AUDIT REPORT

Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative

to Environmental Impact Statements

OIG-13-A-20 August 20, 2013 

All publicly available OIG reports (including this report) are accessible through

NRC’s Web site at: 

http:/www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-gen/
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

OFFICE OF THE

INSPECTOR GENERAL

August 20, 2013

MEMORANDUM TO: R. William Borchardt

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Stephen D. Dingbaum /RA/

Assistant Inspector General for Audits

SUBJECT: AUDIT OF NRC’S COMPLIANCE WITH 10 CFR PART 51 

RELATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS 

(OIG-13-A-20)

Attached is the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) audit report titled, Audit of NRC’s 

Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements. 

The report presents the results of the subject audit. The agency provided comments to 

the report on July 22, 2013. The agency’s comments have been incorporated into the 

report at Appendix D. 

Please provide information on actions taken or planned on each of the 

recommendations within 30 days of the date of this memorandum. Actions taken or 

planned are subject to OIG followup as stated in Management Directive 6.1.

We appreciate the cooperation extended to us by members of your staff during the 

audit. If you have any questions or comments about our report, please contact me at 

415-5915 or Sherri Miotla, Team Leader, Nuclear Materials & Waste Safety Audit Team, 

at 415-5914.

Attachment: As stated 
Electronic Distribution

Edwin M. Hackett, Executive Director, Advisory Committee 

 on Reactor Safeguards

E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety 

 and Licensing Board Panel

Margaret M. Doane, General Counsel

Brooke D. Poole, Director, Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication

James E. Dyer, Chief Financial Officer

Nader Mamish, Director, Office of International Programs

Rebecca L. Schmidt, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

Eliot B. Brenner, Director, Office of Public Affairs

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission

R. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations

Michael F. Weber, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste,

 Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs, OEDO

Darren B. Ash, Deputy Executive Director 

 for Corporate Management, OEDO

Michael R. Johnson, Deputy Executive Director for Reactor

 and Preparedness Programs, OEDO

Reginald W. Mitchell, Assistant for Operations, OEDO

Cynthia Carpenter, Director, Office of Administration

Thomas Rich, Director, Computer Security Office

Roy P. Zimmerman, Director, Office of Enforcement

Mark A. Satorius, Director, Office of Federal and State Materials

 and Environmental Management Programs

Cheryl L. McCrary, Director, Office of Investigations

James Flanagan, Director, Office of Information Services

Miriam L. Cohen, Chief Human Captial Officer, Office of the 

 Chief Human Capital Officer

Glenn M. Tracey, Director, Office of New Reactors

Catherine Haney, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

 and Safeguards

Eric J. Leeds, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Brian W. Sheron, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Vonna L. Ordaz, Director, Office of Small Business and Civil Rights

James T. Wiggins, Director, Office of Nuclear Security

 and Incident Response

William M. Dean, Regional Administrator, Region I

Victor M. McCree, Regional Administrator, Region II

Cindy Pederson, Regional Administrator, Region III

Steven Reynolds, Regional Administrator, Region IV
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

The National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) established a 

national policy to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between 

man and his environment, promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate 

damage to the environment, and enrich the understanding of ecological 

systems and natural resources important to the United States. To 

implement NEPA, Federal agencies must undertake an assessment of the 

environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making a decision. 

The two major purposes of the NEPA process are better informed 

decisions and citizen involvement. 

NEPA requires that Federal agencies prepare a detailed statement on the 

environmental impacts and effects, alternatives to the action, and 

irreversible commitments of resources involved in the action. This 

detailed statement is called an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

NRC’s NEPA Role 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) regulations to implement 

NEPA are found in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 (10 CFR

Part 51). NRC’s process for preparing an EIS begins when the agency 

receives an application for a proposed action that requires an EIS. A 

typical NRC environmental review includes analyses of impacts to specific 

resource areas, including air, water, animal life, natural resources, and 

property of historic, archeological, or architectural significance. In its 

NEPA review, NRC also evaluates cumulative, economic, social, cultural, 

and environmental justice impacts. 

NRC’s Commitments to the Public

The purposes of NEPA and its implementation dovetail with NRC’s 

organizational values of openness and transparency, as expressed in the 

Principles of Good Regulation and the Strategic Plan. NRC activities 

generate a great deal of public interest. For their participation to be 

meaningful, stakeholders must have access to clear and understandable 

information about NRC’s role, process, activities, and decisionmaking. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

ii

OBJECTIVE

The audit objective was to determine whether NRC complies with the 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 relative to the preparation of environmental 

impact statements. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF

Areas of Current Noncompliance

In recent years, NRC has taken steps to enhance its NEPA reviews and 

procedures. These initiatives have generated important discussions and 

provide a context for long-term progress. However, the Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG) has identified areas of noncompliance with 10 

CFR Part 51 relative to disclosure and public involvement. In order to 

clearly communicate the results of and involve the public in its 

environmental reviews, NRC management should strengthen its EIS 

preparation process by: 

• Publishing a Record of Decision (ROD) that complies with 

10 CFR 51.102 and 51.103.

• Publishing an EIS that complies with the format provided in 

10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A.

• Performing all regulatory requirements for scoping for EISs that tier 

off of a generic EIS. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

This report makes six recommendations to bring the agency into 

compliance with 10 CFR Part 51 relative to the preparation of EISs. 

AGENCY COMMENTS

On July 22, 2013, NRC provided comments to the draft report. The 

agency stated its belief that its NEPA implementation activities have been 

fully compliant with the relevant regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. OIG’s 

central message in the report is that through lack of compliance with 

NRC’s NEPA-implementing regulations, the agency has made it difficult 

for stakeholders to access information developed in environmental 

reviews and may have omitted opportunities for public participation in 

certain environmental reviews. Appendix D contains NRC’s comments 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

iii

and Appendix E contains OIG’s analysis of the agency’s comments. The 

agency said it will consider OIG’s recommendations as part of the 

agency’s continuous improvement efforts because the recommendations 

could help enhance effectiveness, efficiency, and consistency across NRC 

programs in implementing NEPA. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

iv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

ASLBP Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FSME Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs

NEPA The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

NRO Office of New Reactors

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

OIG Office of the Inspector General

ROD Record of Decision
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................... i

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYNMS................................................................iv

I. BACKGROUND.................................................................................... 1

II. OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................... 4

III. FINDINGS ............................................................................................ 4

A. Records of Decision Not in Full Compliance With 

Regulations ..................................................................................... 5

B NRC EISs Do Not Follow the Required Format............................. 12

C. NRC Not in Full Compliance With Scoping 

Regulations ................................................................................... 17

IV. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS........................... 27

V. AGENCY COMMENTS ...................................................................... 28

APPENDICIES

A. MAJOR STEPS IN EIS PROCESS............................................... 29

B. OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLODY............................. 30

C. SAMPLING METHODOLODY....................................................... 33

D. AGENCY COMMENTS................................................................. 35

E. OIG ANALYSIS OF AGENCY COMMENTS................................. 45
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

1

I. BACKGROUND 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) established a 

national policy to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between 

man and his environment, promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate 

damage to the environment, and enrich the understanding of ecological 

systems and natural resources important to the United States. To 

implement NEPA, Federal agencies must undertake an assessment of the 

environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making a decision. 

The two major purposes of the NEPA process are better informed 

decisions and citizen involvement. 

NEPA requires that for a major Federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment, Federal agencies must prepare a 

detailed statement on the environmental impacts and effects, alternatives 

to the action, and irreversible commitments of resources involved in the 

action. This detailed statement is called an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). 

NEPA also established the White House Council on Environmental Quality 

to monitor and foster Federal agency compliance with NEPA. The Council 

on Environmental Quality promulgated regulations to ensure that agency 

procedures produce high quality environmental information, make that 

information available to the public and to agency decisionmakers, and 

ultimately to make "better decisions” as stated in NEPA. The Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations require Federal agencies to develop 

their own implementing procedures.1

NRC’s NEPA Role

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) regulations to implement 

NEPA are found in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 (10 CFR

Part 51), “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing 

 1 NRC revised its environmental regulations to meet the Council on Environmental Quality requirement to 

develop NEPA implementing procedures.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

2

and Related Regulatory Functions.” Part 51 identifies licensing actions 

that require the preparation of an EIS, including issuance of: 

• An early site permit for a nuclear power reactor.

• A combined license to construct and operate a nuclear 

power reactor.

• A license renewal for an operating nuclear power reactor.

• A license to possess and use special nuclear material for 

processing and fuel fabrication or conversion of uranium 

hexafluoride.

• A license to possess and use source material for uranium 

milling or production of uranium hexafluoride.

• A license for a uranium enrichment facility.

NRC’s process begins when the agency receives an application for a 

proposed action that requires an EIS. Once NRC considers the 

application complete and “accepts” it for review, an environmental review 

to comply with 10 CFR Part 51 and NEPA begins, paralleling the separate 

agency review for compliance with its technical or “safety” regulations. A 

typical NRC environmental review includes analyses of impacts to specific 

resource areas, including air, water, animal life, natural resources, and 

property of historic, archeological, or architectural significance. In its 

NEPA review, NRC also evaluates cumulative, economic, social, cultural, 

and environmental justice impacts. 

The major steps in NRC’s process for conducting this review and 

preparing the EIS are outlined in Appendix A of this report. Several steps 

provide opportunities for public involvement throughout preparation of the 

EIS. The Record of Decision (ROD) ties together the results of the 

environmental review and serves as an important vehicle for informing the 

public of the agency’s conclusions and decision. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

3

NRC’s Commitments to the Public

The purposes of NEPA and its implementation dovetail with NRC’s 

organizational values of openness and transparency, as expressed in the 

Principles of Good Regulation and the Strategic Plan.

Principles of Good Regulation

NRC has a longstanding goal of conducting its regulatory responsibilities 

in an open manner, and keeping the public informed of the agency’s 

regulatory, licensing, and oversight activities. In pursuing its mission to 

protect public health and safety and the environment, NRC strives to 

adhere to the Principles of Good Regulation – independence, openness, 

efficiency, clarity, and reliability. More specifically, in the Principles, NRC 

says nuclear regulation is the public’s business, and it must be transacted 

publicly and candidly. Furthermore, NRC commits that the public must be 

informed about and have the opportunity to participate in the regulatory 

process as required by law. Additionally, NRC states that open channels 

of communication must be maintained with Congress, other government 

agencies, licensees, and the public. 

NRC’s Strategic Plan 2008-2013

Ensuring appropriate openness explicitly recognizes that the public must 

be informed about, and have a reasonable opportunity to participate 

meaningfully in NRC’s regulatory processes. NRC activities generate a 

great deal of public interest. For their participation to be meaningful, 

stakeholders must have access to clear and understandable information 

about NRC’s role, processes, activities, and decisionmaking. In the 

Strategic Plan published in 2008, NRC adopted strategies to achieve 

openness goals, including:

• Communicating about NRC’s role, processes, activities, and 

decisions in plain language that is clear and understandable 

to the public. 

• Initiating early communication with stakeholders on issues of 

substantial interest.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

4

When NRC updated its 2008-2013 Strategic Plan in 2012, the agency 

affirmed the importance of openness strategies to its effectiveness. The 

revised plan notes that “public stakeholders must have timely access to 

clear and understandable information.” Further, the plan states that 

“participation allows members of the public to contribute ideas and 

expertise so that the NRC can make regulatory decisions with the benefit 

of information from a wide range of stakeholders.”

II. OBJECTIVE

The audit objective was to determine whether NRC complies with the 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 relative to the preparation of environmental 

impact statements. Appendix B to this report contains information on the 

audit scope and methodology.

III. FINDINGS

In recent years, NRC has taken steps to enhance its NEPA reviews and 

procedures. For example, NRC has contracted to bring courses from the 

Duke University Environmental Leadership Program to NRC to develop a 

cadre of NEPA professionals in the agency. In addition, the agency’s 

NEPA Executive Steering Committee was formed to identify common 

issues for NEPA implementation across NRC’s program offices, including 

best practices and areas needing guidance. These initiatives have 

generated important discussions and provide a context for long-term 

progress. However, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has 

identified areas of noncompliance with 10 CFR Part 51 relative to 

disclosure and public involvement. In order to clearly communicate the 

results of and involve the public in its environmental reviews, NRC 

management should strengthen its EIS preparation process by:

• Publishing a ROD that complies with 10 CFR 51.102 and 

51.103. 

• Publishing an EIS that complies with the format provided in 

10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

5

• Performing all regulatory requirements for scoping for EISs 

that tier off of a generic EIS. 

A. Records of Decision Not in Full Compliance With Regulations

NRC offices with EIS preparation responsibilities do not publish a ROD

that complies with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51. NRC regulations 

provide specific criteria for the publication of a ROD and what must be 

included in a ROD. NRC does not publish a ROD that complies with its 

regulations because within the agency there are incorrect and varying 

interpretations of what the regulations require. Thus, NRC is not in 

compliance with its regulations. As a result, NRC (1) does not adequately 

notify the public, including Congress, Federal agencies, government 

partners and other stakeholders,

2 of its decision and the basis of that 

decision and (2) undermines its extensive efforts to be clear, open, and

transparent. 

NRC Regulations Require a Concise Public ROD 

Any Commission decision for which an EIS is prepared must include or be 

accompanied by a ROD. A ROD is a document that explains NRC’s 

decision, describes the alternatives considered, discusses potential 

environmental effects, and summarizes license conditions and monitoring 

programs adopted in connection with mitigation of environmental impacts. 

The ROD closes the NEPA process. 10 CFR 51.102 and 51.103 are the 

NRC regulations that require publication of a ROD and state what it must 

contain. 

10 CFR 51.102

Section 51.102 specifies that for any action for which an EIS has been 

prepared, the EIS must include or be accompanied by a concise public 

ROD. If a hearing is held on the proposed action, the initial decision of the 

presiding officer will constitute the ROD. If the proposed action can only 

be taken by the Commissioners acting as a collegial body, the final 

 2 Government partners include tribal governments, State governments, and local or municipal 

governments. Other stakeholders include public interest groups and any other interested member of the 

public. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

6

decision of the Commission will constitute the ROD. The designated NRC 

staff director3 is responsible for preparation of the ROD, except for 

instances when a hearing is held on the proposed action or the action is 

concluded as a result of a Commission decision. 

10 CFR 51.103

Section 51.103 prescribes what all RODs must include, regardless of 

whether a hearing is held. Table 1 depicts these specifications. 

Table 1. Requirements for a ROD

51.103(a): The ROD must be clearly identified and must:

(1) State the decision.

(2)

Identify all alternatives considered by the Commission in reaching the decision, 

state that these alternatives were included in the range of alternatives discussed in 

the EIS, and specify the alternative(s) which were considered to be 

environmentally preferable. 

(3)

Discuss preferences among alternatives based on relevant factors, including 

economic and technical considerations where appropriate, NRC’s statutory 

mission, and any other essential considerations of national policy, which were 

balanced by the Commission in making the decision and state how these 

considerations entered into the decision. 

(4)

State whether the Commission has taken all practicable measures within its 

jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected, 

and if not, to explain why those measures were not adopted. Summarize any

license conditions and monitoring programs adopted in connection with mitigation 

measures. 

(5)

In making a final decision on a license renewal action pursuant to Part 54 of this 

chapter, the Commission shall determine whether or not the adverse 

environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of 

license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. 

Source: 10 CFR 51.103(a)

 3 Section 51.4 defines the NRC staff director as the, (1) Executive Director for Operations, (2) Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Director, (3) Office of New Reactors (NRO) Director, (4) Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Director, (5) Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs (FSME) Director, (6) Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Director, (7) Office of Governmental and Public Affairs Director, and (8) the designee of any NRC staff 

director. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

7

51.103(b) and (c)

Additionally, a ROD meeting these requirements may be integrated into 

any other record prepared by NRC in connection with the action or may 

incorporate by reference material contained in the final EIS. 

NRC Does Not Publish a ROD that Complies With the Regulations 

For the sample of RODs provided by NRC and reviewed by OIG, NRC 

offices that prepare and publish EISs do not publish a ROD that complies 

with 10 CFR 51.102 and 51.103. OIG requested that NRC provide the 

RODs for 10 specific licensing actions. NRC responded to this request, 

providing documents that the offices asserted to be the ROD. See 

Appendix C for the specific licensing actions and OIG’s methodology in 

selecting those actions. 

The Documents Provided Are Not Concise

The documents provided by NRC are not concise as required by 10 CFR

51.102. For 4 of the 10 licensing actions, NRC provided multiple 

documents for each ROD. For example, 

• For a fuel cycle facility, NRC provided (1) the 6-page 

materials license, (2) a 91-page decision from the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB),

4 and (3) a 116-page 

decision from ASLB.

5

 

• For another fuel cycle facility, NRC provided (1) the 

materials license, (2) the Federal Register Notice for the 

publication of the EIS, and (3) the Federal Register Notice

for the publication of the Safety Evaluation Report. 

• For each of the two Early Site Permits, NRC provided two 

documents: (1) a 100+ page ASLB decision and (2) a 

Commission Order. 

 4 Decision Title: “First Partial Initial Decision (Uncontested/Mandatory Hearing on Safety Matters)” dated 

April 8, 2011.

5 Decision Title: “Second and Final Partial Initial Decision (Uncontested/Mandatory Hearing on 

Environmental Matters)” dated October 7, 2011.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

8

For an additional 4 of the 10 licensing actions, NRC provided a Federal

Register Notice notifying the public that NRC had issued a license. The 

Federal Register Notices fail to state the required information, although 

they refer the reader to the EIS for “further information.” However EISs

are not concise. They are lengthy and complex documents, as depicted in 

Table 2. 

Table 2. Length of EIS by Responsible Office

Responsible

NRC Office Range of Page Length of EIS

FSME 570 to 749 pages

NMSS 493 to 537 pages

NRO 504 to 919 pages

NRR 309 to 751 pages

 Source: OIG analysis of NRC EISs in sample (See Appendix C)
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

9

Generally, the Documents Did Not Meet Regulatory Requirements for a 

ROD

Generally, the documents provided by NRC did not comply with the 

requirements of section 51.103(a), as depicted in Table 3. Table 3 

represents OIG’s analysis of the documents provided by NRC in response 

to OIG’s request. 

Table 3. Compliance With 51.103(a) Requirements by Office 

Office State the 

decision

51.103(a)(1)

Identify 

alternatives

51.103(a)(2)

Specify the 

environmentally 

preferred 

alternative

51.103(a)(2)

Discuss 

preferences 

among 

alternatives

51.103(a)(3)

State whether 

all practicable 

measures

were taken to 

avoid 

environmental 

harm

51.103(a)(4)

Summarize 

license 

conditions

and 

monitoring 

programs 

51.103(a)(4)

Commission 

determination 

for license 

renewal6

51.103(a)(5)

FSME YES YES7 NO NO NO NO N/A

NMSS YES NO NO NO NO NO N/A

NRR YES YES7 NO NO NO NO NO

NRO YES NO7 NO NO NO NO N/A

Source: OIG analysis of documents provided by NRC for the sample of licensing actions (See Appendix C)

 6 51.103(a)(5) states, “In making a final decision on a license renewal action pursuant to Part 54 of this 

Chapter, the Commission shall determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license 

renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers 

would be unreasonable.”

7 51.103(c) allows NRC to incorporate by reference material contained in the final EIS. Among 

documents sent to OIG in response to the request were Federal Register Notices from different offices. 

For two offices, FSME and NRR, the Federal Register Notices identified alternatives considered and refer 

to the EISs for further discussion. However, the NRO Federal Register Notices do not mention 

alternatives but only state where to locate documents associated with the licensing action, including the 

EIS. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

10

NRC Offices Are Incorrectly Interpreting Regulations 

NRC is not in compliance with 10 CFR 51.102 and 51.103 because the 

offices that publish EISs have varying and incorrect interpretations of the 

regulatory requirements. NRC managers gave varying responses as to 

what constitutes a ROD. For example, a senior manager advised OIG 

that “there is no such thing as a ROD in this [NRC] environment.” Another 

senior manager said the ROD issue is an ongoing debate. Another senior 

manager said that the license, Safety Evaluation Report, and EIS 

constitute the ROD. 

NRC staff also gave varying responses to what constitutes a ROD. For 

example, some FSME staff said that the Federal Register Notice is the 

ROD and others said the licenses or licensing documents are the ROD. 

An NRR staff member advised that the Federal Register Notice constitutes 

the ROD. Generally, NRO staff advised that the hearing or hearing 

decision constitutes the ROD. However, it is not clear, from staff 

responses, which document in the hearing record they consider to be the 

ROD. Additionally, another NRO staff member advised that the license is 

the ROD. 

NRC Is Not in Compliance With Its Regulations 

NRC is not in compliance with the requirements for publishing a ROD in 

sections 51.102 and 51.103. As a result, NRC does not adequately notify 

the public, including Congress, Federal agencies, government partners, 

and other stakeholders, of its decision and the basis for its decision. 

A senior official from another Federal agency noted he looked for RODs in 

order to be more informed of the final decisions made by NRC, but found 

none. Another staff member of the same agency advised she could not

find the information, for a specific licensing action, that should have been 

in a ROD. 

Some members of the public were unable to identify NRC RODs and had 

difficulty with the information provided by NRC in lieu of a ROD. One 

stakeholder stated that NRC makes NEPA information available to the 

public by putting it on NRC’s Web site. However, according to the 

stakeholder, the problem is there are voluminous amounts of data and it is 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

11

overwhelming to the average person. The information is not clear and 

concise, as required of a ROD. Another stakeholder opined that for a 

specific NRC licensing action that the stakeholder’s group commented on, 

there was no ROD. This stakeholder informed OIG of reminding NRC that 

a ROD is required according to NRC’s regulations. Another stakeholder 

said that NRC should summarize and simplify NEPA data so the average 

person can understand it. This stakeholder was experienced with NRC’s 

Web site and understands environmental documents; however, this 

stakeholder opined, without a ROD the general public would have a 

difficult time understanding the data. 

NRC does not publish a ROD that complies with its own regulations, and 

therefore does not adequately close the NEPA process. This fosters 

public skepticism that undermines the agency’s extensive efforts to be 

clear, open, and transparent.

Recommendations

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations:

1. Develop agencywide guidance for NRC staff to prepare and publish 

a concise public document that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 

51.102 and 51.103. 

2. Implement the agencywide guidance to ensure that all offices will 

consistently prepare and publish a concise public document that 

meets the requirements of 10 CFR 51.102 and 51.103. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

12

B. NRC EISs Do Not Follow the Required Format 

NRC’s EISs do not follow the format described by 10 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix A. Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 51 identifies the format elements 

that must be included. NRC’s EISs do not follow the Appendix A format 

because controls are not in place to assure use of that format. Thus, NRC 

is not in compliance with its regulations. As a result, NRC (1) does not 

clearly present, in an accessible way, the proposed action, alternatives, 

and conclusions to stakeholders and (2) undermines its extensive efforts 

to be clear, open, and transparent.

NRC Regulations Require a Specific Format 

Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 51 prescribes a format that EISs “should”

follow. The stated purpose of the standard format is to encourage good 

analysis and clear presentation of the alternatives, including the proposed 

action. The Appendix A format requires each EIS to have the following

elements: 

• Summary. The regulations require a summary that 

adequately and accurately summarizes the EIS. The 

purpose of a summary is to stress the major issues, discuss 

the areas of controversy, identify any remaining issues to be 

resolved, and present the major conclusions and 

recommendation. 

• Index. The regulations require each EIS to have an index. 

• Cover Sheet. The regulations require each EIS to have a 

cover sheet that includes the name, address, and telephone 

number of an individual at NRC who can provide further 

information. The cover sheet must also list the State, 

county, or municipality where the facility is located. Lastly, 

the cover sheet is not to exceed one page. 

Appendix A allows a different format to be used, if there is a compelling 

reason to do so. However, if a different format is used, it “shall” include a 

summary, index, and cover sheet. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

13

EIS Format Does Not Meet Regulatory Requirements 

Based on OIG’s sample, NRC’s EISs do not follow the format required by 

10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A, regarding a summary, index, and cover 

sheet. OIG reviewed a sample of 10 EISs prepared by NRC for 10 

licensing actions. A list of those licensing actions and the methodology for 

OIG’s sample selection is in Appendix C of this report. None of the 10 

EISs reviewed fully met the Appendix A requirements for a summary or 

cover sheet. Only one of the EISs reviewed contained an index. 

Summary

Each EIS contained an executive summary; however, none of the 

executive summaries adequately summarized the EIS or fully complied

with the Appendix A requirements for a summary. 

• For one office, the summaries did not stress the major 

issues considered, discuss areas of controversy, or identify 

any remaining issues to be considered. 

• For another office, it is not clear whether the summaries 

stress the major issues considered,

8 and the summaries did 

not discuss the areas of controversy or identify any 

remaining issues to be considered. 

• For another office, both summaries reviewed stressed major 

issues considered and one identified remaining issues to be 

considered. However, neither summary discussed areas of 

controversy. 

Index

Of the 10 EISs reviewed, 9 lacked an index. The sole EIS that contained

an index included key NEPA terms such as “alternatives,” “mitigation,” and 

“scoping” as well as a reference to Federal agencies such as the 

 8 It is not clear whether these summaries stressed the major issues considered because the summaries

included a summary of the environmental impacts for each resource area analyzed in the EIS. It is not 

apparent that each resource area is a major issue. Each resource area is required to be assessed in 

each EIS the office publishes. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

14

Figure 1: NRC’s most recent final 

EIS, published in four volumes.

Source: OIG

Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency and to 

State agencies. 

Cover Sheet

While all of the EISs reviewed did have a cover sheet, none of the 10 EISs 

fully met the Appendix A requirements. Specifically:

• None of the cover sheets contained the name, address, and 

telephone number of an individual who could be contacted 

for further information. 

• Four of the cover sheets did not contain the State, county, or 

municipality where the facility is located. 

• None of the cover sheets contained the required information 

on a single page; instead, the information spanned three to 

five separate pages. 

Controls Not in Place To Assure Proper Format 

NRC EISs are not in compliance with the formatting requirements set forth 

in 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A. Although NRC managers said they

expect staff to follow the format prescribed in 

Appendix A, these managers are allowing EISs to 

be issued that are not properly formatted. The 

EISs are missing key components prescribed in 

Appendix A because controls assuring proper 

formatting are not in place. Although each NRC 

office that publishes an EIS has guidance that 

staff must follow to standardize environmental 

reviews, the “environmental standard review 

plans” instruct staff only to follow the Appendix A 

format. There is no clear, agencywide guidance 

to implement the requirements and thereby

assure that EISs contain the key components. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

15

NRC Is Not in Compliance With Its Regulations 

NRC is not in compliance with the format requirements for an EIS 

prescribed in 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A. As a result, NRC is not 

presenting, in an accessible way, the proposed action, alternatives, major 

issues, controversies, remaining issues, and conclusions and 

recommendations to the public, including Congress, Federal agencies, 

government partners, and other stakeholders. 

OIG interviewed stakeholders who provided public comments on EISs

published by NRC. Generally, the stakeholders opined that information 

provided is not clear. One stakeholder, a former Federal Government 

employee familiar with looking at documents, stated that NRC’s NEPA 

information is not clear or concise. This stakeholder further commented 

that reading and digesting the data provided by NRC is very difficult 

because the data is so voluminous. NRC ought to break down the 

information “in a common sense approach so the average person can do 

a quick read and learn how they may be impacted by the action,” this 

stakeholder explained. Another stakeholder opined that some of NRC’s 

EISs were long and complex and it was difficult for the stakeholder’s 

organization to understand everything. As a result, this stakeholder’s

organization felt compelled to consult with other organizations to help 

them understand NRC’s information. Another stakeholder opined that the 

way NRC reports information is difficult to understand. NRC provides a lot 

of technical information, but the meaning of the information is not obvious, 

added this stakeholder. 

By not following the Appendix A format, NRC does not adequately present 

to the EIS reader the proposed action and alternatives considered by 

NRC. This inadequate presentation fosters public skepticism that 

undermines the agency’s extensive efforts to be clear, open, and 

transparent.

Recommendations

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations:

3. Develop agencywide guidance for NRC staff to comply with 10 CFR 

Part 51, Appendix A. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

16

4. Implement the agencywide guidance to ensure that all EISs include 

all cover sheet information, a consistent summary format, and an 

index in compliance with 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

17

C. NRC Not in Full Compliance With Scoping Regulations

NRC did not fully comply with scoping regulations for in-situ uranium 

recovery EISs that tier off of a generic EIS. NRC regulations require 

scoping when preparing an EIS and specify actions the agency must take 

during the scoping process. NRC did not fully comply with the scoping 

regulations because there is an incorrect understanding of the regulations 

related to scoping for EISs that tier off of a generic EIS. Thus, NRC is not 

in compliance with its regulations. By not fully complying with the 

regulations, NRC may exclude some interested persons who wish to 

participate in the process. Additionally, NRC undermines its extensive 

efforts to be clear, open, and transparent. 

NRC Regulations Require Scoping 

Scoping Requirements

NRC is required to conduct an appropriate scoping process and publish a 

Notice of Intent when preparing an EIS, and NRC regulations specify 

actions the agency must take during the scoping process. Regulations for 

scoping enumerated in 10 CFR Part 51 describe a formal process initiated 

by the publication of a Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS. During the 

scoping process, the agency shall define the proposed action and receive 

input from stakeholders about the significant issues on which the EIS 

analysis should focus. A public meeting is one way to receive input, but is 

not required. The formal scoping process must be open to anyone who 

expresses an interest in participating. The formal scoping process 

concludes with the publication of a scoping summary report. This report 

characterizes and responds to all the input received during the formal 

scoping process and communicates to all participants what the agency 

learned in scoping and how scoping results will shape the environmental 

review. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

18

NRC’s regulations governing scoping for an EIS are summarized in 

Table 4.

Table 4: NRC Scoping Regulations

NRC Scoping Regulations in 10 CFR Part 51

51.26(a)

When an EIS will be prepared, requires

preparation of a Notice of Intent and conduct an 

appropriate scoping process

51.26(d) Scoping not required for a supplement as 

defined in 10 CFR 51.92

51.27

Defines content of a Notice of Intent, including

description of proposed scoping process;

address and deadline for written comments; and 

whether, where, and when a public meeting will 

be held

51.28 Defines scoping participants

51.29 Defines scoping for an EIS and its objectives

51.29(b) Requires preparation of a scoping summary 

report

Source: OIG analysis of 10 CFR Part 51 

Exception for Supplements

The regulations carve out certain exceptions to the requirement to conduct 

a formal scoping process when preparing an EIS. One exception is when 

a supplement to a final EIS is prepared when the proposed action 

considered in the final EIS has not been taken. A supplement to the final 

EIS will be prepared if:

• “There are substantial changes in the proposed action that 

are relevant to environmental concerns; or,
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

19

• There are new and significant circumstances or information 

relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the 

proposed action or its impacts.”

9

 

The scope of the supplemental EIS must be limited to the new information 

or change in the proposed action. A formal scoping process need not be 

conducted. 

Tiering

NRC regulations provide for a practice known as tiering. In 10 CFR Part 

51, Appendix A, tiering is defined by referring directly to and quoting the 

Council on Environmental Quality definition. As a result, the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulation10 applies directly to NRC. Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations define tiering as the development of a 

broad or programmatic EIS that assesses the scope and impact of the 

environmental effects that would be associated with an action at 

numerous sites. Tiering is encouraged by Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations and guidance and is intended to reduce repetitive 

analyses and increase meaning for the public in EISs for similar actions.

When conducting subsequent environmental reviews of individual sites

within the program, the agency can concentrate on the unique, sitespecific features and impacts. If review of site-specific conditions shows 

that the programmatic conclusions are applicable, relevant parts of the 

broader, programmatic EIS can be incorporated by reference into the sitespecific document. According to the Council on Environmental Quality, 

scoping should be performed whenever an EIS is prepared, including for 

the subsequent, site-specific EISs that tier off of the programmatic EIS. 

 9 A supplement to an EIS is defined in NRC regulations at 10 CFR 51.92.

10 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations regarding tiering are found at 40 CFR 1502.20 and 

40 CFR 1508.28.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

20

Additionally,

“[s]coping may or may not include meetings, but the process should 

involve interested parties at all levels of government, and all 

interested private citizens and organizations. 11

NRC refers to a programmatic EIS as a generic EIS. 

NRC Did Not Fully Comply With Scoping Regulations 

NRC did not fully comply with scoping regulations for in-situ uranium 

recovery EISs that tier off of a generic EIS. Two NRC program offices 

currently use a generic EIS and tiering in environmental reviews:

• NRR published a generic EIS for the renewal of operating 

reactor licenses. 

• FSME published a generic EIS for in-situ uranium recovery 

facilities. 

Tiering by NRR

When NRR prepares an EIS for renewal of an operating reactor license, 

the review includes a formal scoping process. The following steps are 

included:

• The Notice of Intent is published to meet the requirements of 

10 CFR 51.27.

• A public meeting is held.

• Written comments are received through e-mail or in hard 

copy.

 11Bear, Dinah, “NEPA at 19: A Primer on an ‘Old’ Law with Solutions to New Problems,” Environmental 

Law Reporter, 1989, available on Council on Environmental Quality’s guidance Web page at 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/iii-11.pdf. Bear was the General Counsel for the Council on 

Environmental Quality, and her article outlines NEPA’s purposes, scope, and implementation procedures.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

21

• A scoping summary report is prepared, distributed to scoping 

participants, and included as an appendix to the draft and 

final EISs.

NRC’s 1996 rule that codified the findings of the generic EIS for operating 

reactor license renewal specifically required a formal scoping process be 

conducted when preparing the EIS for a license renewal application.

Tiering by FSME

By contrast, when NRC prepares site-specific EISs for applications for 

new in-situ uranium recovery operations, the agency does not seek broad 

public comment and specifically does not open a formal scoping period. 

Notices of Intent to prepare EISs were published for six applications 

received since publication of the generic EIS for in-situ uranium recovery. 

Although one application has since been put on hold, NRC has published 

final or draft EISs for five projects. Final EISs have been published for 

three in-situ uranium recovery projects, and draft EISs have been 

published for two proposed projects. Table 5 summarizes the information

regarding early public input as described in the six published Notices of 

Intent.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

22

Table 5: Notices of Intent to Prepare EISs for New In-Situ Uranium Recovery 

Applications

Notices of Intent for New In-Situ Uranium Recovery Applications

Facility Date Published Information Provided by NRC Actions Omitted

Nichols 

Ranch 

(complete)

August 5, 2009

NRC staff met with Federal, State, and local government 

agencies and public organizations in January 2009 as part 

of a site visit to gather site-specific information. Staff also 

“contacted potentially interested tribes and local public 

interest groups via email and telephone.”

• No formal scoping 

process opened.

• No invitation for broad 

public comment. 

Antelope-Jab

(on hold) August 14, 2009

NRC staff planned to place ads in newspapers requesting 

information and comments from the public regarding the 

proposed action; also planned to “meet with and gather 

information from” local agencies and public interest groups 

during a visit to the proposed site. “No public scoping 

meetings” would be held.

• No formal scoping 

process opened.

• No invitation for broad 

public comment. 

Moore Ranch 

(complete) August 21, 2009

NRC staff met with Federal, State, and local government 

agencies and public organizations in January 2009 as part 

of a site visit to gather site-specific information. Staff also 

“contacted potentially interested tribes and local public 

interest groups via email and telephone.”

• No formal scoping 

process opened.

• No invitation for broad 

public comment.

Lost Creek 

(complete) September 3, 2009

NRC staff met with Federal, State, and local government 

agencies and public organizations in January 2009 as part 

of a site visit to gather site-specific information. Staff also 

“contacted potentially interested tribes and local public 

interest groups via email and telephone.”

• No formal scoping 

process opened.

• No invitation for broad 

public comment.

DeweyBurdock (draft) January 20, 2010

NRC staff planned to place ads in newspapers requesting 

information and comments from the public regarding the 

proposed action. Also staff were “consulting” with various 

Federal and State agencies, tribal entities, and potentially 

interested public interest groups.

• No formal scoping 

process opened.

• No invitation for broad 

public comment. 

Ross

(draft) November 16, 2011

NRC staff planned to place ads in newspapers requesting 

information and comments from the public regarding the 

proposed action. Also “met with and gathered information 

from” local agencies and public interest groups during a visit 

to the proposed site. 

• No formal scoping 

process opened.

• No invitation for broad

public comment. 

Source: OIG analysis of NRC Notices of Intent 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

23

The Notices of Intent depict a range of approaches for seeking input for 

site-specific environmental reviews. In four cases, NRC staff met with 

State and local governments and other stakeholders before the Notice of 

Intent was published. In the other two cases, however, the Notice of 

Intent indicates that NRC staff planned to conduct such meetings. NRC 

staff referred to these meetings with agencies, known tribes, and 

previously-identified public interest groups as “targeted information 

gathering.” 

Beyond the meetings that were part of “targeted information gathering,” for

three projects – Nichols Ranch, Moore Ranch, and Lost Creek – no 

additional public comment was sought to develop the scope of the sitespecific EIS. Notices of Intent for three other projects state that staff 

planned to place advertisements in local media seeking public comment, 

although no address or deadline for submitting comments was included in 

any of the Notices of Intent. Two 

of the environmental reviews for 

which advertisements were 

placed received some public 

comments. In one draft EIS, 

these comments were referred to 

as “scoping” comments, 

although neither a formal 

opening nor closing date of the 

scoping process was included 

in the Notice of Intent. 

In several of the Notices of Intent, NRC asserted that “NRC regulations do 

not require scoping,” but then described activities normally conducted by 

staff as part of the scoping process. These activities were conducted 

without the opening of a formal scoping process, which would have 

included in the Notice of Intent an invitation for broad public comment and 

the publication of an address and deadline for submission of comments. 

In practice, the site-specific review and assessment of impacts occurred 

without a complete site-specific scoping process. The three completed 

EISs reviewed by OIG and one of the drafts state that NRC staff considers 

“the scope of the generic EIS to be sufficient for the purposes of defining 

the scope” of the EIS for the specific site. The most recent draft EIS 

Figure 2: Public comments at a scoping meeting. 

Source: NRC 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

24

states that “NRC conducted scoping activities for the purposes of defining 

the scope of the GEIS [generic EIS] and any future” EISs for specific sites

that tier off of the generic EIS. Thus, for the in-situ uranium recovery EISs 

that have tiered off of the generic EIS to-date, NRC has determined the 

scope of the site-specific EIS by using the generic EIS and has omitted 

some opportunities for broad public comment. 

Further, in the absence of a formal scoping process, NRC did not publish 

a scoping summary report to characterize and respond to the comments 

received from stakeholders. Also, there was no summary characterization 

of or response to comments received during “targeted information 

gathering” in face-to-face meetings, teleconferences, or as a result of 

advertisements in local media. 

Incorrect Understanding of Scoping Regulations

NRC did not fully comply with the scoping regulations because of incorrect 

understanding of the regulations related to scoping for EISs that tier off of 

a generic EIS. Specifically, NRC staff refer to the tiered site-specific EIS 

as a “supplement” to the generic EIS, leading to the belief that the 

exception in 10 CFR 51.26(d) applies to tiered EISs. Some NRC 

managers assert that the public scoping process for the generic EIS for insitu uranium recovery suffices for subsequent, site-specific uranium 

recovery applications. 

However, during that generic EIS scoping process in 2007, NRC staff 

emphasized in response to public comments that all applications would 

receive a site-specific review. Staff also emphasized that there would be

a request for public input on scoping through a “scoping meeting” on sitespecific issues if an EIS were prepared for a future application. In this 

way, NRC did not give public notice that the public scoping for the generic 

EIS would serve as the scoping process for later EISs. The public, 

defined broadly, was not able to comment on issues of significance for 

specific sites because specific applications were not yet under 

consideration during the scoping process for the generic EIS.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

25

Limiting Scoping Undermines NRC Transparency

NRC is not in compliance with its regulations for scoping in 10 CFR 51.26-

29. Public comment at an early stage in the environmental review enables 

NRC to determine the scope of the issues to be addressed in the EIS, as 

required by the regulations. By not seeking broad public comment, NRC 

may not fully develop the scope of the issues to be addressed in the EIS. 

Also, less opportunity for involvement and input may exclude some 

interested persons who wish to participate in the process. As one NRC 

staff member noted, “There are different issues that people really need for 

the NEPA process to address and it is up to those in NRC responsible for 

NEPA to report what they see and respond to what they are presented 

with.” 

For future EISs that tier off of an already-finalized generic EIS, the scoping 

conducted during the generic EIS may become out-of-date. The scoping 

conducted for the generic EIS for in-situ uranium recovery is more than 5

years old. Over time, methods of analysis and human communities 

change. As a result, generic scoping becomes less meaningful. 

Failure to conduct scoping and enhance public participation undermines 

the agency’s extensive efforts to be clear, open, and transparent. 

Although the level of public interest in proposed actions under NRC review 

may vary, opening a formal scoping process to written comments and 

preparing a scoping summary report remain important steps in the NEPA 

process that are compatible with NRC’s objectives of providing 

opportunities for meaningful public involvement. For members of the 

public with an interest in or concerns about NRC-licensed projects, such 

opportunities are valuable. When the opportunities are not available, 

public skepticism is heightened. For example, one public commenter 

about the generic EIS for in-situ uranium recovery reported feeling “a little 

dubious” about the generic EIS because it appeared to be “a way to 

streamline a process, and to keep the public out.”

Moreover, without ensuring correct understanding of scoping requirements 

for EISs that tier off of a generic EIS, NRC might not conduct scoping for 

site-specific EISs that tier off of a future generic EIS, based on the 

precedent set. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

26

Recommendations

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations:

5. Develop agencywide guidance for all offices that prepare EISs to 

ensure that scoping is performed for all EISs that tier off of a 

generic EIS.

6. Implement the agencywide guidance to ensure that scoping is 

performed for all EISs that tier off of a generic EIS.

Summary and Conclusion

The two major purposes of the NEPA process are better informed 

decisions and citizen involvement. In recent years, NRC has taken steps 

to enhance its NEPA reviews and procedures. However, through lack of 

compliance with 10 CFR Part 51, the agency has made it difficult for 

stakeholders to access information developed in environmental reviews 

and may have omitted opportunities for public participation in certain 

environmental reviews. This lack of compliance fosters public skepticism 

and undermines the agency’s extensive efforts to be clear, open, and 

transparent. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

27

IV. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations:

1. Develop agencywide guidance for NRC staff to prepare and publish 

a concise public document that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 

51.102 and 51.103. 

2. Implement the agencywide guidance to ensure that all offices will 

consistently prepare and publish a concise public document that 

meets the requirements of 10 CFR 51.102 and 51.103. 

3. Develop agencywide guidance for NRC staff to comply with 10 CFR 

Part 51, Appendix A.

4. Implement the agencywide guidance to ensure that all EISs include 

all cover sheet information, a consistent summary format, and an 

index in compliance with 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A. 

5. Develop agencywide guidance for all offices that prepare EISs to 

ensure that scoping is performed for all EISs that tier off of a 

generic EIS. 

6. Implement the agencywide guidance to ensure that scoping is 

performed for all EISs that tier off of a generic EIS.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

28

V. AGENCY COMMENTS 

On July 22, 2013, NRC provided comments to the draft report. The 

agency stated its belief that its NEPA implementation activities have been 

fully compliant with the relevant regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. OIG’s 

central message in the report is that through lack of compliance with 

NRC’s NEPA-implementing regulations, the agency has made it difficult 

for stakeholders to access information developed in environmental 

reviews and may have omitted opportunities for public participation in 

certain environmental reviews. Appendix D contains NRC’s comments 

and Appendix E contains OIG’s analysis of the agency’s comments. OIG 

made no changes to the body of the report based upon the agency’s 

comments. The agency said it will consider OIG’s recommendations as 

part of the agency’s continuous improvement efforts because the 

recommendations could help enhance effectiveness, efficiency, and 

consistency across NRC programs in implementing NEPA.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

29

Appendix A

MAJOR STEPS IN EIS PROCESS

Source: OIG analysis of NRC regulations and guidance.

Initial EIS Process

Application Acceptance

Notice of Intent

Scoping Process

Scoping Summary Report

Environmental Impact Analysis

Publish Draft EIS

Public Comment

Prepare Final EIS

Publish ROD

Safety Review Completed, Licensing Decision
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

30

Appendix B

OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVE

The audit objective was to determine whether NRC complies with the 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 relative to the preparation of environmental 

impact statements. This audit is a spinoff audit — an offshoot from the 

Audit of NRC’s Implementation of Its NEPA Responsibilities. 

SCOPE

This audit focused on reviewing the preparation of EISs published during 

the last 6 fiscal years. We conducted this performance audit at NRC 

headquarters (Rockville, Maryland) from January 2013 through April 2013. 

Internal controls related to the audit objective were reviewed and 

analyzed. Throughout the audit, auditors were aware of the possibility or 

existence of fraud, waste, or misuse in the program.

METHODOLOGY

Document Reviews

The OIG audit team reviewed relevant criteria, including the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 10 CFR Part 51, 

“Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and 

Related Regulatory Functions,” and 40 CFR 1500, “Regulations for 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental 

Policy Act.” Auditors received training in the implementation of the 

National Environmental Policy Act.

OIG reviewed EISs and associated documents for 10 specific licensing 

actions from fiscal years 2007 through 2012. The sampling methodology 

used to select the EISs is described in Appendix C.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

31

The OIG team reviewed guidance and documents pertaining to the 

preparation of EISs by NRC. Key documents reviewed included:

• NRC Commission Papers.

• NRC Staff Requirements Memoranda.

• NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental 

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, and NUREG-1555, 

Supplement 1, Operating License Renewal.

• NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for 

Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.

• NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.

• NUREG-1910, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities.

• Agency and office-level guidance. 

• Draft and final environmental impact statements.

• Federal Register Notices.

• Transcripts of public meetings.

• Communications plans.

• Hearing decisions.

• Council on Environmental Quality guidance.

• NRC correspondence with Federal agencies and tribal, 

State, and local governments related to environmental 

reviews.

Interviews

At NRC headquarters, auditors interviewed staff and management from 

the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 

Programs, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of New 

Reactors, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, the Office 

of the General Counsel, and the Atomic Safety Licensing Board Panel to 

gain an understanding of their roles and responsibilities related to the

preparation of EISs. Auditors interviewed representatives of the Council 

on Environmental Quality and the Government Accountability Office. 

Auditors also conducted telephone interviews with representatives of 

stakeholder organizations that had provided comments during NRC 

environmental reviews.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

32

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally 

accepted Government auditing standards. Those standards require that 

we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objective.

The audit work was conducted by Sherri Miotla, Team Leader; Levar Cole, 

Audit Manager; Kristen Lipuma, Senior Analyst; Kevin Nietmann, Senior 

Technical Advisor; and Amy Hardin, Auditor.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

33

Appendix C

SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

The OIG audit team identified five types of NRC licensing actions issued in 

the past 6 fiscal years that required preparation of an EIS: 

• Operating reactor license renewals issued by the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

• Early site permits for new reactor facilities issued by the 

Office of New Reactors. 

• Combined licenses for new reactor facilities issued by the 

Office of New Reactors.

• Licenses for uranium recovery facilities issued by the Office 

of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. 

• Licenses for fuel cycle facilities issued by the Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 

OIG then identified 32 licensing actions during the last 6 fiscal years, 

including 20 license renewals,

12 4 early site permits, 2 combined licenses, 

3 uranium recovery facilities, and 3 fuel cycle facilities. For document 

review, OIG elected to randomly select from each of the five types of 

licensing actions issued by the NRC in the past 6 years. The licensing 

actions were placed in chronological order within each group and 

numbered sequentially. Using the random number selection function in 

Microsoft Excel, the following licensing actions were randomly selected:

• Reactor License Renewal: (1) License Renewal for Pilgrim 

Nuclear Power Station and (2) License Renewal for 

Columbia Generating Station.

•

 12 License renewals for Salem and Hope Creek were treated as a single licensing action because the 

environmental reviews were combined in a single EIS.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

34

• Early Site Permit for New Reactor: (1) Early site permit for 

the Grand Gulf site and (2) Early site permit for the North 

Anna site.

• Combined License for New Reactor: (1) Combined license

for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 and (2) 

Combined license for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 

2 and 3.

• Uranium Recovery: (1) Materials license for Moore Ranch insitu recovery project and (2) Materials license for Nichols 

Ranch in-situ recovery project.

• Fuel Cycle Facility: (1) Materials license for AREVA Eagle 

Rock Enrichment Facility and (2) Materials license for 

International Isotopes Fluorine Products, Inc., Uranium 

Deconversion Plant. 

These are the 10 licensing actions for which OIG requested that the 

agency provide the RODs and for which OIG reviewed the EIS for format 

requirements.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

35

Appendix D

AGENCY COMMENTS
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

36
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

37
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

38
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

39
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

40
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

41
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

42
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

43
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

44
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

45

Appendix E

OIG ANALYSIS OF AGENCY COMMENTS

Where the agency commented that OIG is incorrect, OIG disagrees and 

reaffirms the accuracy of its statements. 

OIG’s central message in the report is that, through lack of compliance 

with NRC’s NEPA-implementing regulations, the agency has made it 

difficult for stakeholders to access the information developed in 

environmental reviews and may have omitted opportunities for public 

participation in certain environmental reviews.

A finding by finding analysis of the agency’s formal comments follows.

Finding A: Records of Decision Not in Full Compliance With Regulations

The agency asserts that OIG relies on an over-emphasis of the 

requirement that RODs be concise and that the ROD can incorporate by 

reference material from the EIS. Additionally, the agency asserts that 

NRC’s unique adjudicatory process preempts the need for a ROD that 

meets the requirements of 10 CFR 51.103. Finally, the agency asserts 

that the NEPA Executive Steering Committee addressed the content of 

RODs and produced a memorandum for the NEPA-implementing program 

offices.

OIG Response:

Concise and Incorporation by Reference 

The OIG report does not rely on an over-emphasis of the 

requirement that a ROD be concise. 10 CFR 51.102(a) states “A 

Commission decision on any action for which a final environmental 

impact statement has been prepared shall be accompanied by or 

include a concise public record of decision.” [emphasis added] 

Regarding incorporation by reference, the OIG report does not use 

an impermissible conflicting interpretation of the regulations. 10 

CFR 51.103(b) allows a ROD to be integrated into any other record 

prepared by the Commission in connection with the action and 10 

CFR 51.103(c) allows a ROD to incorporate by reference material 

contained in a final EIS. However, 51.103(b) and (c) do not trump 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

46

the language in 51.102. Therefore, the agency’s assertion that 

“[b]ecause the regulations specifically allow RODs to be integrated 

in other documents or to reference EISs, the length of those 

documents is not the test for determining whether or not a ROD is 

concise” is misplaced. The mandatory regulatory requirement

that a ROD be concise is as important as the permissible regulatory 

authority for the agency to integrate the ROD into another 

document or incorporate it by reference. OIG disagrees with the 

agency’s assertion that OIG’s conclusions “render Section 

51.103(b) and (c) meaningless.” 

Adjudicatory Process 

The agency asserts that in the context of NRC practice, its 

regulations are appropriately intended to ensure that the ROD will 

reflect the entire record of the environmental review, including 

matters considered in the adjudicatory process following the 

issuance of an EIS. However, this argument does not address the 

issue raised by the OIG report. The mandatory regulatory 

requirement of 51.102 is that the initial decision of the presiding 

officer is the ROD. The plain reading of 51.102(c) and 51.103(a) is 

that an initial decision of a presiding officer is a ROD and must 

meet ROD content requirements in 51.103(a). 

Additionally, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) 

provided comments on the OIG Report. The ASLBP asserts that 

the one recommendation directed to it, is inappropriately directed to 

it and that “[i]n the absence of specific direction from the 

Commission, the ASLBP has no authority to develop guidance for 

the Staff concerning NEPA compliance.” OIG acknowledges the 

position of the ASLBP and agrees to remove the recommendation 

addressed to ASLBP. 

ASLBP’s comments bring to light an inconsistency with the 

adjudicatory process and NRC’s regulations. ASLBP’s jurisdiction 

is strictly limited to the subject matter of intervenors’ admitted 

contentions, which typically involve only specific, narrow safety and 

environmental issues. ASLBP asserts that because its jurisdiction 

is limited, it lacks the authority to enumerate the required ROD 

elements set forth in 51.103. 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

47

Thus, ASLBP concludes that if 10 CFR 51.102 and 103 indicate 

that a licensing board’s initial decision will constitute a ROD, the 

regulations should be changed. Section 51.103 says that when a 

hearing is held on the proposed action, the initial decision of 

ASLBP will constitute the ROD.

13

This inconsistency highlights the need for NRC to consistently 

prepare a ROD that meets the requirements of 51.102 and 51.103.

ROD Memo from the NEPA Executive Steering Committee

OIG reviewed this memorandum and disagrees with the assertion it 

addressed “the content of the ROD to enhance transparency with 

which the agency documents its regulatory decisions.” Instead, the 

memorandum restated the regulations and emphasized that a 

hearing pre-empts the requirement to prepare a ROD. Further, the 

memorandum proposed to merely add the words “Record of 

Decision” to Federal Register Notices to create an identifiable 

document that could refer a reader to an EIS.

Finding B: NRC EISs Do Not Follow the Required Format 

The agency asserts that the OIG report cannot support a conclusion of noncompliance because the format in 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A is a not a 

regulatory requirement. 

OIG Response:

Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 51 prescribes a format that EISs “should” 

follow. The stated purpose of the standard format is to encourage good 

 13 Full Text of 10 CFR 51.102(c): “When a hearing is held on the proposed action under the regulations in 

part 2 of this chapter or when the action can only be taken by the Commissioners acting as a collegial 

body, the initial decision of the presiding officer or the final decision of the Commissioners acting as a 

collegial body will constitute the record of decision. An initial or final decision constituting the record of 

decision will be distributed as provided in § 51.93.” [emphasis added]
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

48

analysis and clear presentation of the alternatives, including the proposed 

action. The Appendix A format requires each EIS to have a summary, 

index, and cover sheet. 

Appendix A allows a different format to be used, if there is a compelling 

reason to do so. However, if a different format is used, it shall include a, 

summary, index, and cover sheet. 

Finding C: NRC Not in Full Compliance With Scoping Regulations

The agency asserts that the use of tiering is the same as a supplement to an

EIS. Additionally, the agency asserts that the scoping conducted for the generic 

EIS for in-situ uranium recovery suffices for all site-specific EISs for in-situ 

recovery projects. Finally, by adding annotations to Table 5 of the report, the 

agency confounds public participation during scoping with public comments on a

draft EIS. 

OIG Response:

Tiering and Use of a Supplement Are Not the Same

Both NRC and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for 

implementing NEPA distinguish the concepts of tiering and 

supplementation. The agency asserts that OIG believes that the finality of 

the generic EIS precludes supplementation, a misstatement of OIG’s 

argument that demonstrates the conflation of two distinct concepts.

It is not the generic EIS’s finality that precludes supplementation. Rather, 

it is its generic nature that precludes supplementation as the agency 

interprets a “supplement” to the generic EIS. The purpose of 

supplementation is to update the understanding of environmental 

impacts. The generic EIS analyzed in-situ uranium recovery in four broad 

geographic regions. The tiered site-specific EISs do not update the 

generic EIS analysis. Therefore, the subsequent site-specific EISs cannot 

be “supplements” to the generic EIS.

A supplemental analysis supports the original analysis in a site-specific 

EIS. In tiering, the generic EIS supports the site-specific analysis that 

takes place once a specific application is received by the agency. The 
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

49

supplemental EIS reviews only the impacts of the new information or 

change to the proposed action. The tiered EIS must review all the impacts 

of the proposed action for a specific site, drawing on and incorporating by 

reference relevant portions of the generic EIS.

The agency also asserts that the Council on Environmental Quality 

definition of tiering characterizes the tiered site-specific EIS as a 

supplement. The full text of the definition of the term tiering reads: 

Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of statements or 

analyses is: (a) From a program, plan, or policy environmental 

impact statement to a program, plan, or policy statement or 

analysis of lesser scope or to a site-specific statement or analysis. 

(b) From an environmental impact statement on a specific action 

at an early stage (such as need and site selection) to a 

supplement (which is preferred) or a subsequent statement or 

analysis at a later stage (such as environmental mitigation). 

Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the lead agency 

to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from 

consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe. [emphasis 

added]

The use of supplement in this definition is limited. An example from NRC 

practice is the preparation of a supplemental EIS for a combined license 

for a power reactor, when a final EIS has been prepared and published for 

an early site permit. The early and late stages are considering the same 

specific site. By contrast, the generic EIS for in-situ uranium recovery 

includes no discussion of matters at an early stage of a particular site. 

Therefore, the site-specific EIS for an in-situ uranium recovery application 

cannot be considered a “supplement” using the Council on Environmental 

Quality definition of tiering. 

NRC Commitments to the Public During Generic EIS Scoping

OIG disagrees that scoping for the generic EIS adequately fulfills the 

scoping requirement for tiered site-specific EISs. Not only is site-specific 

scoping required, but NRC also represented to the public that scoping 

would be conducted for site-specific EISs for in-situ uranium recovery 

projects.
Audit of NRC’s Compliance With 10 CFR Part 51 Relative to Environmental Impact Statements 

50

At the public meetings and in written comments, members of the public 

asked questions and expressed concern about how specific sites for insitu uranium recovery would be considered after the generic EIS. In 

response, NRC assured the public that if a site-specific EIS were 

prepared, the agency would then conduct a site-specific scoping process. 

Specifically, the draft generic EIS stated:

If the NRC staff concludes that it needs to prepare a site-specific 

EIS, a notice of intent will be published in the Federal Register. 

Then, the NRC staff will follow the public participation procedures 

outlined in 10 CFR Part 51, which include requests for public 

input on the scope of the EIS and for public comment on the draft 

EIS for ISL [in-situ recovery] applications. [emphasis added]

However, after the public comment period on the draft generic EIS closed, 

the NRC approach changed. When the final generic EIS was published, 

the agency stated that it would prepare a site-specific EIS which would be 

called a “supplement” and scoping would optional. 

Comments on a Draft EIS Are Not the Same as Scoping Participation

The purposes of public participation during scoping and public comment 

on a draft EIS are different. Public comment during scoping provides an 

opportunity to shape the environmental review before it begins, but public 

comment on a draft EIS relates to the results of the environmental review.

The agency added a column to Table 5 of the report. The added column 

shows the dates of the comment periods for the draft site-specific EISs. 

However, Table 5 relates to the scoping process. Because the purposes 

of the two public participation opportunities are different, the agency’s 

annotations to Table 5 are irrelevant.