ML19343D088
| ML19343D088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/01/1980 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343D087 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-18 NUDOCS 8104090308 | |
| Download: ML19343D088 (2) | |
Text
' E {
I) i
[o p ec. b billTED STATES *
~
'J
[' CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS[,
gi
]
J w AsHi+4 c7 SN, D.C. 20$55 0,g
- p Y*
c August ~1, 1980 cFFICE OF THE
^
SECRETARY
!!EMORANDUM FOR:
Leonard Bickwit, General nsel FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretar b'
SUBJECT:
SECY-A-80-101 - DIRECTOR'S RAtlT IN PART AND DENIAL IN PART OF 2.206 RELIEF (IN THE'tj TER OF C0fV10NWEALTH EDIS0tl C0!iPAtlY)
This is to adyise you that the Comission (with all Comissioners concurring) agrees that no review of the Director's' decision is reouired.
In connection with their approvals, the Commissioners comented.as frIlows:
Chairman Ahearne commented:
I am troubled by several points made in the OGC paper and the backup material:
s (a)
If the impacts are not significant, I see no reason to search for the "obviously superior" alternative--for insignificant impacts, any alternative should be satisfactory.
(b)
If the flRC had a surfeit of people and funds and if EIS's did not add any time to the regulatory process,. hen perhaps doing EIS's when they are not needed mignt be acceptable (although not a responsible use of taxpayers' funds)--but since neither condition is the case, EIS's should not be done when they are not required.
Comissioner Gilinsky comented:
I agree that guidance on the discretionary preparation of EIS's is not necessary.
I do not see any need for a study of the "obviously superior" standard.
cc: Chairman Ahearne Commissioner Gilinsky Commis~sioner Hendrie Comissioner Bradford Comission Staff Offices W.. Dircks, Acting EDO H. Denton, NRR CONTACT:
S.J.S. Parry, SECY 63-41410 N
810409 0 ?A93.
1 a
i a,
+
T Mr. Ahearne's ccmments on Sec3-A-80-101:
Approved. ';
c+.
~
1.
Agree no review.
2.
I am troubled by several points made in the OGC paper and the backup material:
(a) if the impacts are not significant, I see no reason to search for the "obviously superior" alternative -- for insignificant impacts, any alternative should be satisfactory.
(b) if the NRC had a surfeit of people and funds and if EIS's did not add any time to the regulatory process, then perhaps doing EIS's when they are not needed might be acceptable (although not a responsible use of taxpayers' funds) -- but since neither condition is the case, EIS's should not be done waen they are not requireu.
O e
e l
4 r
-..