ML19276D929

Continues Response to FOIA 781212 Request for NRC Comments to Ceq Re Draft Regulations to Implement the National Environ Policy Act. Forwards from J Nelson (NRC) to C Warren (Ceq)

ML19276D929
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/15/1979
From:	Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Anderson T WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
References
FOIA-78-345 NUDOCS 7901220106
Download: ML19276D929 (17)

Text

.

o#

4 UNITED STATES

~

j

\\

y%

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMis0lON I I I

C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i

E

%a/

January 15, 1979 Mr. T. M. Anderson, Manager Nuclear St.fety Department WestinghoJse Electric Corporation Box 355 In Response Refer Pittsburgh, PA 15230 To F01A-78-345

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This is in further response to your letter dated December 12, 1978, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Infonnation Act, any comments submitted by the NRC to CEQ with regard to " Draft Regulations to Implement the National Environmental Policy Act."

In response to your request, a copy of a letter dated February 7,1978 from Jerome Nelson to Charles Warren is enclosed.

This completes action on your request.

Sincer61y, J. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules aqd Records Office of Adm'nistration

Enclosure:

As stated R

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR W M 79012201or o

L

.f,. :.;_., f.,u

~,

we,sw= cr.. c. c. ::: 5

.e

' Y..M- -5;0 > t

c. % +.'._y:f

, 9../ n s

February 7, 1:73

~,

The Honorable Charles iarren

~

Chairman, Council on Environmental _

~~

Quality 722 Jackson Place, N.W.-;

. ?. J.

i _ - u- -.

Washington, D. C. - 2000 6 --..; -

~

.g. ~..' M.r;-

Dea

• Chair. man Warren:~~r...Z? L-~

~

~

On December 12, the Council on Env bcn= ental Quality circulated proposed NEPA regulatiens to the agencies, requestin5 that cc=ments be submitted no later than Februa y 6, 1978.

The press cf other business, includ-ing several Co 5ressional hearings, has made it diffi-cult for the Commission to meet and discuss the proposed regulations, and the connents en them pre-pared by the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of the Executive Legal Director.

Chairman Hendrie has therefore asked me to forward t"he and to advise OGC/OELD comments to you for you" use,

and the other Commissioners will provide you that he their individual comments at a later date.

Sinc erely, i

ig

/K Jerome Nelson

.Ger.eral Counsel

Attachment:

~

OGC/OELD comments on proposed NEPA Regulations cc:

Chairman Hendrie g

Cc=missioner'Gilinsky

,7 u

C Cc=missioner Eennedy j,

jg gf Cc missicner Eradford g L -!0 j'g', }0.O.

A I/=e 9 91 ove-Y

--e m e- - -..

s

Q r.sa.=ec:n :.:=.

n ---..

CC.w n 5 Od C:

c IM LEMENTIdG NE?A-F?.E?A:.ED E'( T.-E OFFICE 0.: GENERAL COUdSEL A40 T.ME

^

OF. RICE 0.: T.u.: rXECUT T Vr L GD.. ^.'.:.r

n..:.,..".r.

s

~

A Ercad Objections.

f i.

The crecosed reculations could be intercrated as beinc not in accorcance w1:n NE.'A or witn tne case law wn cn nas ceveicoec uncer the,-

statute.

NEPA (section lCZ(2)(S)) was intanced to ensure tnat Feceral acencies cive " appropriate consideration" to environ = ental values in their decisionma,ing, along with ecenc=ic and tecnnical considerations.u,.

x In interpreting the statute, the ccurts have fcund that the intent of Congress.was tc reorder acency decisiontaking ir. crder for enviror. mental -

~

ccsts and benefits to assume their prcpe. place along with other consid-eraticas.

Calvert Cliffs

• Cocrdinatina Ccmmittee v. AEC, ?49 F.2d 1109,-

1112 (D.C. Cir.197i).

Tne courts nave fur:ner cre mace it clear that Congress did not establish environ =antal prctection as an exclusive ccal, but rather as one to ce considered togethar with other relevant factors.

Calvert Cliffs', ?49 F.2d at 1112.

inere is no case law supporting the proposition Inat environmental values cust necessarily take precedence over ecenamic and technical censideraticns.

Section 1505.2 of the proposed reculaticas prevides that the eiency must -

cprcduce a record of decision which states, acene other things, "that if a.n alternative other than that which involves the least harm to the envircnment has been selected, t.ne reasons way c:ner speciTic consacera-tions of national pclicy overrade the environmentally preferable alterr.ative."

Sect. ion 150E.2 further provides that the-record of decision,qust state whether all practicahie means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adapted.

The reccrd of decision mus: also specify, where applicable, a monitoring and enforcament procram for.

any miticatien measures which are a;cpy.ec.

Tnese pro ~visiens arh tne same as provisiens in the Executive Order prcpesed by CEQ last autu=n which was not approved.

He earlier objected to those provisions as making substantive changes in HEPA Taw.

These previsiens could be read as imposing the recuirement that ecological consideraticas must take precedence over all cut overriding national policy c'ensiderations.

Such a reading of the regulatiens wculd preclude agencies frcm the normal balancing of econcmic, envircr.:entei and technical con-siderations that has always been the heart of NE?A.

See Calvert Cliffs',

449.:.2d at 1123.

Moreover, this readine wculd directly conflict w1:n cther provisiens in the prepcsed recula:icas, n:tably section 1E02.23, wh.ich recccnize the responsibility cf a;encies c weigh together ecclegica'.

eccccnic and technical costs anC gene 71:s.

17 acc;;iCnal culcance f or

\\.

YN censideration o[ ecological harm bey:nd that alreacy provided by L Micial interpretations of the statute is caemad necessary, the crc-

~

0.ed reculations should be recast to make i: clear that eccicgical,

~

E oncaic and technical considerations sh:uld ner ally 'ee give ecual k:ight in agency decisicnmaking under NE?A.

~

I addition to these legal difficulties, the preposed regulation would a' a practical matter be extremely difficult to imp'lement.

To attempt te rank, in crder of their environmental harm, a variety of alternatives- -

?"ch causing different types of environmantal im: acts--is of te~n not a Temsible goal, and the risk of time-consuming litigation on.this subject heuld appear to be substantial...

9Iher provisions in the proposed regulaticros could be read as attempts In overturn authoritative Supreme Court interpretations of the meaning

[fNEFA.

For example, Section 1508.21 w:uld define a " proposal." as

-,;ihat stage in the development of an action when an acency subject to

~-,e Act has. a goal and is actively considering one or more alternative T" vans of acccmplishing that goal.

A prepasal.may exist in faci as well i N by agency declaration that one exists."

_'his language follows closely the. holdings of two United States Courts D i Appeals.

See Conservation Society of Scuthern Vermont v. Secretary i

.S. Transcortation, 508 F.2c 927 (2d Cir.1974), vaca ed, 423 U.S. 809

_s.i975), reversed, 531 F.2d 637 (1976); and Sierra Cluo v. Morton, 514

[.2d 856 (D.C. Cir.1975), reversed sub nom. Kleope v. Sierra Clut,

' i7 U.S. 390 (1975).

Both of these hoicings have oeen decisively

'.mjected by the Supreme Court.

See Aberdeen and Rockfish R.R. v.

}gRAp, 422 U.S. 289, 320 (1975); and Kietce v. Sierra Cluo, 427 U.S.

' "O, 404-06 (1976).

=-

- ikewise,' the definition 'of a "maao'r receral action" (Sec. ion. _1508.16) __..

t 1

L onflicts with existing case law.

The proposed regulations' define actions" to include new and continuing activities, including projects

+

md programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, reculated, 3

approved by federal agent us.

Thi.s definition conflicts with court

• r

-decisions hol-ding that NEFA is not applicable to revenue-sharing) pro-

' ects (Carolina Action v. Simon, 389. F.Supp.1244 (M.D.N.C.1975,

E tff'd per curiam, 522 F.2d 295 (4th Cir.1975)) or to. licensing actions

?

Ey State authorities pursuant to a Federal-State agreement authorized P

hy the Atcmic Energy Act even where a Federal agency may be intimately

'nvolved in the licensing action (NRDC v. NRC, No. 77-1570,(0.C. Ci r.

an. 6,1g78)).

If such substantive chances in definitive judicial interpretations of the meaning of HEPA are warranted, they must be tade by the Congress rather than by CEQ "procadural" regulatiens.

h e

\\.:

i.

>..e--

l Other,crevisions of the preposed regulations cc :t alsc be interpreted.

as attampts to recast the meaning of the stacute.

Fcr exampl e, the

" severity cf impact" cf a project (the princt;al determinant of its

" significance" for purposes of determining whether an impact statement is recuired, according to the propcsed regulatier.s) is to be measured in part by its "controversiality".

Section 1502.2?(?) and (5).

Under this provision, an agency whose scientific expercs believed a procram to have no significant impact on the environmen: cculd be required to prepare an EIS simply because the program is " controversial" in scme cuarters.

Even claims that an environmental impact statement is required, without more, could arguably damenstrate controvarsiality..

y

.uch a requirement T1ncs no vasis in h,e_r,e,. cr in -he case law.

See s

P.ucker v. Willis, ?84 F.2d 153,152 (4th Cir.1973); Fund for Animals v.

Frizzell, 530 F.2d 982, _988-59, n.15 (D.C. Cir.1975) (per curiam).

The " duty to know" provision of the proposed re;ulations (section 1502.22) aisc cculd be read as creating new substantiva.requiremants previcusly unknown in NEPA law.

Agencies would be recuired :: obtain any infenna-tien essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives unless the ' cost cf obtaining the information is excrbitant.

Where the means fo_r chtaining the infccmation are beyond the state of the art, agencies will be required

~

to weigh the need for the acticn against the risk and severity of the possible adverse impacts were the action to prcceed.

Where thi agency gproceeds, a worst case analysis would be required.

These receiraments, particularly when read in conjunction with the requirament in Section i

1502.15(d) that agencies consider all alternatives in substantially.

ecual. detall, woul d c..

irec ly ccnTllct witn several j. diciel c.ecislens u

u interpreting NE?A's requirements in the face cf uncertainty regardinc -

~

the envirchmental effects of alternatives.

See N?.DC v. Morten, 4E5 F.2d 827, 837 (D.C. Cir.1972); Carolina Environmenial Study Group v. AEC, t

510 F.2d 795, 799 (D.C. Cir.1975); Lire of tne Lanc v. Brinecar, 4a5 E

F.2d 450, 475 (9th Cir. 1973).

Morecver, Inis provisica could weli result in. rctracted litication, both en whether acencv informatica e

was sufficient and on whether the cost of cbtaining more infermatica.

would be excrbitant.

=.

These examples suffice to demonstrate how the prc;csed regulations could be interpreted to transform NE?A and overturn much of the authoritative case law by which the discussions and requiraments of NE?A have been established over the past eight years.

ineir acc; tion would likely result in extensiva~ litigation, possibly entailing major delays in prc-grams and projects, as the courts consider the legality and' analyze the

.requiraments of the new reculations.

s/

2.

_Tne crcccsed rec.ulations wculd in par: recresent an imcrecer interference witn cne CecisionmaXinc c7 an 1~ca:Encer.

recLla!

T" Ecency.

4 4

.es The gnergy Recrganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. EEC1 (supp. 9 ig7E))

A major purp se created tne NRC as an independent regulat:ry agen:;..

of the Act, which abolished the Atomic Energy Ccmnission and assigned its regulatory and deveicpmental functions I: Separate agencies, was to ensure that the central object of nuclear regulation -orotectica cf public health and safety--would not be ccm.:romised by any ccmpeting policy considerations.

Certain provisions in the procesed reculations, however, could markedly alter this statut:ry schece '

The clearest example of the reguiations' ceviatica frca Ccngressional intent in this regard is Section 150?.3 which Ycuid alicw the Ccuncil, in the event of a disagreement between agencies as to the environmental acceptability of a proposed action, to subnit the issue to the President for his determination.

Had the Congress wished t give the Presicent final authority to approve or disapprove applications for NRC licenses, cont ce. this pcwer to an

...g Instead 1:

it ccuio c learly have done. so.

independent regulatory agency, insulated frcm Exe utive Branch contrcl.

So basic an amendment of the NP,C organic statutes as the reguiations would effect'can only ce acccmplished by the Ccngress,' not by CEQ

" procedural" regulati.cns for the implementation of NE?A.

Mere fundamentally, however, there is stronc reason to doubt the, legality -

of the regulations, even apart from the particular issue of referring cdecisions to the President, as applied to an independent regulatory The Justice Department Office of Lecal Counsel, whose views law nave always been accorded primacy acency.

on t.ne interpretation or Teceral.

within the Government, has advised the Council en Environmental Ouality with respect to the _ Council's authority t'o issue these regulaticas that it has serious. reservaticas abcut the ability of the President regulations that would be bi iding on in-to authorize the issuance oT

ne OTrice or Legal In he worcs c7.

decendent reculatory agencies.

u Counsel, "it can be expected that scoe independent agencies will not abide by CEQ reculations in certain cirem stances, and we believe they would have a fairly strong basis for refusing to do so."

Memorandum frca Assistant Attcrney General John M. Harmen to Charles

, arren, April 4,1977.

W I

Finally, althouan the proposed reculaticas nave as the.ir cbjective the enhancement of environmental quality, the ne taecutive cranen can anc principle they would establish - that t.should intervene in c dependent regulatory agencies with respect to envircr. mental ' effects c uld conceivably be applied to ac, leve an c. pes 1:e errect.

a The crapesal would accord to CEO su':stantive authority beyond NE?A an; Eretutive Orcer liiE:.

As 3..

the role assioned to the Ccuncil by in hi s A. ril 4,

1977 memcrandum, Assistant Attorney General Harmon note:HEPA itself does no

\\.

r ca other government agencies.

Aisc, at least or.e judicial dec'isier "r'<

-22 s.

. -.. :.. s.

c

-,5,4's r="

.si'ia7 .='.d=.=.-'...4....

..-=s..=...

s n...

s ---

-se.

s y

w.

eis beycnd CEQ's present statutory authority.

See Carclina Acticn v.

Simon, 357 F.Supp.1244,1245 (M.D.M.C.1375';, afe'c :er : riam, 52E F.2d 295 (4th Cir.1975).

These authorities dica:e :nat CEQ, whether i

acting on its own or based upon a Pr=sidential Executive Order, may not make binding determinations on the extent of ME?A's applicability.

Moreover, it is clear frc= the 12nguage cf Executiv5 Order liggi that it did not comprehend giving substantive decisional authority to the Council

.on Environmental Quality.

The emphasis is thrcughout on'or:cedures; the - ~

closest the Executive Order comes to giving CEQ a dacisional role is in its provision that CEQ shall provide a reccamendatica where agencies dis-ne impl emen a ien or n...,A.

inis provision see.ms consis-agree concerning t.

u s tent, however, with a view of CEQ as a mediator in interagency disputes,

~ and as an advisor to the President where Executive Eranch agencies disagree, rather than as a substantive decisionmaker.

The prcposed regulations, however, could be interpreted to constitute just such a grant of " power to determine the extent of ' E?A's applicability" d

that the Carolina Action court indicated must c:me frca the Congress.

They could also involve CEQ intimately in agency decisionmaking,orocesses, in a variety of ways, not all of them ap;arent frma a superficial reading of the roposed regulations.

Perhaps mest strikingly, this authority P

ccould be interpreted to include the right tc detenrine whether an impact

" statam.ent must be prepared; when it must be prepared and who shall prepare

.J.u.

Specifically, Section 1501.5, " Lead Agencies", c:ald be read as authorizing-party ass' party to recuest that a lead agency be desigr.ated for wha a private-If the agency cr agencies declined to make a "le=d agencv" designation an.

crcunds that there was no present or planne:, action requirinc preparation of an EIS, the regulation could be interpreted as permitting the private party to appeal to CEQ, which would be e :cwered to issue a final, binding decision, apparently subject to no further review.

General Counsel

' Nicholas Yost advised NRC General Counsel Jercme Nelsen that the regula-tion was not intended to enpowar CEQ to make a lead agency determination when an acency tcok the position that no envirer.mantal impact statement

'was required.

The procosed regulations shculd be clarified to~ reflect

. this advice.

n..

The Council 's autho'rity under t.ne proposed reculaticns to c..etermine Ine

. extent to which the other Federal agencies concerned shall be c:c.:erating Federal agencies" also has implicaticns far beycad simply assuring crderly precedure.

Section 1501.5(f).

Under Se:ti:n 1501.5, che lead agancy is

,, s s. u. e w- -..e.. _e. :. _ _,.1:..6.3 : _s

._a.....:,1 1:. ;.,

e

., c. ~,. a. : _, a n,

. g

.. s...... n,,. e...

r..2.

p

s..

..s:_.

. c a ys :i s c..

... _ u..

_e,.. c.,_ e_. c.... :

, ~L

u. a...,

r cs icco c,. c

.v c--r-acencies with jurisdicticn by law cr special excErtise."

In cases in a.

'u.., es.

,,.a

.:-. f

.i.;

c

.....c.,

c.

Lu

.,c

. e :........ e....o ri w n

..:c..

h.,1

., w e

r.

o-i

.v we cf a very narrow and specialiced scope, :his provisica could sicnifica.ntly curtail the ability of an agency to fulfill a bread national mandate.

It would also be an invitation to litigation.

In the event the lead agency cid not adopt all analysis and propese'is cf a cc:;arating agency, this

- : a g a :,,., d._.. a.,- w u:.,n u

,a

~,,

u~, s i s :i c.

-...,__w=_._a c,e c_ 1 c., v c.. m 1 n..

3,, h. ~a

.i

~

u...

e.

needed Federal acticas could be delayed.

Sectica i305.1.1 prevides that in emergency situations, an agency can take an action witn a signiricant environmental lapac: without preparation cT_

ty 17 it has Tirs cotainec a walver Tr:: C-Q.

yucn a waiver an :_7c. cn.

s r ~..- q.

'w'o '- "a

_-s.=

=...c. r -

s u' a 'i l '.= 3. c n'u = d e n~ 1.v, "

e~.1 a "i n d i.. 3

'u,> ".. -e c

s r

gency exists and that essential consideratic.s cf national policy recuire that the waiver be gr7ated."

In actual emergencies, acencies with respon-sibilities' to prctect public health and safe:y may not have tire to apply to CEQ aad adduce the reascas for beilevinc a ",true emergency". to exist.

nr in 1, _/:..wnica was in Tact t.

. South Vietna

.e The e ercency evacua 1cn oT i.

suc2ect or a n A sult-wculc..uncer Inese reguiaticas, have require,.:.

h,.,C were c c.,.ermne t-a: ne.l,.y acquirad pricr,.Q approval.

n n

u e.s u

s h,.J.

_s,...n

.2.

C m__

_ qL, 't

.d c i l n,,., =.,._.

p,,..l r p l _.

e

a. _n:c..

4 C -

u w

,.c

.c o

-,.,u, L : ),

..c.:;,w..

e.n..,. 4.,....... =.

a *s r. e m... _,, c n-3 s, 1 n. e.... 2 c.

L.

arw u i c G..: *t.,

s:

c.

4 nis.

, = c'i'"=d_

C"'c s + c E"i. a. "'w d : ". e _2 s = n d "h..= d c..:."..d

'..'.'.#..'a Uc",ld b.

c__

'u.4. o a

pun _".

~ ~.,

cr tn.at cn ot.ner enere.,v sources--a rec.uiremen; 07. c.ricr p.S a c. c. r ev'c..

emergency action wcuid clearty be unaccectaq.

t.ne stancpcin: oT w:e rc:

public r.eal t.n and saTety.

ine regulations sacui:. a,isc recognize an agency's authority to take emergency action in similar situaticns prior to the cc=pletion of an environmental assessment.

4 h

d" O + 1' C n ' ". e ". = s =."n' a l.

t.h. a + 'c.. e " '.""i. e. _c e -. e c

31. 'i,, s w.,_ 'w.

12u.e.e 3 m.m.

..,1. e 3 A

o us r

p a

o c..

attempt c confer en CEQ authority to make decisicas not cnly with respect

- ] e c. = C_ : ". C "i n t C'.-" *. a"".'.'=.

9 ' c s '. #. v"' "u s"".,'o -

w rs C:. p,CCe/.~or.e, k o 'i.

w.

A

. c

..c s.s c

e

~ s "e. c. '.: n ' 4 _* l d =_' c'. 'm'.a~ e 1als ".-"r.

c=..e_

c

] c.v.

6.0 6

A

.n =_ a c_ =.". " '. = s.

/eA -Dy i

-r c

m

- w -

.i, c... C:_y" ' s..".'t e as = uvi. s # c n =d h.v. s '- = ^ "s "i. =, c..d

_ -==ds '".

..'.4 --' > =

1. . v e..

3 CEQ by the president in Executive Order 1i951.

4.

ine crcccsed recu'laticns would create 7rocedural receirecents which

~

soule increase, no: cecrease, cacerworn anc ceizv.

ine prececurai presie:c

:e c scusse, in greater wnica :ne prcposed regulations wouic cause w1:

cata11 in tne : spec 171c cc=ents.

x Tew exa ;.es may in 1cate, u..cwever, p.

the sericus difficulties wnich wcule be c". mated for the agencies in

e. :. ~:. a. :. :.. m.. :... -. c. =. g c. g a u. _= _.

..c...,..

U. : - s,

.y. c-

, za

-, e w

w.

..w

.. y 1) e w..

w m

6o_

-.., _.1..,;

c

.s resuit in paperwork anc. celay.

+.eqw.

_ _ '. = - _ - - _. = = =

. _-.. -. ~..

==

NL.

5.?^

~

"~'

~ ;~'*

1. ..*......=.. ^ #..a--.-

' c ": ' Cf a. e,, :... :..... :....... -. ".. '= 2 '. i " =.

.,. 7 a ' #. ^ ~" s s * *.k '* o a 'w'- = '. '<

- e p.,. C c. a..e

1..

.c

-a s....

...s... :.n s:...:

. =.

. =. = :..=. --...=..

u

... a,..

.u=...=...

exceed 150.: aces, ana

.r,.0 pages Ter,. pre::sa s ::. unusua,i sc ;s cr ::m-

=...c....,...,...c.. : u. :.

. u.,- 5 ci.. :. :.. :.

u p ex3:y.u 2e...c

.:n-4., v c..,.

r. u that an extraordinary range of matters must be c:nsidared within this document.

Sections 1502.14 and 1502.15. The requirement tha

s ub s. anti all.

equal treatment" be given to each alternative (Section 1502.15(b)) virtually a,s...

2..h2 i n..,.,. = e c :.,

e...b,4, e.. '. ': s

.... '...- - '. s. a s c-

. '. - 1. =. =.... '. = '. -

w

_u u.

-a c - =. ~. ~... = ~ - ", " =... "..". _ '. i.v p1.an, u.n=.e %... al '=..= "m. v e cc. s e2 c. :.'.'. m..

exclusive goals of brevity and breadth cannet both be accc medated.

It should a' Iso..be noted that Section 1502.4(a)(5) requires final envircn-mental impact statements to respond individually to co.ments received en t.ne craTt sta eman.

ine nee,a to respcn: to puonc comments is alreacy u

. a major cause cf the length of impact statements, and there is no present

~

recuirement that each cccnent be addressad.

h'it'- this previsica, paper.Jork will increase.

In practice, therefore, an agency is likely te fid that en a c = plex acti:n where.numercus alternatives need analysis, er where public and agency ccaments are plentiTul,1: has a chcice re-.;aen ; reducing a d umant unica 1s eitner acecuately comprehensive er acequa.:e,y brier.

2n entner case, the impact statement will be vulnerable o a tack in court, and/the procram

.,cr c. roject in cuestion mav be delayed.

One of the potentially most useful - and pape-.::rk-conserving - provisiens in the proposed regulations is Section 1505.3, "Moptien."

As the section is written, however, its utility is largaly vitiated.

Al though an agency can adopt an envircnmantal impact state:Ent ( r ;crticc.s thereof) of enother agency, no environmental impact statemen: may be adopted if its...

adecuacy'i's under challenge by another agency (through a referral to CEQ) or in court.

As a result the only impact statsmants. hich ceuid be adopted are, in all likelihood, those which are en totally ncn-c:ntr versia' su jects or which are so old as probably to be cut of cate.

Two cr more

~

agencies may therefore be recuired to prepare im;act stataments, with all necessary pr'eliminary studies, on the sa:e envirer. mental effects cf the same alternatives -- a needless waste of time and resources.

Other exampies are included in tne 'ccr:nents regarding specific pr: visions

.in the proposed r'egulations which, folic.

5.

Soecific c:mments.

l..= '.v ' c s=...-. s..,.. q

>e a

1.

T n-...n.

c..>. cic.,c11 c #.

1. . n #. -.-....r.. v.a.

e.<

e

~

recu1remen:. in :ne proposec regulatiers (secti:ns 1501.2 and 1502.5)

..s.. i y..... ) s a,.. e- - e...s.v c = 1 1 #c. ""=<.=.=.=..4.-...~e.. c..s.

. =.....

n -

x. ~- a c. s. = '. =.... =..

y-. i c. ' o

'u..=. c. u '... '. e s '. - -. '. :

.:,- '. 4. c 2 u...... =-

b

..s.

\\*

c_

agency is contrary to establ.ished law.

See ir:at cbjection A.1, page 2.

In addition, it may be practically in::ssi le for the agency to begin preparing its environmental ir. pact s:a:3:ent. tith:ut -he detailed information contained in the applicaticn.

Seccien 1502.5(b) should be revised to make it clear that permittino atencies need not begin preparing an environmental impact statament'until after an ateli-cation has been received.

Section 1531.2 would also recuire acencies to

~

bring to the attention of decisionmakers environmental e'ffects and values at the same time as economic and technical analyses and to circulate and review environmental documents at the same time as other clanninc documents I

P.ecuiring that environmental and technical reviews procee'd simultaneously in all cases may create serious practical pr:blecs and may. result in the inefficient use of agency resources.

An agency woulo likely be required to prepare.a mini-impact statement even in crder to make a thres-hold decision that a procesed course of action was unaccectable for technical reasons and therefore cid not warrant p. reparation cf an

_u c.

a recuirement is unnecessary provided q

.1mpac* s.aeemen.

a u that the needed environmental documents 'and ir.f:rmation hre availabi'e"--

e.

bercre a c.ecision is recuired on he propose, action.

ranally, a s

related prov.isien in section 1501.2 recuires that environmental effects' and values be identified in at least as much detail as economic and technical analyses.

Particularly in the case of technically complex proposed projects, such a requirement may be difficult if not i6.-

possible to meet.

Moreover, such a mechanical provision would in many instances recuire agencies to icentiry envarenmental er..rects and values in detail beyond that now recuired by NEPA, and censeq. :ntly would impose needless additional burdens en agency rescurces.

NEPA has been. interpreted to recuire only that detail on e3vironmental factors.which is sufficient, given the facts of the individual case, to enable. agency decisicr. makers, the Ccngress and the public to ur derstand and meaningfully consider these factors.

See, e.c., ED. v.

Cercs of Encineers, 492 F.2d 1122,1136 (5th Cir.1974).

~

2.

Lead an.ency..As has al ready be_en n:ted (see broad objection A'.3,..i page 5),

there is no legal aut.nority Tor t.ne provision in t.ne proposeo regulations (section 1501.5) which would give CEQ the auth rity.to designate a lead agency and to determine the scope of part cipation i

of other Federal agencias in cases cf dis greement among the agencies invol ved.

Nevertheless, a provis1cn giving agenc?es i

~

clear guidance in making lead agency determir.ations would be very useful.

Unfortunately, the criteria specified in the propcsed regulaticn for making the lead agency designation are n:

particularly helpful.

The provisica shcuid be redraf ted to clearly state how, and the extent to which, each of the criteria listed. would establish lead acency resp:nsi-Aisc, the stated criteria udbid give insufficient weight to the bility.

fac: that one agency may have independent de:isiermaking resp:nsicility for a proposed prcject whereas cther a;encies may be propenents cf the proj ect.

Fat example, the criteria in sectier 1501.5 wouic cas con-s #. # er = %i a

"-ra

• ainty on lead acan:v resp:nsibility fer a.nuciear power

~ - - -

-u--.

~~~

~ - _ _.

3-i 1

W1.1 bm C

.s'w. us'wed a.n.d m,..:.: '. =. / ' ;~

T..f

• bo".. b.4..'..

..o e ' b =-

rc:Cw - ce b. "...b.

A e.

w

r..

i

- : -... a t. n.. e s : _..... a u..

l..u. e

-.u.

.. ; w.=...

~.u..

ru,

n. a. s. ;.

.v r. -.

e

.--.c.

i.

2 n n cy 1..

s.. e.b. c = 5 e s-y.-n] d be 'wy.a c c. s..-... d.

.. :.., =.e. d :.. i s. i S :... :.'.

n. -

-ge o.

respcnsioil ity.

In additica, tne recul-e-ment in section 1501.8 that lead agencies se: time limits if an applicant

.for the proposed action. rec.uests them is inac. prc;riate.

2.

Cccceratinc acencies.

As drafted, the lead agency's authcrity under section 1.

6 of :ne procesed regu,.aticas to re:ect an analysis c. a ui.

. cooperating agency whicn l believes to.te inacequate is unclear.

_.ine u

i regulaticas should clearly provide such authcrit,v.

Mereover, tnere! s a concern that an.acen.cY could, beco5e a c:3Derati.:

agency on tne basis or expertise alene even 1r tne agency has no -

resncnslaliity r.or or connection with tn.e prcposed action.....

.Tne lead agency should be required to acc:rd c'coperating I

agency status only to those Federal, State or ic:al agencies which have Jurismiction over one or more environmental issucs uo bse ac resse; an

.a J.

x the environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

4.

Adoction.

Section 1505.3 cf the prc:osed reculations would permit agencies to adept under certain circumstances all or part of a final '

]-

environmental impact statement prepared by another acency.

~~'I Adoption of another agency's statement may be a' ucerul means of reducing unnecessary papsrwor.x.

..owever, as notec. unc er-n broad c5jection A.4, the requirament that no statsnent may be adepted if its adequacy is the subject or Juo'clal action wnicn is r.ct rina,. would, as a practical matter, preclude virtually any ad:ption in a centrcversial case and wouid needf assfy encourage liticaticn.

Nor should agencies be required to treat adopted statements as draft statements in al t cases.

These requirements shculd be deleted.

In adciti:n, the prevision ccuid be intercreted to authorize an agency to adopt another agency's environ-mental ib. pact statement without conducting an ir.:ependent sucstantive review of the statament.

This interpretaticn, in certain casas, woulc, be centrary to judicial decisiens on thi st: ject.

See Henr.v v. F?C, :13

~

F.2d 395, 407 (D.C. Cir.1975); and Silentman v. FPC. No. /b-L 192> '

slip op. at 8-9 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 26,1977).

5.

Consideration of alternatives in acencv envircr. mental imcact stats,ents.

ine provisions in the prop:sec regulat cns gev.erning tn, e consideration of alternatives, in particular, are l}ikely to leac, tc unnecessarv additional paperwork requirements and can be expectec, c

introduce new uncertainties into the NE. A process.

Secticn 1:O,.5ja)

~

c requires that draft envircr. mental impac statamar.ts make every eficrt to disclos~e and discuss all major points cf vie.i cn the envi cr.m=ptal impacts of the alternatives includ}ng t:{ prepcsse_ ac'1cn.

in a..

=- -.. ;., 3 3,,

probabili ty, it wi t ce var:uato,

___u...,.

s >-

"u e = co c,e points cT. view, par icula.ly a.

,..m

--=.-

e-o; -

u m.

yo u

- - - ). - ~.., -

'! " = d '- - " " -.-;

b use u,i purpcse would c.

-.a..c e,-....

C.y - + - -.y-".. s... s. :- - c- -... c.

erc 6

cf viewpcints which clear 3y. ve ng

_...e...

na

.s the consideratica cf alternatives are f:ur.d in section 1:02

,1,.

.r.s

....... C.. c.

a * *. * - i - #., g

'L.b. " a l. s *.*.... #. V :..t

........=S'....=

e.,.V:a

• 31 j--: r

• g *6 > + e.o on. u

e. j.,. g e

.e....-._3.c......

w....

.6-

..v.--

e,...

w.

. w a -

3... *.

... c- *u.l. n.e g #....Of1 5cza I

~ ~. - 2 C. ]

,y..*,. y ?.

e.e a.

T

..O....e, 0. C. ~~ ~..

tn

.,.., c -/ gv.

C.,,,0 0.

1m--*), c...:.c e

cc;

.:..., c : /

. cc 1 u, u ( d,.

e:.

w e.

w.

.vs c f a ) )...1 s c. us l #.. e l e - = = n n c. ". u i. - =.. ". 'i..-.".. ". ",..=... = c.. s e.. ". i..'

i.

detrac: from other im,ccrtant aspects of the NE?A precess includinc the analysis of costs and benefits.

Tna re:;uirament (section 1502.14(b))

that agencies devote substantially ecual traa=ent,to each alternative represents a significant and unwarranted expansica of the recuiramants cf NE?A ar.d would effectively. overrule the rule cf reasca concap as it has been applied by the courts to the c:nsiceratica of altarnativas.

See Mo0C v. Morten, 453 F.2d 827, E35-38.

6.

Circulation er envircnmental 1msact statements.

Section,.c07.g(c,).

recuires that agencies pre are anc circula:a a suppiement to either a e..

crar: cr a rinal sta,emen,c 17 tnere are sign 171 cant new circumstances (including information) bearinc on the prc;csed action or its impacts.

This previsien is sufficiently broad to require the preparation and circulation of a supplement following c:st, if nct all, Cc=issica licensinc. hearines.

Such a requirement' in the face of'a develo.:ad hearing reccrd, would add new delays tc the NE?A process withcut sig-g n1Ticant countervalling enerits.

A re..latec prevision (section 1:_u_3.l(b))

= s ". r c -....=.r 's c >, ', i n a l e,v i v......=.s ". = 1

1. ....= ' s 'u = ^_ c-.. =. '..e.

c.u ".,

-a a prccedure wculd also add paperwork anc new delays to the NE?K process withcut anv clear indication of corresp:ndin.c benefits.

s 7

Duty to know.

Section 1502.22 requires that acencies devalcp informa 1on essential to a reasoned choice amon; alternatives whenever t.u.e cost or.ceveloping suca inrcrmation is nc: Excrbitan.

An cases where information relevant to the decisien is nct obtafnable, the acency must wei,gh the need for the action against the risk and severity of possible adverse impacts. has been discussed previously (see broadIf the worst case analysis.

As objectica A.1, pace ' 3), this provision creates new substantive recuire ents previcusly unkncwn in NE?A law.

In addition, the pro-vision offers little, if any, guidance to acencies on what infc mation is essentia'l or what cest is exorbitant.

.rinally, the recuirement for a worst case analysis in all cases regarc.,iess o

.une l i ke...l i ncom, ana sensitivit.v of the unknown factor is not supper ed by NEPA.

8.

Duty to ecclent.

Section 1503.2 states that certain specified acancies mus; cc=ent on stataments within thei-jurisdiction, ex;ertis=,

cr authcrit,y, unless the acency is a cc:ceratin.c acency ar.c finds tha:

4.

1 vic.,.s c.e ccar.,ue's=ly.c#.1o '6ad i n "... = e.. ", '...... c.. '. = 1

3..... c.

_e- '.=-

a m

r"iCr C7~ ' c i. ".. C..

F... 2 "s S c =.".. # - e

- :s

.,,,4.s1e.

.eycrSos 2 In.

.. <c...

y. w.

-.s n. - ~ -

.c-e e

,e.

..=es--~e- * - - - -

7.

• . k o_

. -,. 3.. o 4

• C C C.".....= n '. c..

c..a. ". #...... =.". *..O.'.... *. - '.e'.=_.=_...=...'..e.

~.'.'..a.-

r 'o*

• c.

9. c. - A.

c...W 3

e.m a... j. 2

.m e g... ] > ]. ?. 2. ] y _ o_

... e.

. -. :. :. M.,. 3 A

t

-.ow

. i.

. c.

w.,

- - 3..ry, ca.

3.,

,j o

c # # # - #. *. 21

• • • =#*.'.

C....~.=.....

i...."..=",

'^

r u.w..= w. i... g..l d 1o s'

"

• C u '. 'w' 4.

s a

w.

n.

u..-

c

... w....i.... *. 4.... 4. *. b.

.e 3_, * -.

7. :..- :. 7.,

. s. 2

,. =... <. a. s

..c c.w e.,_

e

.. _w shall obtain the cen=en&s er. certain acencies cercre pre. caring a 7:nat u

statement, section 1502.2 could delay the preparation of a final statement until all recuired ccaments have baan providad.

This could

. result in substantial additional delay.

9.

Limitations en actions durine the NE?A :rocess.

Section 1502.2(f).

r e..u.e p o - s =^. = c. u l a. ~a.s s f = i ".. =.s u.".. u =. c o.. m.. a. s s.k. =_'. l.. a ' c w... #..

m.

resources prejudicing selection of alternatives before making a T1nal decision.

inis prcvisica snculc. ue ciar:rie,. to estab,. ish with sc e

=. d

1. ..' a C ' ^ n '..'. = C n.c. # c' o.. c- 'o #. w o c#.

.n d ":".*

c#.

C = "'w.S i n 'f'.'w.'.* '%, c aa V-^

o s

alternatives wnicn would foreclose ac. enc.y activi:;es.

ine.cro,osec reculations (section 1505.l(a)) also prchibit any act~ ion whic.'T wculd ~

P. ave an acverse environmenta, impac cr unica w:u t, i.m t the e.nc;ce er reasonable alternatives until the agency has issuec a raccrd of

,ecision.

_7n tn.e case or nenrecerat app ocaticas, t.ne re;urations

_(section 15C5.1(b)) also state that if an a;ancy considering the applicaticn is awa're that the applicant is planning to take an action 1 3...#. 'w

'w ' = C' 1' C.=

= ' vn. n'i d b = v a. a - a d". = s

=.a.v '..

n....=.ew = 1 #.. g,=.. ".

r-un s

n.

o n-n u

u w.

.we no a.:. y u.._

c 1. y.

u.

o

. e.3 s..,_. 47. o. cl &

r c- *c. 3,.e s,

4.: 3 n & L.c.

c C =

C.,.,

.. e s

A-4

..2.

woc

. se n uo.

co

-1....=d.

l c %... a 'u

1. . ' e. c yp'l. c c'.i. cn wil l b.e. a.,i. e 'w = d i'. #. s...,. = = d. s c.e y c Th~ese provisions are overly restrictive.

..= ] I '.s.

4. 1 s '.".. e s i n v;r. #. r ' c c' # v #. '.#. e s '.. '". 4..

'u =...- w. c. y,

r.

a -

i i..,o.. e...,v, d

i.. a"'s, w.

'r.:_ v #.

c

1. ....' : C w

1. .=

. e"v e", s # 'l c-o ".. 1' n -.

a v.a..< s c

s.s so w.

.f n,

w w

c. "u=. '. a 'i.. V a s, '.= V e i..d = "., *-.". #.~=.. 'w

". *.". c.~ i w.E 'n' n #..". "..,, U c 'u. #.,V, p c.. -

-1 C.' O a u-o O.

n.

u n tting these actions mercre t.u.e issuance c a

ina i cecision.

P.creover, the required remedy cf rejecting an ap?lica:ica frc an applicant who persists in unauthorized activities would appear to be unduly harsh in all cases.

Pather, a rance of ramadies capandin; upon w r "m. = d e.. = =.

"=.s". '.u""c-c#.

'u.. s_ _=dv=..s=

ms..e cc.s.-...y.

=.

k v.

o ny-a c

% v

. e,.

.e n A L. a 4~o.c..s.

.2.=.

7 3 n :.

.y,

- C~w1^7 e=

c. e,.o. c. k ] e-c]e

-.a

u....c.. y g g pw w e.

wi w.-

.c

.o o

1505.l(c) prphibits any agency frca undertakinc cajor Federal actions covered by a program envirchmental in:ac: state.Ent which is in pr:gress unless the action is justifiec indepencently of the prccram, will not

rejudice the ultimate decision on the prcgram, and is itself.

accompanied'by an adequate environmenta.. impact statement.

_.inis pro-t

.v,ision is in accord with interpretations of NE?A in U?DC v. MC, L. '.e..c o m.

C. 2 -=. c. o 7. :.j-o3 =. = i ]

c/c).

pr:Vice ceTinitive culccnce on 6.ne

. _.'a,.g

. 2a Sme (ec ge.

p 1

v s--

a s *o.c. e_...c & 1s c e. w 3. c...

i.-f recu; rec. 'rur heracre, cune rec.ncw~m.c s.

.. i e s:e&. w. n.. s.a.

s c...v.e c.

• 4,, -

.~

statements cn new programs and stateIents which Ere #ntended.

E-ey.anine prior acticas.

In the latter cise, the restricti ns On 1, 2. c. :<,... c,

.., n....,.. I n a '. a m y'l.v.

4 o'

w w

- 12 10.

Exoansion of NEPA to actions not orsvicurly re:uiring an envir:r. mental imra:: s:a erent.

Ine pro.: sec reguia: :ns,s e-ion 150s.16) cefi.e ma;:r Fecerai actions to include the circumstance.-:here the responsible efficials fail to act and that failure to act is revi.e.ca.s by courts cr administra-tive tribunals.

This represents a substantial and unwarranted expansion of the scope of NEPA's applicability.

For example, acen;y denials of rulemaking petitions even in cases where the agency has determined that there exists no basis for the petition, could be interpreted as a reviewable failure to act requiring the preparatica of an envircr:antal impact statement.

Such a requiramant wculd create additional paperwork and sucstantial new burdens on agency resources.

In. addition, section 1508.15 extends the need for an envircn:antal it;act statement to not caly majcr Federal actions but to actions which "may be" major, anc to not only Fe'deral actions but actions.which are p tentially subject to Federal control or responsibility.

Moreover, the section states that

" major" reinforces but does not have a maanin: independent of "s ignificantly".

Each of these provisicas appears to be a further expansion tf the environmental impact statement requirement beycnd the-bounds established by NE?A and judicial intercretations of the statute.

See Hanly v. Kleindienst. 471 F.2d 823 (2d Cir.1972);' Friends of the

, --); _cwn or_ Gro:cn v.

Eartn v. Coleman, a_. 8..2d 3-a, o-,e (9tn Cir.

t 4

c.

ei:

i Lairc, 353 F. Supp. 344, 348 (D. Conn.1972).

Finally, :.te prcpesed reguiations (section 1508.4) provice for categoricai exclusionsl-a teategcry oT actions which c.o not incivicut,i iy or cumuia ively have u

a sicr.if.icant effect on the human envirennent.

Such actions would not n:rmally require the preparatiun of an env-Ironmantal assessment er impact. statement.

Tne categorical,exclusien l

approach is ki useful means of avoiding unnecessary review of individual acticns which, as a category, have been determined not to require an environm'ent'al impact statement.

However, the reculations also define

" cumulative impact" (section 1508.7) as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the acticn when added to u.

cther past, present ano, reasonab,iy Tereseet ie Tuture acticas, in-cluding individually mincr but colledtively significant actions taking place cver a pericd of time.

The regulations sh:uld make it clear that cc ulative impacts ' requiring the preparatica of an environmental impact statement may only arise from interrelated. actions and not frca separate and incependent actions.

s T1 Treatment of indirect effects.

The cr:posad regulations (sections 1501.4 anc 1508.12) recuire the preparation or an environmental 12:act statament for major Federal acticns uniess the agency Tinds'that the u

.-..u.,

n,.o,-..,.,.,,.. -.. -

bene.sec action will not have a sic,.:.z. :m.a..~.

c:.. :c..

nrcro

" Human environment" is definec (sectica 1503.13) to inciute the peCp l e W S 'n w

60y:' -* = * * *

-,,.=-

.t=<,

.c vas :ns cculc. be in erpre.ec _s,.

g- ' --. ~ **.-*-'-* ""--- F ~

interaC!len c7_

6" C '

-w.

""- l,8-2 "= -"-

e u

pr ept a i c n o f an env i ro nmen... :- - '. s ' = '-'- ":"-

w"=

= "' '" U"

'1 tc--

significant effects are indirect eriec:s such as these desc-ibed '.

n g.3, w.., - -..

sectica IE 2.15(b) fer the centen. c.,. s -.. :. _.

-i

_ :. ew

.m

,y

" o 'c a

-" a 1 s s " =- -

for the recc,iaticns to rescive.n.e e 3 c..

.. -. _ - -., s,. c " :-.

o+

--.,9.a;n.s

!g:...:

'.~-m-!. / ).

..... 1 ; -se..:.

-,e y-w,,u,s= w>

zco c :e n-.

~

o l.

n.

14 c y-s c.. w.

s.

..wss-s C * # ' c, w c #.. "- c :. 7. -

.-=.,.y p.n 'I d c-

. "...=

o" 7. 2-

' ".

• s" : C Cf"<~*

. sn s

a..*

ali cases in wnich an environmental impa-s a ecent.1i11 be pre. cared.

l Scop'ing meetings may oe useful ex,ercises in certain instances.

Nevertheless, the mandatory scoping provision in the proposed regulations appears to' be.cVerly restrictive ar.d creates certain practical impl ementation ;rchi ems. ;Fcr exampl e, in cases whkre the scope and principal issues of the envircnmental impact statement are well settled through prior experience with similar proposals, sccping meetings would be _ unnecessary burdens, merely adding paperwork.

Evan in cases where a scc;ing meetir.; is apprcpriate, it tav be difficult to ccmply at this stage with 3uch mandatory recu1re-

~

ments as determining the scope of issues to be included and excluded, and setting pace and time limits.

Any scopinc provisien.should accord acencies flexibility in these areas.

la.

Co nr...ict or in erest recuirements.

ine prc;cse, recut a:7 ens i.

s l

(section 1505.5) provice Inar contractors who centract for work on environmental documents prepared pursuant.to NEPA shall execute a discicsure statament prepared by the lead acency specifyinc that the contractors have no financial interest in the cutccme of the project.

This provision could be interpreted as restricting the scope of existing I'acency conflict of interest recuirements for contracted NEpA work.

Fcr example, the Cccaission's policy on avoidinc orginizational conflicts or interest (42 ed. Reg. 2 5/3.(s.pril e,

i-/ / j j extends beyon,-

r r

financial interest to include such factors as technicfL bias and un-fair ccmpetitive advantace.

As an alternative to describing one of

.i many passible conflicts of interest,.

a pro-vision which would recuire agencies contracting Tor wor,d on environmen a, m

n:

x.

s.. -. c. s,. c re,,.

cocuments pursuant 0 n.--

.o c.s*-.J.e wa..+

3 t y,-

.1 s e ten u c.

m-.

o u-6 to any org'anizational conflicts of interas: wculd be useful.

14.

Considera:1on or env ranmental imcacts t.nrcuch rul ema..< nc.

A provision snould oe accec to tne proposec recu-l lations which expressly provices fcr the cccsiceration of envircr. mental impacts on 'a generic basis through rule akinc.

Such an apprcach has

( c. Cir.

receivec Judicial sanction in N,oDc. v. h..u,

r.2ma S24 o;;

c l'975) and offers substantial benefits in avciding unnecessary ra;e itive

. d: :>

l

=u-..:. -...=-. al s. e..e n s.

.c scuss cas or impac s in an.v.

..a u

m uc c.

J-

'I SA

}..

p._,A]1s-j.o.u. r ].. p =.. '..

Ih ~ p -

• y* ^. s c-d - : - ". '..: '. '. *....e

("_<=.'u#.^as 's 's. ' s#

') '

a u_

.w h a l C," "..U 4. C '.= : #

w-. 9 s - =..._.. - o_

wr. ; - g e e. c. i o e

'n..:.r.= ". =_ - _2,-.*-.."#.c-..=.

J s

7 Crit'eria for. making :nis determinatien w:u'.

i :1_ce whe:her thare is

-.-e..-'.

c...... =..e v - *,. = r.. #....

's.h. =.

e__.. -

e e

..._..=__.:...n... s. + e. _.. i..= '.

um interest in a hearing, or a recuest for a hearin; by another acancy with jurisdiction over the action.

Thesa criteria are so bread as to recuire a hearing en the preparation of many environmental impact state-cents, arguably even in cases where.there is r.c envircr. mental issue but caly some private econ mic. interest beinc

ce

=d inis receirament for a hearing conrtic s w1.en clear case law to the er.. rec: tna n rn m.

u itself does not require that a public hearing be held on the preparation of environmental impact statements.

See, e.c., Jicarilla Aceche Tribe

~.

of Indians v. Morten, 471 F.2d 1275,125?-57 (9:n Cir.1973).

C.

Clarifyinc and other comments.

~

-' ~

1.

Table ~of Centents--orcanization.

The ter-inclocv revisicns of the prepcsed rul e, new fcund 'in Part 15C5, wccli be more useful- -

as the first part in the regulation.

2.

Section 1500.4(1).

"P,ecuiring" should he changed to " enc:uraginc".

This more clearly reflects the agency's true authcrity.,. -

e 3.

Section 1500.5(a).

Add the words "'dhere ap;repriate," before the word "intec_ratina".

inis raccenizes that in. the case cf a"plications, e

the creparation cf an environmental iccact statement mus: neraallv await the submir",n of the applicatica.

4.

Section1500.5(d).

Add the words "where practical" after the words

" scc' ping process."

It may not be possible 10 identify all "real" issues at the scoping stage.

5.

Section 1500.5(f).. Add the words "!?hera a;;ropriate," befor= the werd "PreParinc".

See item 3 abo.ve.

6.

Section 1501.1.

Change the werd " include" to "are", or provide a complete list of the purpcses of the cart.

In section 1501.l(d),

" dismissing.. insignificant issues" sh:uld be changed to " addressing iess significant issues with only sufficient detail to camonstrate their relative importance te decisi:r.makin:".

7.

Sect;cns 1501.2 and 1507.2.

ine manca::ry recuirement that agencies have and use sufficient capability shetic te made acvis:ry.

As writtan, the provisiens could be a hasis f:r iitigation Of an

=..---

=

2).sac--.---==n'"

c - n..., t c c- _ c u :. 3 4...,

s c-=-

3 n-o_ r c- - o

. a

. - cu "e

u a

e.

incependent of the sufficiency of :he s:2:Emen; itse3.T.

E.

Section150l.2(c,).

Chance "cr" to "as'.

- u; -

.c.

.c. o e i -.. 1.:n1.. t.

Tne rec.ui. e/

4,.

~

=,m_ c.

e

.n.

2_,

e... u. :. -..... =... *. = 1

. c.i i

2 3 c......w...

.e

. ~-. e. ':.= x.p.r e e d. y i. e. e. =.e

.m.. e.-

,e

2.,. u e.. e.

.c...=.-3..

. u....

10.

.c..e,.4.., n s :.n. n' : )'.

w m-

<-c un.

s.,,

s i.-- 4,. -

...

.-n

..-. s.

... =

...=.=.=.

...

.=

. actien".

See item 9 above.

11.

Section 1501.6(a)(2).

Add the words "related to its areas cf t

c a.f.-i ',. "'u *a c. 4 a f'=- tha v rd "e m or.'w#e=".

.i.a-d.. a'+ = d,

'u.%..

w

.o.

i..

w.

vision is unnecessari,.y broad.

12.

Section 1501.5(b)(?).

It would M useful to clarify whethe: "-ake available staff support" include.s the loan of staff cr the prepara-tion of work under an interagency acreement er both.

In accition, the section should reccenize that where the lead acenc.v. has independent licensing authority and a c cperating acency is an applicant, some Torms or cooperation, includinc funding by the l eac. agency, may be inappropriate.

l a,.

yec lon ac01.7. -.ecopinc meetincs c:ule. 3e usar...

u ul Tor icentirying te-chnical data base requirements as well as environmental require-ments in certain cases.

ine regulations sh:uld not foreciese the Use or sccping meetings Tor Inis purpose.

d ?.

Section 1501.S.

Time schedules o'r objectives might be more appropriate than time limits.

In secticn 1501.8(a)(1)(vi). acd the words "and necessary" after the word " relevant", and chance

" difficulty of" to " time recuired fer".

15..Section 1502.1.

Pevise the second sentence of the'sectica to read as follows:

A u snall previce rull anc. _ erair discussion or environ-o..

mental im.: acts and shall provide decisionmakers and the public with -.

an evaluation of the impact on the human environment of all reasonac.le a,s ternatives available Tor ecc..lavin8 receral cca.is.

Agencies shall compare the impacts of these alternatives on the human enviror. ment."

15.

Section 1502.2(d).

It may be impossible in some cases to state how each alternative will or wi'll not achieve the recuiraments of secticns 101, and 102(1) of Iq?A.

17.

Section 1502.5(c).

Tnis section should specify that staff

~

recc mendaticas will be inciusec in :ne c.ra : a n, r..inal envircn-mental impact statements.

NJ..

1S.

Sectica icv,2./.

umgncsis on :.

..v..:

c _: :.. a.

.a.

... e

s.. :

.e.., ---: c..s

,- e.,:_,

__s.1 J..r.*,. e e ' : ' = ~ = 's W~ ' ' d

'c "e= M '  :

1. #. <" = d

...ca.=

se

~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -

~

-- ---*-= - -- -

~-

, : :.c-s e C n e.

a

~

.y e, _

a u.. s a

m m.

i. --

.*emee.

.me em.

sees.

ee-

...s...

1-i c..

3e C'.4 n 1 :02.3.

Iw-ya s ine, a r...".#:... ;- -=..#..=..=.".'.

's su

..=.; bas #s

.c

• s. =.... =..e.

. c Ao. y.. 4. *.. e..n.

i n -].: J. n.

] :. -... =,. :.

4. s. 3

~

.. i f

for challencing the sufficiency cf scacaran s which cculd be s u','.i c..-. 'w'

'. -^ a d i n t =." r'.. 's : '. 's v

e.. :.. ".. :..-

(.a. u 'l c'

b.. : - ~. ~. ". - S. C. :. #.

to use clear and unders"an ac..'...

s te anc ua.:e.

17 syec as ecicers and writers are used, they should maintai close cce.-dination with the technical people doing the~ er.vir:r.mantal review work.

S' ction 1502.9(a).

Add the words "and interested.carties" after 20.

e the words " cooperating agencies". The envirchmental impact state-ment shculd also include the agency's ccnclusions.

21.

Section 1502.10.

Change "shall" to "shcuid".

inis 1s cons stent with language giving the agency discracion to depart frcm the

~

standard format where there is a reascn to cc so.

ihe format should also include a section on agency c:nclusions.

Items (f) and (c) should be reversed in order tc mera locically folica the decisionmaking process.

22.

Section 1502.il(f).

This requiraner.t shculd be limited to draft statements.

23.

Sectica 1502.12.

Add the words ", where appro,criate," after the word " stress" in the second sentence.

p,

'24.

Section 1502.14(d).

The "no acti:n" alternative should be clarified to establish whether this includes caintanance of the present situa-tien, or conservation measures if such caasuras are necessary to prevent the need for new constructicn.

25.

Sec'icn 1502.17.

The list of pre arers should be limited to princical contributcrs.. Many individuals may make miner contri-butions to the environmental im.oact statacant er su.c t-tina Y

material s.

25.'

Section 1502.18.

F.equiring that the appandix include all material prepared in connection with an envircamental impact statement would greatly expand the length of the cccu ent and is centrary to judicia'

. n ex.

See

,u_r v. Coros or.

interpretations or he requirements cr...,,

s Encineers,"348 F.Supp 916, 923 (N.D. Miss.1972), aff'd, 492 F.2d li23 (5th Cir.1974).

27.

Section 1502.19(c).

Add the wercs "fcr that requestor cnly" after.' the werd "cc= ent" in the nsxt-tc-the-last line.

25.

Section 1502.23.

Th= benefit /ccst analysis is cart of the impact a.

.cn>,ovo,a.Cw u

c,

.,s.

4.

s,elz w

w a

. :. s... ::..

aw.

i

3 7-

.:...: 5 7, g.. :. - =. =... ~....

.. :.. 3 :. r. 2:..

.. ~

.c....-.:

c.

=

Tess cna,i, inc u ing tn.e scienc Tit, inc= r;;j of their in; c:

statements is subject to widely varying in:arpretaticas.

It is unclear how agencies would insure this.

30.

Section 1503.l(a)(3).

Change " affirmatively" to " actively".

31.

Section 150?.3(a)(1).

Delete the words "as re'ccamended".

Other chances may be acceptable.

T:.:.,_: yn C=s:C,., s.,

2 cae s on }_

Q,F.2 (C)(9)(any ).

!JA 'wb a y.u-. ; n a

n-a

. c.. s n

-w u

word "acency".

33.

Section 1505.Z(c).

Chance " practicable" to " practical".

3?.

Section 1505.2 and 1505.3.

These sections could be interpreted limiting an acency's authority to im. cse tenitoring recuiraments to cases in which mitication reasures are ordered.

The regulaticas s y.n... t g i e, o3 n :, t,. us.c u

..a i.a75.3 7 = c,o :.. a.,..,-., u.g n..=y be

- c n,.,.v.. = u,

-e-u.

- u.

where needed to confirm that earliar estim=tes of enviror. mental impacts are accurate.

35.

Section 1505.l(c).

Add the words "significantly affecting the cua.ity or the human environment" after the words " major Fec=ral O

actions".

35.

Section 1505.2(b)(?).

Chanc= "shail" to "may" 'in the third line frc= the bottom. 'Aithough it 15 des t to ell-inate j du,clication in Feceral NE?A and State and icc'al envire'n-

~

Icental reviews, this would provide flexibility to acccaredate unusual situatiens when.a single statement may not be practic=1.

t 37.

Section 1506.3(b).

Change "ful'ly incorporated" to "has satisfied"..

s

.c nave een satisTleu,,

t..i s

... m.e comments of the cooperatin; agency.

IT :

sacutd be surricien.

u u.

38.

Section 1505.5.

The provisien shculd specify whether "ccatractor" includes other Federal, or St=te or iccal agencies.

One sr.ould consider the wisdos of permittinc a lead agency to dictate the choi,ce contractors for work assicned to a cocperatinc acency.. In the last

~

sentence add the words "in these regulaticas" after the. crd n..c ning.n e.

n

(

39.

Section 1505.5.

This sectien is everbread and could ba i..:Erpreted 0,

-c-".' :..~..-e

.e --' Se ":

.f 4. r i a'. l.v e.q # --

: -

ac

c. a s = -o n n sn:o..e

-w.-

u s-

. : c.. :._..e, s.,

=e=.~nia.s

..e!.,

a. =.-.. ef:.- ~. '~

..u.-;~.e.

.. =. ~. u. :. :s -,

n

...u

=-

which would be subject to widely varying incerprataticns.

T'.e

-. -.. e. e. w,,.

.e....J,r u ' = c-d ". i s c ;"..= ' ' =

'-.' =..

'. '- 2 '.

.v.

'.. c ". 4.. w-4,

s t

e 4

p i

p....:.n a.

u

-u u.:,-.

.C m

.c.

..o. > ns w-a,yiny,a s..cu l C e a.C..

.w.:

w

.u.

n n

<=,sa-. ]a:pc.c/2).

---.uw.

sa rs,