Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Appendix A
Response: Many of the impacts due to an activity are by nature subjective and qualitative; for
example aesthetic impacts. The staff used qualitative measures of impacts where possible.
The NRC's standard of significance for impacts was established using the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for "significantly"(40 CFR 1508.27, which requires
consideration of both "context" and "intensity"). Context is the geographic, biophysical, and
social context in which the effects will occur. Intensity refers to the severity of the impact, in
whatever context it occurs. Using the CEQ terminology, the NRC established three significance
levels - SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The definitions of the three significance levels are set
forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, as follows:
SMALL-Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither
destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
MODERATE-Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,
important attributes of the resource.
LARGE-Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important
attributes of the resource.
For Category 1 issues, the NRC staff assigned a significance level to each environmental issue
analyzed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal (GELS). The
discussion of each environmental issue in the GElS includes an explanation of how the
significance category was determined. The determination of the significance category was
made independently of the consideration of the potential benefit of additional mitigation.
For Category 2 issues, the uncategorized issues, and the newly identified issues, the NRC will
assign the significance level after an in-depth evaluation.
This comment does not provide new and significant information; therefore, no changes were
made to the SEIS text.
Comment: As you know, you consulted with our office regarding the undertaking in 2005, and
we concluded at that time that no historic properties would be affected. Based on our review of
the information recently submitted, we see no reason to alter that conclusion. (I-1)
Response: This comment does not provide new and significant information; therefore, no
changes were made to the SEIS text.
A.2.6
Comments Concerning Water Use and Quality
Comment: Page 2-4, Line 26: Change "Four" to "Five". (F-4)
NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
A
A-44 August 2006 1