servicing or maintenance scheduling requirements; 

(E) Education, training, experience, qualification, requalification or other 

employment suitability requirements; 

(F) Safeguard plans, and materials control and accounting inventory scheduling 

requirements; 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-7 

(G) Scheduling requirements; 

(H) Surety, insurance or indemnity requirements; or 

(I) Other requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature. 

Statement of Consideration (75 FR 20255): 

The final rule adds a new categorical exclusion, 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), which addresses the 

granting of licensee exemption requests from certain regulatory requirements. Various NRC 

regulations allow for the granting of specific exemptions from NRC regulations. Before an 

exemption may be granted, the NRC must satisfy certain criteria, namely, it must make findings 

that the exemption is “authorized by law,” “will not endanger life or property or the common 

defense and security,” and is “otherwise in the public interest.” In the case of Parts 50 and 52 

exemptions, the exemption request must meet additional criteria. The NRC thoroughly 

evaluates each exemption request under these provisions, and only those exemption requests 

that meet these provisional criteria are granted. 

Prior to this final rule, 10 CFR 51.22 did not provide a categorical exclusion for the granting of 

exemption requests from administrative, managerial, or organizational regulatory requirements 

that will not have a significant effect on the human environment. The NRC has found that the 

majority of the exemptions it grants are administrative or otherwise minor in nature and do not 

trigger any of the significance criteria that are required findings under other categorical 

exclusions, such as 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i)-(iii). The NRC has prepared numerous EAs, each 

resulting in a FONSI, to support the granting of such exemption requests. 

This categorical exclusion contains prescriptive criteria that limit its application to only those 

exemptions that will not have a significant effect on the human environment. The categorical 

exclusion only applies to those exemption requests that meet all of the criteria enumerated in 

10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)-(vi). Thus, the requirements from which the exemption is sought must 

be one of those listed in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi). In addition, the granting of the exemption 

request cannot result in any: 

(1) significant hazards consideration; 

(2) significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents 

that may be released offsite; 

(3) significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation 

exposure; 

(4) significant construction impact; or 

(5) significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. 

The NRC has found that granting exemptions for the types of requirements listed in 

subparagraphs 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(A)-(I) are categories of actions that normally do not result in any 

significant effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the human environment. Thus, in order 

for the categorical exclusion to be applicable to a specific exemption request, the NRC staff 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-8 

must first make the safety findings described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)-(v) and then determine 

that the requirement is of a type listed in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi). 

B.3 Checklist to Support an Environmental Finding of Categorical Exclusion 

A brief analysis is helpful in ensuring that the proposed action clearly falls within the scope of 

the CATX. Documenting this analysis establishes an administrative record of the NRC staff’s 

rationale that would serve to rebut any challenge to the NRC’s use of the CATX. The following 

checklist is intended to assist in both developing and documenting this analysis. The checklist 

will also assist in identifying any special or extraordinary circumstances that may prevent the 

use of the CATX and require, instead, the preparation of an EA. 

Below is a general checklist. The checklist consists of questions which ask about the likelihood 

that a particular kind of environmental consequence would result from the proposed action. The 

NRR PM may consult with RERB staff, as necessary, in order to complete the checklist. If the 

checklist is used, it would be appropriate to file the documentation in ADAMS. 

The preparer of this checklist (typically, the NRR PM) should have knowledge of the proposed 

action and the environmental features within or near the project area that could be impacted by 

the proposed action. Although some of the responses may be obtained from the preparer’s own 

knowledge and observations, the preparer should also refer to previous environmental 

documents, correspondence between the NRC, the applicant/licensee, and others, and to 

information available on other Federal agency, state, and local government websites to fully 

complete the checklist. 

To complete the checklist, the preparer should check “Yes” or “No” for each question.5

 Attach 

documentation as needed to support the answer. A “Yes” response may indicate that an 

extraordinary circumstance is present, removing the proposed action from the scope of the 

categorical exclusion. If there is a “Yes” response, the preparer should consult with RERB. A 

“No” response would support use of the categorical exclusion, with respect to that resource 

area. If more data is required to answer a question, note this in the “Rationale and/or 

Documentation” column. The NRR PM may consult with RERB staff about what data are 

needed and/or how to obtain it. 

Checklist to Support an Environmental Finding of 

Categorical Exclusion (CATX)

Project Name and Location [insert] 

Project Description [insert] 

 

5

 This paragraph applies to all checklist questions except for question no. 20. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-9 

Checklist to Support an Environmental Finding of 

Categorical Exclusion (CATX)

CATX Category (identify 10 

CFR 51.22 CATX, e.g., 10 

CFR 51.22(c)(9)). 

[insert] 

Does the CATX category 

selected above cover the 

full extent of the proposed 

action? 

[insert] 

Environmental Resource Area Review for 

Potential Effects and Impacts 

Impact 

Anticipated? 

Rationale 

and/or 

Documentation

Yes No 

Potential Impacts to Biota, the Physical Environment, and Land Use 

Consider whether the proposed action would result in any construction, digging, grading, vegetation 

clearing, or other ground-disturbing activities, or increases in noise, dust, sedimentation, pollution, effluents, 

or salt deposits, or other activities that could directly or indirectly affect the resources described below. 

Note that the terms “project” and “proposed action” are intended to be synonymous. 

1. Biotic communities: Would the project disturb areas with plant 

communities, wetlands, or aquatic habitats and/or cause displacement 

of wildlife, fish, migratory birds, or other biota? If yes, check 

appropriate boxes below. 

Check all appropriate boxes

 The proposed action would likely impact previously disturbed 

natural communities. 

 The proposed action would likely impact previously undisturbed 

natural communities. 

 Noise, construction, or other activities resulting from the proposed 

action would likely displace wildlife. 

 

2. Water Resources: Would the project significantly impact water 

quality to groundwater, surface water bodies, public water supply 

systems or violate Federal, State, or tribal water quality standards? 

Would the project cause a significant change in the types or a 

significant increase in the amounts of effluents that may be released to 

water bodies? Would the project significantly increase erosion or 

runoff? 

 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-10 

3. Special Status Species and Habitats: Are there any State or 

Federally listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species (flora 

or fauna) or designated critical habitat within the project area that 

would be impacted by the proposed action? Is the project located in, 

or could the proposed action cause adverse effects to a waterway, 

stream, or water body that is designated as essential fish habitat? 

 

4. Hazardous materials: Would the proposed action involve or affect 

hazardous materials or involve construction in an area that contains 

hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste?

 

5. Air quality: Would the proposed action include construction activities, 

increased emissions, or increased vehicular traffic? If yes, check 

appropriate boxes below. 

Check all appropriate boxes

 Project is located within or adjacent to USEPA-defined 

Nonattainment or maintenance area. 

 Project is accounted for in State Implementation Plan. 

 Project air pollutant emissions do not exceed applicable de minimis 

levels as defined by General Conformity. 

 

6. Compatible land use: Would the proposed action impact or change 

any land uses? If yes, check appropriate boxes below. 

Check all appropriate boxes

 The proposed action would likely have an impact on onsite land 

use. 

 The proposed action would likely have an impact on offsite land 

use. 

 Land use changes resulting from the proposed action would not be 

consistent with State or local plans, goals, policy, zoning or controls. 

 

7. Special land use designations: Would the proposed action impact 

floodplains, a U.S. National Park Service-designated Wild or Scenic 

River, or a coastal zone as defined by a State’s Coastal Management 

Plan?

 

8. Parks, public lands, refuges and recreational resources: Would 

the proposed action impact publicly owned land from a public park, 

recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state or 

local significance? 

 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-11 

Environmental Resource Area Review for 

Potential Effects and Impacts 

Impact 

Anticipated?

Rationale 

and/or 

Documentation

Yes No 

Potential Impacts to Historic Properties and Historic and Cultural Resources 

Consider whether the proposed action would result in any adverse effect to any historic property (as defined 

in the ACHP regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(l)) or historic or cultural resource, including but not limited to, 

ground-disturbing activities that could remove or damage historic properties or cultural resources or the 

construction of new structures that could impact viewsheds, as described below.

9. Historic Properties: Would the proposed action have an adverse 

effect on a prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, 

object or traditional cultural property (TCP) included in or eligible for 

the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places, or a 

State or local register of historic places? If yes, check appropriate 

boxes below. 

Check all appropriate boxes

 The proposed action would likely result in a visual impact to the 

viewshed of a historic property, such as a historic district, site, 

building, structure , object or TCP that is included in or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Properties, or a State or 

local register of historic places. 

 The proposed action would likely result in an adverse effect, 

other than a viewshed impact, to a historic property, such as a 

historic district, site, building, structure, object or TCP that is 

included in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places, or a State or local register of historic places. 

 The proposed action would directly or indirectly affect a district, 

site, building, structure, object or TCP over 50 years old. 

 

10. Historic and Cultural Resources: Would the proposed action 

have an effect on historic or cultural resources (i.e., archaeological 

sites, TCP, prehistoric or historic districts, buildings, structures, or 

objects with an associated historical, cultural, archaeological, 

architectural, community, or aesthetic value) of Federal, Tribal, State 

or local significance? If yes, check appropriate boxes below. 

Check all appropriate boxes

 The proposed action would affect previously disturbed ground. 

 The proposed action would affect previously undisturbed ground. 

 The proposed action would likely result in a visual impact to the 

viewshed of a cultural resource (e.g., by the construction of new 

buildings or structures). 

 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-12 

Environmental Resource Area Review for 

Potential Effects and Impacts 

Impact 

Anticipated?

Rationale 

and/or 

Documentation

Yes No 

11. Socioeconomics: Would the project significantly change the 

amount of taxes paid by the licensee or the number of workers at the 

facility? 

 

12. Transportation: Would the project cause a significant increase in 

traffic congestion or cause a degradation of level of service? 

13. Community Services and Housing: Would the project cause 

disruption of or increased strain on community services (e.g., police, 

schools, hospitals) or be inconsistent with the plans or goals of the 

community? Is there adequate available housing for the potential 

influx of new workers? 

 

14. Noise levels: Would the proposed action increase noise levels for 

noise sensitive areas (residences, schools, churches, hospitals)? 

Check all appropriate boxes

The proposed action would cause the following type of increase in 

noise levels: 

 Intermittent 

 Temporary (i.e., less than 180 days) 

 Long-term or permanent

 

15. Environmental justice: Would the proposed action cause any 

human health or environmental effects on the general population? If 

yes, check appropriate boxes below. 

Check all appropriate boxes

 There are potentially affected minority and/or low-income 

populations within the impact area. 

 If the above box is checked, would the proposed action cause 

any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority and/or and low-income 

populations? For example, would there be higher exposure rates to 

minority and/or low-income populations or increased traffic in these 

communities?

 

 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-13 

Environmental Resource Area Review for 

Potential Effects and Impacts 

Impact 

Anticipated?

Rationale 

and/or 

Documentation

Yes No 

Potential Impacts to Radiological Health

16. Human Health: Would the proposed action cause a significant 

increase in individual or cumulative occupational or public radiation 

exposure? 

 

17. Accidents: Would the proposed action cause a significant increase 

in the potential for or consequences from a radiological accident? 

18. Effluents: Would the proposed action cause a significant change in 

the types or a significant increase in the amounts of any effluents 

that may be released offsite?

 

Other Considerations 

19. Cumulative impacts: When considered together with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, on or off the 

project site, regardless of whether it is a Federal or non-Federal 

project, would the proposed action produce a significant cumulative 

effect? 

 

20. Environmental laws: Has the applicant or licensee provided a list 

of applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations to which 

the proposed action is subject?

 

21. Highly controversial: Is the proposed action likely to be highly 

controversial on environmental grounds or is it likely to generate a 

great deal of public interest? A proposed action is considered highly 

controversial when an action is opposed on environmental grounds 

by a Federal, State, or local or Tribal government agency, or by a 

substantial number of persons affected by such action. The amount 

of public involvement and controversy related to previous actions at 

the site would be important to consider. 

 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 B-14 

Environmental Resource Area Review for 

Potential Effects and Impacts 

Impact 

Anticipated?

Rationale 

and/or 

Documentation

Yes No 

22. Uncertainty: 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 would result in ground disturbance, this uncertainty 

should be resolved before using a CATX and proceeding with the 

installation. If the installation would not result in ground disturbance, 

there may be no need to resolve the uncertainty. 

Conclusions

Based on the above checklist, the preparer concludes: 

 The proposed action meets the criteria of a listed CATX under 10 CFR 51.22(c), and no special or 

extraordinary circumstances exist that would require further environmental review (i.e., preparation of an EA 

or EIS). 

 The proposed action may result in significant impacts to the human environment. Therefore, a more 

detailed environmental review (i.e., preparation of an EA or EIS) is required. 

Licensing Project Manager 

Name [insert] 

Licensing Project Manager 

Signature [insert] 

Date [insert] 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 C-1 

Appendix C 

Content of NRR Environmental Assessments 

This guidance is intended to provide assistance in developing an environmental assessment 

(EA). The reviewer may use the Environmental Assessment Procedural Flow Chart (Fig. 1) to 

aid in determining if the proposed action requires an EA, an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS), or meets the criteria for a categorical exclusion. In accordance with subsection (a) of 10 

CFR 51.30, “Environmental Assessment,” EA sections are outlined below with a summary of the 

information that should be included in each section. The sections are as follows: 

• identification of the proposed action; 

• the purpose and need for the proposed action; 

• identification of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action; 

• the environmental impacts of the proposed action; 

• the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, as appropriate; 

• list of agencies and persons consulted; and 

• identification of sources used. 

The specific sections of the EA are differentiated below by the underscore. 

Identification of the Proposed Action

This section briefly describes the proposed action, references the pertinent licensee application, 

if any, and includes the date of such application. 

The Need for the Proposed Action

A discussion of the need for the proposed action is required by 10 CFR 51.30(a)(1)(i). When 

writing this portion of the EA, the preparer should discuss the applicant’s motivation for 

submitting the application to the NRC. For example, does the requested exemption or license 

amendment provide some benefit to the applicant if granted? How would the applicant be 

affected if the application was not approved? 

Identification and Description of Alternatives to the Proposed Action

This section identifies, describes, and evaluates reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, 

including at a minimum, the no action alternative. In addition, as required by 10 CFR 

51.30(a)(1)(ii), this section should describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of 

action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of 

available resources. 

 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 C-2 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

The environmental impacts of the proposed action must be evaluated in accordance with 

10 CFR 51.30(a)(1)(iii). This section should include an evaluation of both radiological and 

non-radiological impacts. Impacts can be direct, indirect, cumulative, long-term, and short-term. 

The preparer should evaluate the environmental resource areas below. It is important to 

understand that all environmental resource areas are not required to be discussed in detail in 

each EA. The preparer should focus the analysis and discussion on resource areas that are 

expected to be impacted. 

• Radiological and Human Health: The preparer should briefly discuss the radiological 

impacts (e.g., changes in dose) to members of the public and occupational workers that 

result from the proposed action. The discussion should include changes to the types 

and amounts of radioactive discharges (gaseous, liquid, and solid material) and direct 

radiation during routine operations and any actions considered by the licensee to keep 

doses as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). For the radiological impacts that 

result from design basis accidents (DBAs), the preparer should briefly discuss the 

radiological impacts for the proposed action by comparing the calculated dose submitted 

by the licensee against the applicable dose criteria in 10 CFR 100.11. The preparer 

should coordinate the draft DBA evaluation with the licensing Project Manager in the 

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing to ensure that the DBA discussion in the EA or 

EIS is consistent with the conclusions contained in the safety evaluation for the 

proposed licensing action. For routine operations, the preparer should compare the 

public and occupational worker doses that are expected for the proposed action to 

ensure compliance with the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20. 

• Land Use: The preparer should evaluate any changes in land use including temporary 

or permanent construction and conversion of undisturbed or previously disturbed land. 

Note that this resource area may overlap with ecology, archaeological, and other 

resource areas, but may warrant a separate discussion depending on the type of 

modification that would occur as a result of the proposed action. 

• Water Use: The preparer should evaluate any changes in water use including altered 

intake or discharge volume, altered temperature of discharged water, or any other 

change in use of surface or ground water that would result from the proposed action. 

The preparer should ensure that any changes to water use are within the limits set forth 

by the applicant’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, if 

applicable. 

• Air Resources: The preparer should evaluate any changes to non-radiological air 

emissions, specifically carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, 

ozone, and sulfur dioxide, which are regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Refer to 

section 5.2.7 for a description of NRR’s responsibilities under the CAA. 

• Ecology: The preparer should evaluate any changes to both the aquatic and terrestrial 

environment(s) including alterations in natural communities, changes in species 

composition, population dynamics, and other impacts that may result from the proposed 

action. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 C-3 

• Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species and Essential Fish Habitat: The 

preparer should evaluate any impacts to threatened, endangered, and protected 

species and/or critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act and impacts to 

EFH under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Refer to sections 5.2.4 and 5.2.6 for a 

description of NRR’s responsibilities under these laws. 

• Historic and Cultural Resources: The preparer should evaluate any changes to 

historic properties and cultural resources under the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA). Refer to section 5.2.5 and Appendix G for a description of NRR’s 

responsibilities under the NHPA. 

• Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice: The preparer should evaluate any 

impact to socioeconomic conditions and minority populations and low-income 

populations. Refer to section 5.2.2 for a description of NRR’s responsibilities under 

the NRC’s Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in 

NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040) and Appendix D for 

procedures for an environmental justice review. 

The preparer should describe each resource that would be affected by the proposed licensing or 

regulatory action and the significance of the relationship between the environmental resource 

and the change caused by the proposed action. For example, air (the environmental resource) 

would be affected by a release of particulate matter (the plant component) resulting from the 

proposed action and the significance of the release would depend on the types and amounts of 

the emissions. In this case, the preparer would address the question, would the emission for 

the contaminant be above the regulatory limits or would it be a small fraction of the regulatory 

limits? This section should clearly state which resources are affected by the proposed action. 

Likewise, it should clearly state that no environmental resources are affected, if that is the case. 

Although impacts may exist, they may not be significant, and impacts can be beneficial as well 

as adverse. However, an impact that is not significant does not equate to “no impact.” Typical 

impacts may include, but are not limited to: 

• Increased radiation dose to workers and/or members of the public; 

• Habitat destruction; 

• Degradation of water quality or water supply; 

• Increased air emissions; 

• Increased noise; 

• Degradation of wetlands or bogs; 

• Damage or reduced access to historic properties or cultural resources; 

• Changes to local or regional socioeconomic conditions or population demographics; 

and 

• Increased traffic or other transportation effects. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 C-4 

If a FONSI is to be issued, the impacts section should certify that the proposed action would not 

significantly increase the probability of accidents, would not increase any radioactive effluents or 

the resultant doses above regulatory limits, adversely affect any endangered or threatened 

species, or entail an NRC undertaking involving historic sites. Additionally, if the proposed 

action (typically a change in a plant component or a change in plant operation) does not affect 

any environmental resources, explain this in the impacts section. 

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Alternatives to the proposed action must be evaluated in accordance with 10 CFR 51.30(a)(1)(ii) 

and (iii). At a minimum, all EAs must include the no-action alternative. For those actions where 

impacts are not significant, it is reasonable to consider only a limited range of alternatives. 

A non-significant impact does not equate to no impact; therefore, the NRC staff should consider 

all reasonable alternatives. If the “no-action” alternative is the only alternative examined, the 

alternatives section may contain the following statement, if applicable: 

“As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the 

proposed action (i.e., the “no-action alternative”). Denial of the proposed action 

would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental 

impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.” 

Alternative Use of Resources

Agencies must consider alternative courses of action if the proposed action involves an 

unresolved resource conflict in accordance with Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA. This section 

should include a description of how available resources, such as water, land, or other physical 

materials, would be used under the proposed action. This consideration would take place when 

the objective of the proposed action can be achieved in two or more ways that will have differing 

impacts on one or more natural resources even if a FONSI had been made. 

Mitigation Measures (if applicable)

EAs should incorporate mitigation measures in the proposed action and alternatives, when 

appropriate. These mitigation measures may assist in a FONSI if the mitigation measure can 

be enforced by the NRC or another Federal, State, tribal, or local governmental agency. The 

analysis should address the anticipated effectiveness of these mitigation measures in reducing 

impacts or enhancing beneficial impacts. Impacts need not be significant for mitigation 

measures to be considered. 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 as further 

consultation, coordination, and study. Measures should include such things as design 

alternatives that would reduce emissions, construction impacts, land disturbances, aesthetic 

intrusion, etc. All relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project 

should be identified, even if they are outside the jurisdiction of the NRC. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted

A list of agencies (Federal, State, Tribal, and local government) and persons consulted must be 

included in accordance with 10 CFR 51.30(a)(2). The consultation must be documented in a 

brief summary in the EA and should contain (1) the name of the agency or person contacted, (2) 

the date and purpose of the consultation, (3) a brief summary of the agency’s or person’s 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 C-5 

comments and the staff’s resolution or disposition of such comments, and (4) references to 

publicly available documents containing additional information, as applicable. 

The person preparing the EA should briefly describe why the consultation was initiated. For 

example, if the National Marine Fisheries Service was contacted to discuss a specific issue 

involving short-nosed sturgeon, the summary could be worded as follows: 

“The National Marine Fisheries Service was contacted on [insert date], to discuss 

and evaluate the ability of the short-nosed sturgeon to avoid capture after the 

proposed modification of river water intake.” 

If the consultation was made to meet a programmatic requirement and not a specific issue, the 

consultation can be summarized as follows: 

“In accordance with its stated policy, on [insert date], the staff consulted with 

[insert name of agency official or person] of the [insert name of agency, if 

applicable], regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The 

[insert name of agency official or person] had [the following comments/no 

comments].” 

Comments

If a draft EA has been made available for comment in accordance with 10 CFR 51.33, or if the 

draft EA was otherwise provided to other Federal agencies, or State, local and tribal 

governments, and if comments were provided to the NRC in response, the preparer should 

respond to and document the comments in the EA or in a document that is attached to the EA. 

The comments may be summarized. Any separate documentation, such as comment letters, 

should be placed in the NRC Document Room (PDR) and the Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room to ensure public access. 

Identification of Sources Used

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.30(a)(2), each EA should include a list of resources cited in the 

document to support the conclusions of the finding. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 C-6 

 Figure 1. Flow Chart for Determining Scope of an Environmental Review 

Identify Proposed Action 

Does action constitute a “major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment” (listed in 10 CFR 51.20(b))? 

Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) 

YES NO 

Does the action meet the 

requirements of a 

Categorical Exclusion listed in 

10 CFR 51.22(c)? 

No Environmental Assessment (EA) 

required; CATX justification provided 

in a publicly available document 

(e.g., SER). 

Prepare an EA analyzing the impacts 

of the proposed action and the 

impacts of alternatives, including the 

no-action alternative 

Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) 

Finding of a significant 

impact to one or more 

YES NO 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 D-1 

Appendix D 

Environmental Justice in NRR NEPA Documents 

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 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 lowincome populations.” On December 10, 1997, the Council on Environmental Quality (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, CEQ’s guidance is 

not binding on the NRC; however, the NRC considered CEQ’s guidance on environmental 

justice in this procedure. 

CEQ provides the following information in Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (1997): 

Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects. Adverse health effects 

are measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer fatalities, as well as 

other fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse health effects may 

include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. Disproportionately high and 

adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an 

environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is significant (as employed 

by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or 

for another appropriate comparison group (CEQ 1997). 

Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects. A disproportionately 

high environmental impact that is significant (as employed by NEPA) refers to an impact 

or risk of an impact on the natural or physical environment in a low-income or minority 

community that appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the larger community. 

Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts. 

An adverse environmental impact is an impact that is determined to be both harmful and 

significant (as employed by NEPA). In assessing cultural and aesthetic environmental 

impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically dislocated or dispersed minority or 

low-income populations or American Indian tribes are considered (CEQ 1997). 

On August 24, 2004, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which 

states, “the Commission is committed to the general goals set forth in E.O. 12898, and strives to 

meet those goals as part of its NEPA review process.” The following guidance is consistent with 

this policy statement. 

SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOR NRR REVIEWS

This procedure provides guidance to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) staff on 

conducting environmental justice reviews for proposed actions requiring either an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA). 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 D-2 

Environmental justice reviews will be performed for all regulatory actions requiring the 

preparation of an EIS, which may include licensing actions and rulemaking activities. An EIS is 

required for licensing and regulatory actions that are “major Federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment” or actions that involve a matter which the 

Commission has determined should be evaluated in an EIS. A list of the types of actions 

requiring an EIS is found in 10 CFR 51.20(b). 

When preparing an EA, if there is a clear potential for significant offsite impacts from the 

proposed action then an appropriate environmental justice review might be needed to 

provide a basis for concluding that there are no unique impacts that would be significant. If 

the impacts are significant because of the uniqueness of the affected minority and/or lowincome populations, then a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) may not be possible 

and mitigation (if authorized) or an EIS may be necessary. 

If it is determined, however, that a particular action would have no significant health or 

environmental impact, then there is no need to consider whether the action would have 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority populations and/or low-income 

populations. Similarly, an environmental justice review is not required for those actions listed in 

10 CFR 51.22(c) as being categorically excluded from detailed environmental review.

Environmental justice issues and potential impacts on minority and/or low-income populations 

may be identified through public involvement in NRC’s review in the proposed action (e.g., 

scoping comments, comments on draft EIS/EAs), knowledge learned through research about 

minority and/or low-income groups that may be affected, or in determining the nature of the 

impacts. In these instances, the NRR PM should consult with the Environmental Review and 

Guidance Update Branch (RERB), Division of License Renewal (DLR), which is responsible for 

environmental reviews, should be notified for assistance. RERB concurs on all EAs issued by 

NRR and will notify management if it appears that an environmental justice review is warranted. 

NRR management will then make a decision on a case-by-case basis whether the 

circumstances are such that minority and/or low-income populations may be affected and that 

an environmental justice review is warranted. 

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Environmental justice issues encompass a broad range of impacts normally covered by NEPA. 

The staff should be sensitive to the fact that environmental justice issues and concerns may 

arise at any time during the NEPA process. 

The NRC staff should consider the demographic composition of the affected area to determine 

the location of minority and/or low-income populations and whether they may be affected by the 

proposed action. The staff then needs to determine if the proposed action would cause any 

human health or environment effects and if so, whether these effects would be 

disproportionately high and adverse on minority or low-income populations. 

The staff should develop an effective public participation strategy to include minority and/or 

low-income individuals and communities in the NEPA process. The staff should acknowledge 

and seek to overcome linguistic, cultural, institutional, geographic, and other barriers to 

meaningful participation and should incorporate active outreach to affected minority and/or 

low-income communities. 

The staff should strive to include minority and/or low-income community representation in the 

NEPA process. The staff should be aware of the diverse constituencies within any community 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 D-3 

and should endeavor to have complete representation of the community as a whole. The staff 

should be aware that community participation must occur as early as possible if it is to be 

meaningful. 

The staff should also seek Tribal representation in the NEPA process in a manner that is 

consistent with government-to-government relations. 

The staff should consider relevant public health data and industry data concerning the potential 

for multiple or cumulative exposure to human health or environmental hazards in the affected 

minority and/or low-income populations and historical patterns of exposure to environmental 

hazards, to the extent such information is reasonably available. 

The staff should recognize the interrelated social, occupational, cultural, historical, and 

economic factors that could amplify the natural and physical environmental effects of the 

proposed action on minority and/or low-income populations. These effects include the 

sensitivity of minority and/or low-income populations and individuals to particular impacts; the 

effect of any disruption on the community structure associated with the proposed action; and the 

nature and degree of impact on the economic, cultural, and social structure of the community. 

The review is forward looking and should focus on the proposed action. For example, if the 

action is a license amendment, only the activities covered by the amendment should be 

considered and not the impact of the original license even if no environmental justice review 

was performed for the original license. 

Under NEPA, the identification of a disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effect on a minority and/or low-income population does not preclude a proposed 

action from going forward, nor does it necessarily compel a conclusion that a proposed action is 

environmentally unreasonable. Rather, the identification of such an effect should heighten 

agency attention to alternatives (including alternative sites), mitigation strategies, monitoring 

needs, and preferences expressed by the affected community or population. 

PROCEDURES FOR LICENSING ACTIONS

The following guidance should be used when performing an environmental justice review. This 

procedure may not address all situations that may occur. Project managers should consult with 

RERB whenever an environmental justice review is undertaken. See Fig. 2 on page D-11 for an 

environmental justice process flow chart. 

1. Determine if the action requires an environmental justice review. 

Determine whether the regulatory action will be supported by an EIS or EA. When the 

regulatory action requires the preparation of an EIS, an environmental justice review must be 

conducted, as discussed below. 

Under most circumstances, no environmental justice review is required when an EA is prepared. 

However, the staff will conduct an environmental justice review for an EA when there is a clear 

potential for human health or environmental impact impacts from the proposed action; an EJ 

review might be needed to provide a basis for concluding that there are no 

disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority and/or low income populations. In the 

event that an environmental justice review is performed for an EA, the process outlined in steps 

2 through 5, below, should be used as guidance. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 D-4 

2. Locating and identifying minority and low-income populations and integrating environmental 

justice into the scoping process.

Early on in the NEPA process (before or at the beginning of scoping), the staff should attempt to 

identify the location of minority and/or low-income populations in the potentially affected area, 

usually within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius. The staff should also develop a strategy for 

involving potentially affected minority and/or low-income populations and individuals in NRC’s 

scoping process. 

The following steps can be utilized to assist with locating and identifying minority and/or 

low-income populations at the beginning of the NEPA review (before or at the beginning of 

scoping). These steps can be used to help determine whether there would be any potential 

environmental justice issues or concerns and whether minority and/or low-income populations 

could be disproportionately affected by the proposed action. 

A. Determine geographic area for comparison. 

In determining the location of minority and/or low-income populations, the geographic 

area within a 50-mile radius is typically large enough to encompass the entire area of 

potential effect so the staff can perform its comparative analysis. The 50-mile radius 

(centered on the nuclear plant or other facility) is consistent with the impact analysis 

conducted for human health impacts. If the impact area overlaps more than one 

government jurisdiction (State, county, etc.), then the staff should define the geographic 

area to encompass parts of each government jurisdiction; such a defined geographic 

area does not have to stop at established boundaries such as county or State lines. 

B. Determine the composition of minority and/or low-income populations in the 

geographic area. 

Determine the percentage of (1) the aggregate minority and (2) low-income populations 

within the geographic area (50-mile radius). Geographic distribution of race, ethnicity, 

and poverty, as well as delineation of tribal lands and resources, should be examined. 

The first step is to obtain the most recent decennial (10-year) demographic (Census) 

data for the 50-mile radius and surrounding communities. In the case of license 

renewal, the applicant’s environmental report usually lists the affected counties in the 

50-mile radius. The demographic data should consist of Census Bureau information on 

race, Hispanic, Latino or Spanish ethnicity, and individual and family poverty information. 

In determining the aggregate minority population, individual(s) who identified themselves 

in the decennial census as members of the following racial and ethnic categories are 

considered minority individuals. In other words, everyone except persons who identified 

themselves as White, Not Hispanic or Latino are considered minority. 

Race: 

Black or African American 

American Indian or Alaska Native 

Asian 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 

Some other race 

Two or more races (i.e., multiracial) 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 D-5 

Ethnicity: 

Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (may be of any race) 

The 10-year Census provides the option of identifying oneself in more than one race 

categories or multiracial census category of “two or more races.” People in this category 

are counted as part of the minority group they identified with in the census. Location 

specific - aggregate minority population data can be found in Census Summary File 1 

(SF-1) Table P4 at the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Fact Finder: 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml . 

Low-income population is defined as individuals or families living 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). For individual and family 

poverty data estimates see Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 

poverty tables. 

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 for determining a 50-mile radius is the online web-based EJView computer software offered by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). Other sources of demographic information include the applicant, local 

governments, State agencies, or local universities. It is recommended that 10-year 

census data on minority and poverty should be used. Interim year census data is 

available from ACS, based on estimated projections and small sample sizes. The 

reviewer should also use the best available State information. Minority and low-income 

population demographic data can be presented for counties and States in tables in the 

EIS or EA. 

C. Determine the location of minority and low-income population in the impact area. 

The next step is to compare the percentage of minority and/or low-income populations in 

the 50-mile geographic area to the percentage of minority and/or low-income populations 

in each “census block group” or “census tract” to determine which block group exceeds 

the percentage thereby identifying the location of these populations. 

The recommended geographic area for determining the location of minority and/or 

low-income populations is the “census block group.” The census block group was 

chosen because it provides race and ethnicity information as well as income and poverty 

information that is not collected for the smaller “census block.” It is also not as large as 

the “census tract,” which are generally too large for an adequate location and 

identification of minority or low income communities. A minority and/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. 

“Minority and low-income populations” are identified when (1) the minority and/or lowincome population of an impacted area exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority and/or 

low-income population percentage of the impacted area is meaningfully greater than the 

minority and/or low-income population percentage in the general population or other 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 D-6 

appropriate unit of geographic analysis (e.g., 50-mile radius geographic area or county). 

All block groups with minority and/or low-income percentages higher than the 

geographic area should be identified on 50-mile radius maps. 

It is possible that the geographic area could cross county and State lines and this should 

be considered when making comparisons. If it is determined that the percentage in the 

block groups significantly exceeds the geographic area percentage for either minority or 

low-income population, then the environmental justice impacts should be considered in 

greater detail. In general (and where appropriate), the 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, the environmental justice 

impacts should 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 populations because demographic data may overlook 

low-income and/or minority populations if they constitute a relatively small percentage of 

the total population in the block group. Therefore, the staff should seek to supplement 

the environmental justice analysis with any relevant additional information collected 

during the environmental scoping process to identify such 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 or community that may be adversely affected by the proposed action, then 

the staff reviewer should proceed with the environmental justice review even if that 

population was not identified through the use of demographic data. 

If no minority or low-income populations are identified in the geographic area or area of 

potential effect, then this determination should be documented and the environmental 

justice review is complete. 

Consistent with scoping activities conducted under NEPA, the staff may consider measures for 

increasing participation of minority and low-income groups such as outreach through minority 

business and trade organizations, schools, colleges, labor organizations, or other appropriate 

organizations. Meetings open to the public should be advertised through locally-targeted media, 

mailings, and the internet. Other means of advertising include posting flyers in local shopping 

centers, community, government and other public places. If representatives of the affected 

group(s) are identified, these individuals should be included on the mailing list for the review. 

When communicating with the public, the staff should consider innovative approaches to 

overcoming linguistic, institutional, cultural, economic, historical, or other potential barriers to 

effective participation in the decision-making process. During the scoping process the staff 

should supplement the census data with inquiries of the local planning departments, social 

service agencies, and other local offices to identify minority or low-income groups that may not 

be identified through the census data. 

If no minority or low-income populations and/or individuals are found during scoping or later on 

in the review, then the results should be documented and the environmental justice review is 

complete. 

3. Determine whether there are human health and environmental impacts on minority or 

low-income populations.

Potential human health and environmental impacts are determined through the normal NEPA 

process during the development of the EIS or EA, including indirect and cumulative impacts, 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 D-7 

where appropriate. The impacts should be evaluated to determine which impacts may affect (or 

cause concern to) minority and/or low-income populations. Once it is determined that the 

proposed action could affect and/or cause environmental justice concerns for minority and/or 

low-income populations located near the plant site, it is then necessary to determine whether 

the impact(s) could have a “disproportionately high and adverse” effect on these populations. 

Impacts that could potentially affect or cause concern to minority and/or low-income populations 

should be summarized in the environmental justice section of the EIS (or EA, if analyzed). The 

discussion should address the potential human health and environmental effect(s) on these 

populations. It is not necessary to discuss the technical aspects of the impact(s) at the same 

level of detail as other environmental consequences sections. It is acceptable to briefly 

describe the human health or environmental impact, its potential effect on minority and/or 

low-income populations, and reference the appropriate section for a more detailed technical 

discussion of the impact. 

In considering human health and environmental impacts to minority and/or low-income 

populations, different patterns of consumption of natural resources should also 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). Section 4-4 of Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) directs 

Federal agencies, whenever practical and appropriate, to collect and analyze information on the 

consumption patterns of populations who rely principally on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence 

and to communicate the risks of these consumption patterns to the public. NRR staff should 

consider whether there are any means for minority or low-income populations to be 

disproportionately affected by examining potential impacts to American Indian, Hispanic, and 

other traditional lifestyle special pathway receptors. Special pathways that take into account the 

levels of contaminants in native vegetation, crops, soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and 

game animals on or near nuclear plant sites should be considered. 

Each nuclear plant has a comprehensive Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) 

that assesses the radiological impact of site operations on the environment. Radiological monitoring 

indicator and control samples are collected from the aquatic and terrestrial pathways applicable to 

each plant site. The aquatic pathways include fish, surface waters, and sediment. The terrestrial 

pathways include airborne particulates and radioiodine, milk, leafy vegetation, food products, soil, 

and direct radiation. It is recommended that NRR staff review the most recent Annual Radiological 

Environmental Operating Report from the plant for sampling information used to measure the direct 

radiation and the airborne and waterborne pathway activity in the vicinity of the nuclear plant 

site. Many State agencies and a few independent organizations conduct their own radiological 

monitoring programs separate from or in conjunction with the REMP at nuclear plants. Reports and 

studies conducted by these agencies and organizations should also be considered. 

NRR staff should also focus the environmental justice review on human health or environmental 

impacts that are known to be significant or perceived as significant by minority and/or lowincome persons. The severity of environmental impacts or concerns usually varies inversely 

with the distance from the nuclear plant; therefore, the review should be focused on areas 

closer to the plant site. 

4. Determine whether there are disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority and/or low-income populations.

NRR staff first needs to assess if impact(s) would disproportionately affect minority or 

low-income populations. In other words: 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 D-8 

• Would the impact(s) be greater for minority and low-income populations than the general 

population? 

• Are there any unique effects experienced by minority and/or low-income populations that 

would not be experienced by the general population? 

As discussed in the previous section, NRR staff should recognize that the impacts to minority or 

low-income populations may be different from impacts to the general population due to a 

community’s distinct cultural practices. In addition, staff should take into account different 

patterns of living and consumption of natural resources, such as subsistence consumption. 

To effectively visualize potential disproportionate impacts, it may be helpful to display the 

location of minority and/or low-income populations on 50-mile radius maps. In cases where 

minority and/or low-income populations are located next to or in close proximity to the plant site, 

the impact(s) could disproportionately affect these populations more than the general 

population. For instance, potential exposure to effluents and emissions may have a greater 

effect on minority and/or low-income populations living closest to the nuclear plant. Noise and 

traffic may disrupt these populations to a greater extent than the general population and those 

living far from the plant site. In addition, the potential risks associated with accidents may have 

a disproportionate affect on minority and/or low-income populations living closest to the plant. 

If there are no disproportionate impacts, no further analysis is needed. The reviewer should 

document the finding in the environmental justice section. 

After identifying human health and environmental impacts that could disproportionately affect 

minority and low-income populations, it is necessary to determine if the effect(s) would be high 

and adverse. For example, would the effect(s) on minority and/or low-income populations be 

above generally accepted norms such as regulatory limits or State and local statutes and 

ordinances? Each human health and environmental impact, and where appropriate, the 

cumulative and multiple effects of the impact(s), should be reviewed for significance. 

If the determination can be made that the disproportionate human health and environmental 

impact(s) and/or combination of impacts would not be high and adverse, then no further 

analysis is needed. The reviewer needs to document this conclusion in the environmental 

justice section. 

If there are disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and/or low-income 

populations, it is then necessary to consider mitigation measures that could be taken to reduce 

the impact(s). To the extent practicable, any mitigation measures discussed in the EA or EIS 

should reflect the needs and preferences of the affected minority and/or low-income populations 

and communities. In any case, the facts should be presented so that the ultimate decisionmaker 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 

or low-income populations. 

5. Make a determination regarding impacts to minority and low-income populations and 

document the conclusion. 

The results of an environmental justice review should be documented in the EIS or in the EA, if 

appropriate. NRR staff should clearly state the conclusion regarding whether or not the 

proposed action and any alternatives would have a disproportionately high and adverse 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 D-9 

environmental impact on a minority and/or low-income population. This statement should be 

supported by sufficient information to allow the public to understand the rationale for the 

conclusion, and should be written in concise non-technical plain language that minimizes the 

use of acronyms or jargon. 

The EIS or EA should contain a section titled “Environmental Justice” even if the demographics 

do not indicate a potential for an environmental justice concern. If a plant 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 an environmental justice review was included in a 

license renewal review, it would not need to be completely readdressed for a license 

amendment. If a reference to another document is used, a summary of the review and its 

conclusions should be included in the environmental justice section. 

PROCEDURES FOR RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES

1. 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, or generic 

EIS. 

2. If it is known in advance that a particular rulemaking might disproportionately affect a 

minority and/or low-income population or community, NRC staff should ensure that the 

population and/or community knows about the rulemaking and are given the opportunity 

to participate. Such actions may include translating the Federal Register Notice (FRN) 

into a language other than English for publication in a local newspaper and holding 

public outreach meetings in the potentially affected community. 

3. If an environmental justice review is performed for a rulemaking activity, then the staff 

should consider using the template provided in the NRC Regulations Handbook, 

NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 6, pp. 67-68,6

 to seek and welcome public comments on 

environmental justice (the template would either be part of the proposed rule FRN or a 

draft FONSI issued pursuant to 10 CFR 51.33). The staff should follow the “Procedures 

for Licensing Actions,” steps 2-5 above, to perform the environmental justice review. 

4. Public comments on the environmental justice review should be addressed in the 

statements of consideration to the final rule when published in the Federal Register. 

Comments on the environmental justice review should be addressed at the same level of 

detail and in the same location as comments received on other parts of the rule. 

 

6

 See NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 6, p. 64 for a discussion of environmental justice issues in rulemaking 

activities. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 D-10 

Figure 2. Environmental Justice Review Flow Chart 

Identify Proposed Action 

Does the proposed action require an EIS? 

Begin EJ review 

YES

Does the proposed action require an EA? 

EJ review is not required 

Is there a potential for EJ 

impact or concern? 

1. Have any minority and/or low-income populations and/or communities been 

identified during scoping that could be affected by the proposed action? 

Document the conclusion in the EIS/ROD or EA/FONSI; 

the EJ review is complete

2. Have any impacts or concerns been identified that could affect minority 

and/or low-income populations? 

Define the geographic area for each potentially significant impact or concern 

Determine the location and composition of minority and/or low-income 

populations in the geographic area

Determine whether the effects are disproportionately high and adverse on 

minority and/or low-income populations

Analyze mitigation measures for adverse impacts

Determine the extent of human health and environmental impacts and 

environmental justice concerns on minority or low-income populations

NO 

YES

YES

YES

NO 

NO 

NO 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 E-1 

Appendix E 

State Coastal Zone Descriptions and CZMA Consistency Certification 

Process Flow Chart 

Table 2. Description of coastal zones for States and territories with Federally-approved coastal 

management programs 7

State Definition of State’s Coastal Zones 

The seaward boundary of the Great Lake States is the U.S.- Canada 

International boundary, and for all other States is the 3 nautical 

mile territorial sea, except for those states marked with an asterisk 

(*) 

Alabama Extends inland to the continuous 10-foot elevation contour in Baldwin 

and Mobile Counties. 

Alaska As of July 1, 2011, Alaska no longer has a federally approved coastal 

management program or defined coastal zone and federal consistency 

does not apply to Alaska. Contact NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management for additional information. 

American Samoa Consists of the entire Territory. 

California and the 

San Francisco Bay 

Conservation and 

Development 

Commission (BCDC) 

Extends 1,000 yards inland from the mean high tide line. In significant 

coastal estuarine habitat and recreational areas, it extends inland to the 

first major ridgeline or 5 miles from the mean high tide line, whichever is 

less. In developed urban areas, the boundary is generally less than 

1,000 yards. The coastal zone for the BCDC includes the open water, 

marshes and mudflats of greater San Francisco Bay, and areas 100 feet 

inland from the line of highest tidal action. The boundary also includes: 

the Suisun marsh and buffer zone; managed wetlands diked off from the 

Bay; and open waters diked off from the Bay and used in salt production.

 

 

7

 Table adapted from “State Coastal Zone Boundaries” published by NOAA, dated February 9, 2012, 

available at: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/docs/StateCZBoundaries.pdf. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 E-2 

Connecticut Has two tiers incorporated within the 36 coastal townships. The first tier 

is bounded by a continuous line delineated by a 1,000 foot linear 

setback measured from the mean high water mark in coastal waters; or 

a 1,000 foot linear setback measured from the inland boundary of State 

regulated tidal wetlands; or the continuous interior contour elevation of 

the one hundred year frequency coastal flood zone; whichever is farthest 

inland. The second tier is the area between the inland boundary of the 

36 coastal communities and the inland boundary of the first tier. 

Delaware Consists of the entire State. 

Florida* Consists of the entire State, but has two tiers. Local governments 

eligible to receive coastal management funds are limited to those Gulf 

and Atlantic coastal cities and counties which include or are contiguous 

to State water bodies where marine species of vegetation constitute the 

dominant plant community. Florida’s seaward boundary in the Gulf of 

Mexico is 3 marine leagues (9 nautical miles) and is 3 nautical miles in 

the Atlantic. 

Georgia Includes the 11 counties that border tidally-influenced waters or have 

economies that are closely tied to coastal resources. 

Guam Consists of the entire Territory. 

Hawaii Consists of the entire State. 

Illinois Consists of two components. The Lakeshore boundary is based on the 

Lake Michigan watershed and is generally parallel to the Lake Michigan 

shoreline. The Inland Waterway Boundary includes the Inland 

Waterway Corridors, which are selected segments of the Chicago River 

system (North Branch, South Branch, Main Branch, and North Shore 

Channel) and select segments of the Little Calumet and Grand Calumet 

Rivers. The Inland Waterway Corridors consist of both the waterway 

and designated land area to either side of the waterway. 

Indiana Based on watershed boundaries within coastal townships and the 

counties of Lake, Porter and LaPorte. To create an inland boundary that 

is identifiable in practical landmarks, the coastal zone boundary is 

described based on the U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle maps and 

major roads for each county. The coastal zone boundary is located in 

the northern portions of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties. At its 

widest extent, the boundary extends away from the shoreline 17 miles to 

the Crown Point area and at its narrowest point, less than 2 miles, just 

north of Hudson Lake in LaPorte County. See NOAA, Indiana Lake 

Michigan Coastal Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Appendix C (April 2002) to determine the precise coastal zone boundary 

in a particular area of the State. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 E-3 

Louisiana Varies from 16 to 32 miles inland from the Gulf coast and generally 

follows the Intracoastal Waterway running from the Texas-Louisiana 

State line then follows highways through Vermilion, Iberia, and St. Mary 

parishes, then dipping southward following the natural ridges below 

Houma, then turning northward to take in Lake Pontchartrain and ending 

at the Mississippi-Louisiana border. 

Maine Includes the inland line of coastal towns on tidewaters and all islands. 

Maryland Extends to the inland boundary of the 16 counties bordering the Atlantic 

Ocean, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Potomac River (as far as the 

municipal limits of Washington, D.C.), and includes Baltimore City and all 

local jurisdictions within the counties. 

Massachusetts Extends 100 feet inland of specified major roads, RR tracks, or other 

visible right of ways which are located within a half mile of coastal waters 

or salt marshes. The coastal zone includes all islands, transitional and 

intertidal areas, and coastal wetlands and beaches. In instances where 

the road boundary excludes significant resource areas, the boundary 

line may depart from the road to encompass. 

Michigan Extends a minimum of 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water mark. 

The boundary extends further inland in some locations to encompass 

coastal lakes, rivermouths, and bays; floodplains; wetlands; dune areas; 

urban areas; and public park, recreation, and natural areas. 

Minnesota Divided into three areas. The first includes the area of the St. Louis 

River in Carlton County, south of Duluth. The second is the city of 

Duluth and surrounding areas of urban growth and expansion to the 

north and west. The third is the region between the Duluth city limits 

north to the Canadian border, also known as the “North Shore,” which 

includes portions of St. Louis, Lake, and Cook Counties. See NOAA’s 

Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program for Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Chapter One (May 1999) to determine the precise 

coastal zone boundary in a particular area of the State. 

Mississippi Includes the 3 counties adjacent to the coast. The coastal zone includes 

these counties, as well as all adjacent coastal waters. Included in this 

definition are the barrier islands of the coast. 

New Hampshire Consists of the 17 coastal municipalities. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 E-4 

New Jersey Consists of four distinct regions of the State, which are treated 

separately. From the New York border to the Raritan Bay, the boundary 

extends landward from mean high water to the first road or property line. 

From the Raritan Bay south along the Atlantic shoreline and up to the 

Delaware Memorial Bridge, the boundary extends from half a mile to 24 

miles inland (1,376 square miles of land area). From the Delaware 

Memorial Bridge northward up the Delaware River to Trenton, the 

boundary extends landward to the first road inclusive of all wetlands. 

The fourth boundary serves a 31-mile square area in the northeast 

corner of the State bordering the Hudson river (New Jersey 

Meadowlands Commission). 

New York Varies from region to region while incorporating the following conditions: 

the inland boundary is approximately 1,000 feet from the shoreline of the 

mainland. In urbanized and developed coastal locations the landward 

boundary is approximately 500 feet from the mainland's shoreline, or 

less than 500 feet where a roadway or railroad line runs parallel to the 

shoreline at a distance of under 500 feet and defines the boundary. In 

locations where major State-owned lands and facilities or electric power 

generating facilities abut the shoreline, the boundary extends inland to 

include them. In some areas, such as Long Island Sound and the 

Hudson River Valley, the boundary may extend inland up to 10,000 feet 

to encompass significant coastal resources, such as areas of 

exceptional scenic value, agricultural or recreational lands, and major 

tributaries and headlands. 

North Carolina Includes the 20 counties that in whole or in part are adjacent to, 

adjoining, intersected by or bounded by the Atlantic Ocean or any 

coastal sound(s). Within this boundary, there are two tiers. The first tier 

is comprised of areas of environmental concern (AEC) and is subject to 

more thorough regulatory controls. AECs include: coastal wetlands, 

estuarine waters, public trust areas, estuarine shorelines, ocean 

beaches, frontal dunes, ocean erosion areas, inlet lands, small surface 

water supply watersheds, pubic water supply well-fields, and fragile 

natural resource areas. The second tier includes land uses which have 

potential to affect coastal waters even though they are not located in 

AECs. 

Northern Mariana 

Islands 

Consists of the entire Commonwealth. 

Ohio Includes portions of 9 counties bordering Lake Erie and its tributaries 

and varies depending on biophysical characteristics of various coastal 

regions - in the western part of the coast the boundary extends inland up 

to 15 miles along certain low lying wetland and floodplain areas; in most 

of the eastern part of the State, areas with high bluffs, the boundary 

extends inland for only about an eighth of a mile, with the exception of 

the Mentor Marsh area. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 E-5 

Oregon Extends inland to the crest of the coastal range, except for the following: 

along the Umpqua River, where it extends upstream to Scottsburg; 

along the Rogue River, where it extends upstream to Agness; and 

except in the Columbia River Basin, where it extends upstream to the 

downstream end of Puget Island. 

Pennsylvania Varies along Lake Erie from 900 feet in urban areas to over 3 miles in 

more rural areas, and encompasses the floodplains of Lake Erie and 

tributary streams, bluff hazards recession areas, and coastal wetlands. 

The coastal zone along the Delaware River Estuary extends inland to 

660 feet in urbanized areas, to 3.5 miles in rural areas, and includes 

floodplains of the Delaware and Schuykill Rivers and their tributaries to 

the upper limit of tidal influence, and tidal and freshwater wetlands. 

Puerto Rico* Extends 1,000 meters inland; however, it extends further inland in 

certain areas to include important coastal resources. Puerto Rico’s 

seaward boundary is 3 marine leagues (9 nautical miles). 

Rhode Island Consists of the entire State. However, the inland extent of the regulatory 

authority of the State’s CZMA agency is 200 feet inland from any coastal 

feature, to watersheds, and to certain activities that occur anywhere 

within the State that include: power-generating plants; petroleum 

storage facilities; chemical or petroleum processing; minerals extraction; 

sewage treatment and disposal plants; solid waste disposal facilities; 

and, desalination plants. 

South Carolina Includes all lands and waters in the counties which contain any one or 

more of the critical areas (coastal waters, tidelands, beaches, and 

primary oceanfront sand dunes). 

Texas* Consists of the area seaward of the Texas coastal facility designation 

line which roughly follows roads that are parallel to coastal waters and 

wetlands generally within one mile of tidal rivers. The boundary 

encompasses all or portions of 18 coastal counties. Texas’ seaward 

boundary is 3 marine leagues (9 nautical miles). 

Virginia Includes the 29 counties, 17 cities, and 42 incorporated towns of 

Tidewater Virginia, including the Atlantic Coast watershed and portions 

of the Chesapeake Bay and Albemarle-Pamlico Sound watersheds. 

Virgin Islands Consists of the entire Territory. 

Washington Consists of the 15 coastal counties that front saltwater. 

Wisconsin Consists of the 15 counties that front Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, or 

Green Bay. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 E-6 

Figure 3. CZMA Consistency Certification Process Flow Chart 

Identify Proposed Action 

If the proposed action or activity requires a Federal license or permit or other form of Federal approval, 

the NRC cannot approve until the requirements of CZMA 307(C)(3)(A) are satisfied 

Activity/Federal approval listed in state CMP Unlisted activity 

Inside coastal zone Outside coastal zone 

Geographic scope 

not defined

State-defined 

geographic scope

Certification and necessary 

data and information 

complete; Start 6-month 

review time clock 

State notifies the NRC if 

review will extend past 3 

months 

State concurs (If no 

response received by 

6month mark, state 

concurrence presumed) 

State objects 

(NRC cannot issue 

approval of proposed 

action) 

NRC may issue approval of 

proposed action 

Within 30 days, applicant 

may appeal objection to 

Secretary of Commerce 

Secretary overrides 

state objection 

Secretary declines to override 

state objection (NRC cannot 

issue approval of proposed 

action) 

State must notify the NRC 

and OCRM of intent to 

review activity within 30 

days of receiving notice 

The NRC has 15 days from receipt of state 

notification to provide comments to OCRM

Within 30 days, generally, OCRM approves or 

denies state’s request to review; decision based 

solely on whether the activity can be reasonably 

expected to affect the coastal zone 

OCRM approves 

state’s request 

OCRM denies 

state’s request

State response within 6 

months of receipt of 

application or 3 months 

from receipt of 

consistency certification, 

whichever is later 

6 month mark 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 F-1 

Appendix F 

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Process Flow Charts 

Figure 4. Formal Section 7 Consultation Process 

Federal agency determines action 

may affect listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

90 days 

30 days 

45 days 

Federal agency submits an initiation 

package to FWS or NMFS (the Service) 

requesting initiation of formal consultation. 

The Service determines if 

information in initiation 

package is complete. 

YES

NO

Consultation clock starts from 

the date the Service received 

the initiation request.

The Service notifies Federal 

agency of missing 50 CFR 

402.14(c) data. 

The Federal agency provides 

missing data. Formal consultation 

clock starts from date the Service 

receives this info.

The Service prepares draft biological 

opinion and incidental take statement in 

conjunction with Federal agency (and 

applicant or licensee, when applicable).

Optional step: Federal agency (and 

applicant or licensee) review 

draft biological opinion. 

Optional step: Federal agency (and 

applicant or licensee) provides 

comments on draft biological opinion. 

(optional)

The Service delivers final biological 

opinion and incidental take statement to 

Federal agency. 

Consultation concludes. 

at least 

10 days 

The Service reviews considers 

comments (if received) on 

draft biological opinion. 
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 3 F-2 

Figure 5. Informal Section 7 Consultation Process89

 

8

 If an action is a “major construction activity” and listed species are present, a biological assessment 

must be prepared, regardless of anticipated effect level (50 CFR 402.12(b)(1)). 

9

 These timeframes only apply to the scenario in which informal consultation includes a biological 

assessment. 

Formal consultation required.

The Federal agency 

prepares and submits a 

biological assessment to 

determine extent of 

potential effects. 

Federal agency considers taking an action. 

Federal agency requests a species list or concurrence on a 

species list from the FWS or NMFS (the Service). 

The Service prepares list or concurs 

with list prepared by Federal agency.

YES8

NO Listed species or critical 

habitat present? 

The Service and Federal 

agency determine that 

the action “may affect” 

species or critical habitat.

The Service and Federal 

agency determine that 

the action is “likely to 

adversely affect” 

species or critical habitat.

The Federal agency 

engages in further 

discussion with the 

Service to determine 

extent of potential 

effects. 

The Service and Federal 

agency determine that 

the action will 

“not adversely affect” 

species or critical habitat.

The Service provides written 

concurrence that the project 

will have no effect. 

Informal consultation 

concluded. 

Informal 

consultation 

concluded. 

180 

 days9 

30 days 

The Service directs the 

Federal agency to initiate 

formal consultation. 

The Service responds 

to the Biological 

Assessment with 

one of the following: 

30 

 days9 

OR
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 2 G-1 

Appendix G 

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Process Flow Chart 

Figure 6. National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation Process Flow Chart

Identify Proposed Action 

Initiate Section 106 process in conjunction with NEPA review: Identify 

SHPO/THPO, plan to involve public, and identify other consulting parties 

Does proposed action have potential to 

affect historic properties? 

YES NO 

Determine initial area of potential 

effect 

The NRC, in consultation with the 

SHPO/THPO, identifies, evaluates 

significance, and assesses effects on historic 

properties based on 36 CFR Part 800 

Adverse effect(s) No adverse effect(s) 

Resolve adverse effects via consultation with 

the SHPO/THPO, affected American Indian 

tribes, local government, members of the 

public, licensee, and other affected parties 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

The NRC may proceed with proposed 

action under the terms of the MOA 

No historic properties 

adversely affected 

Does the proposed action require an EIS? 

YES NO 

Does the proposed action require an EA? 

YES NO 

Begin Section 106 review