ML20141A554
| ML20141A554 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/25/1997 |
| From: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Campbell B COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705140358 | |
| Download: ML20141A554 (4) | |
Text
.__ __
'l p rac
., e t
UNITED STATES
[.,
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20556-0001 o$
April 25, 1997 Mr. Bradley M. Campbell Associate Director for Toxics and Environmental Protection Council on Environmental Quality 722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Campbell:
This letter forwards the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRCs) comments on the Council of Environmental Quality's (CEO) revised Draft Guidance for Considering Environmental Justice (EJ) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), dated i
March 26,1997. These comments are in addition to those provided May 10,1996 to the Office of Management and Budget on the 1996 draft CEO guidance (enclosed). A comparison of the 1996 draft CEO guidance against the March 26,1997 revised draft CEO guidance indicates earlier NRC comments were not incorporated; thus, we submit them for reconsideration. In addition, four major categories of change are noted and discussed individually, as follows.
1.
The new draft CEO guidance directs agencies to consider socioeconomic impacts for Environmental Assessments (EAs) in some circumstances.
The NRC believes it would be more appropriate to reserve consideration of socioeconomic issues until the identification of a significant envir<.)nmental impact at the conclusion of the EA process. As a general matter of practice, NRC considers socioeconomic impacts in most, if not all, of its Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). In the EA context, however, it would be inappropriate to require the NRC to initiate the resource intensive consideration of socioeconomic issues before it has determined whether the proposed action will have significant physical environmentalimpacts. We continue to believe EJ issues need not be routinely concidered in those cases where a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is made. Furthermore, routinely addressing EJ issues at the EA stage could have a considerable impact on agency workload and scheduling for agency actions.
II.
A new section was added to the revised draft CEO guidance raising a specific requirement for agencies to supplement their procedures to address EJ issues in circumstances where no EIS or EA is prepared.
The new language in Section Ill.D raises concern. We agree it may be appropriate to consider EJ issues in cases where the Federal action involves a significant environmental impact but, due to a statutory exemption or some other reason, no EA or EIS has been prepared. At the same time, however, we believe it makes little sense to expend limited
\\
agency resources to consider EJ issues in cases where no significant environmentalimpact is involved and no EA or EIS has been prepared. For example, NRC and other agencies I
\\
establish categorical exclusions by rulemaking for those actions that have been 9705140358 970424 PDR STPRQ ESGD 3 j_
6h6d M
NE W @ @ ##
Mr. Bradley M. Campbell )
i i
demonstrated to have no significant environmentalimpact (e.g., NRC regulations at 10 CFR 51.22). If an action is covered by a categorical exclusion and thus, by definition, does not have a significant environmentalimpact, the proposed CEO guidance would appear, nevertheless, to require the consideration of EJ issues. The rationale for this requirement is unclear. It would not appear that any purpose is served by directing agencies to consider the disproportionate effect on low-income or minority groups of actions that have i
no significant environmentalimpact. As such, we believe consideration of EJ issues is not required, and we do not intend to consider EJ issues, for those activities categorically j
excluded from NEPA review.
1 This concern raises a more fundamentalissue regarding the relationship of NEPA's legal requirements to the consideration of EJ issues. The EO indicates that "[each] Federal agency shall analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic and social effects, of Federal actions, including effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is reauired by [ NEPAL (emphasis added)." Given this language, we have assumed the intent of the EO and the draft CEQ guidance is to emphasize and clarify the existing legal obligation of agencies to consider EJ issues under i
NEPA. The new provision in the draft CEO guidance that would require agencies to consider EJ issues where no EA or EIS is prepared does not appear to be consistent with j
this intent. In addition, the new language in the guidance related to the consideration of i
EJ issues in the preparation of EAs raises similar concerns. A clearer explanation of the relationship between the NEPA's requirements and the draft guidance (as well as the EO) would significantly aid NRC ar.d other agencies in incorporating EJ issues into their NEPA process in general, the NRC does not intend to consider EJ issues where no significant environmental impact is involved, although it has in practice considered EJ issues in EAs prepared to support rules and regulations in the past.
111.
Agencies are requested to take EJ into account whenever promulgating or revising regulations, policies, procedures and guidance under NEPA or any other statutory act.
NRC already seeks to incorporate EJ into its regulatory development process. For instance, recent amendments to the Commission's NEPA implementing regulations specifically identify EJ as a potential issue for consideration in the environmental review of license renewal applications. Currently, under the interim NRC procedures, EJ is specifically considered in the EAs and EISs prepared to support rules and regulations developed by NRC.
IV.
The addition of mandatory language throughout the revised draft guidance document appears to be internally inconsistent and is a departure from the generally flexible language contained in the 1996 draft.
The revised draft CEO guidance retains the wording that individual agencies may supplement the guidance with more specific procedures tailored to particular programs or activities, and that agencies should be flexible in applying the guidance and may consider its terms a point of departure rather than conclusive direction in applying the terms of the EO. The addition of terms such as "must consider" and "shall" in the draft CEO guidance
Mr. Bradley M. Campbell calls into question the flexibility associated with the use of CEQ's document and also appears to make the document internally inconsistent. It has been NRC's understanding that, as advertised by its title, CEQ's document will be only guidance for agencies in implementing the EO. The addition of new " mandatory" language throughout the document does not appear to be consistent with that purpose. In addition, as demonstrated by the following excerpt from Section Ill.B., the document now sends a confusing message on this issue:
"There is not a rote formula for how environmental justice issues should be identified or addressed. However, the following principles provide general guidance.
To comply with the Executive Order, agencies must consider the following issues:... [ emphasis added]."
Provisions such as these in the CEQ document that are held out to be " guidance" but also contain mandatory language will cause, at best, confusion for NRC and other agencies attempting to implement it. Clarification of this matter is necessary to aid agencies in their implementation of the draft CEO guidance.
Although independent agencies, such as the NRC, were only requested to comply with the EO, NRC has endeavored to carry out the measures set forth in the EO and accompanying memora'ndum in the manner it believes to be appropriate. The NRC's 1995 EJ strategy is based on five principles of implementation and emphasizes NRC is committed to giving consideration to the CEQ guidelines on how to integrate EJ into agency decisionmaking under NEPA. The five principles include: the integration of EJ into NRC's NEPA activities; the continuation of senior NRC management involvement to provide guidance in this area; openness with the public and clarity of agency positions; communication and the welcoming of public participation with stakeholders, including minority and low-income communities; and the continuation of review and monitoring of Title VI activities of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which are limited to funding training and travel under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The NRC will continue to consider EJ issues as currently outlined in our strategy and implementation guidance documents, if you have any questions, I can be reached at (301) 415-1713.
Sincerely, l/l /
H gh L. Thompson Jr.
De ty Executive irec for Regulatory Programs
Enclosure:
As stated
Mr. Br:dley M. Campbstl -
Distribution:
CCraig EDO RF MWeber DCD (SP02)
DIR RF BMorris PDR (YES'V ) NO (_)
SDroggitis HNewsome DCleary AHodgdon MHorn Environmental Justice File JHickey PSobel CEO File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ ROV \\ CAMPBELL.CEO To receive e copy of this document. Indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP lE OSP:DD l
OGC l
NRR l
NMSS:D l
NAME RVirgilio:nb:kk PHLohaus STreby FMiraglia CPaperiello DATE 04/15/97
- 04/16/97
- 04/17/97
- 04/17/97
- 04/17/97
- OFFICE RES:D OSP:D DEDR l
EDO l
NAME DMorrison RBangert HThompson LJCallan DATE 04/10/97
- 04/16/97
- 04/17/97
- 04/18/97
'\\\\
J
- oct S
f UNITED STATES y
p) *,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'r WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001 o
%,..... f" May 10, 1996 5
Mr. Zach Church Office of Management and Budget Executive Office of the President i
Washington, D.C. 20503 Re: LRM No. 4130--CEQ Proposed Guidance on Environment'al Justice
Dear Mr. Church:
The staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) offers the following comments on the proposed Council on Environmental Quality guidance.
E GUIDANCE DOCUMENT On page 2 of the proposed guidance, the second bullet recognizes the importance of data collection en multiple and cumulative exposures to t
envi,ronmental hazards and inoiu tes that data on exposure issues should be incorporated into NEPA analysis as appropriate. The Executive Order placed an i
emphasis on collecting data on a long-term basis in order to build up a data 4
base. This guidance is now suggesting that the data is to be utilized in evaluating proposed Federal actions. The guidance should make clear that agencies are not required to create data for the sole purpose of complying with the guidance.
i 4
The second bullet on page 3 and the second full paragraph on page 13 speak of mitigation measures identified as part of a finding of no significant impact (F0NSI). _ In most, if not all, of the cases where the NRC makes a FONSI, there is no need to consider mitigation measures. The guidance should make clear that there is no need to discuss mitigation measures unless NEPA requires it.
The -third new paragraph on page 5 indicates that agencies should recognize that environmental justice is highly sensitive to the " history or circumstances" of a particular community or population. Additional guidance regarding what is contemplated here would be useful.
The third bullet on page 7 and the first new paragraph on page 12_suggest that environmental justice considerations will be addressed as part of environmental assessments (EA).
In such a case, 1
since there is no significant environmental impact, there is no reason to examine environmental justice issues. This should be clarified since our experience suggests that there would be few instances warranting environmental justice consideration in an EA. A routine examination of this issue in EAs could have a significant impact on agency workload and scheduling for licensing actions.
MMMUtstW 9??
l 1
Mr. Church In this same vein, throughout the document guidance is provided for actions to be taken during the scoping process. Scoping is normally performed only for environmental impact statements, not EAs. If environmental justice reviews are to be performed for EAs, guidance needs to be provided regarding the performance of such reviews without scoping.
The second sentence of the full paragraph on page 10 should be revised to add the words "the opportunity for" after the word " regulations". The sentence would thus read, "CEQ's regulations require the opportunity for comprehensive public involvement through the NEPA process." A Federal agency cannot guarantee public participation.
The first full paragraph on page 11 refers to the use of Landview II software.
This software needs to be revised to include all of the variables addressed in the CEQ guidance.
The second full paragraph on page 11 relates to collection and analysis of data addressing " sensitive subpopulations" within the affected low-income or minority community. The NRC's normal practices do not encompass assessing impacts on subpopulations. Additional guidance on what is expected here would be useful.
In addition, the paragraph provides that data on different patt6rns of living, should be developed when needed. Again, this is a suggestion that data be developed for particular projects, rather than to compile a general data base.
In addition, clarification is required regarding whether such data is to be collected throughout the life of the project or only for the purposes of evaluating whether the project should be approved.
If it is the former, this provision could be quite costly to implement.
APPENDIX A The definition of " minority population" on page 2 should recognize'that some individuals may qualify as a minority on more than one basis and that aggregations of the bases may result in double counting. This should be avoided.
Sincerely, O
w
. 77/L L
'Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards and Operations Support
Mr. Bradisy M. Campb ll <
appears to make the document internally inconsistent. It has been NRC's understanding l
that, as advertised by its title, CEQ's document will be only guidance for agencies in j
implementing the EO. The addition of new " mandatory" language throughout the document does not appear to be consistent with that purpose, n addition, as demonstrated by the following excerpt from Section Ill.B., th document now sends a j
confusing message on this issue:
i j
"There is not a rote formula for how environme al Justice issues should be j
identified or addressed. However, the folio g principles provide general guidance.
{
To comply with the Executive Or r, agencies must consider the following issues:... [ emphasis added)."
Provisions such as these in the CEO doc ent that are held out to be " guidance" but also contain mandatory language will caus at best, confusion for NRC and other agencies attempting to implement it. Clarific on of this matter is necessary to aid agencies in their implementation of the draft CEQ idance.
Although independent agenci, such as the NRC, were only requested to comply with the EO, NRC has endeavored to arry out the measures set forth in the EO and accompanying memorandum. The NRC' 995 EJ strategy is based on five principles of implementation and emphasizes NRC is ommitted to giving consideration to the CEO guidelines on how to integrate EJ into agen decisionmaking under NEPA. The five principles include: the integration of EJ int RC's NEPA activities; the continuation of senior NRC management involvement to pr ide guidance in this area; openness with the public and clarity of agency position, communication and the welcoming of public participation with stakeholders, ciuding minority and low-income communities; and the continuation of review and onitoring of Title VI activities of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which are limited to nding training and travel under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as ame ed. Until CEO guidelines become final, the NRC will continue to consider EJ issue as currently outlined in our strategy and implementation guidance documents.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at (301) 415-1713.
Copies have been mada Sincerely, for OEDO andforthoaa m
an @
Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director neddd @ don, for Regulatory Programs
Enclosure:
OSP DlR RF BMorris PDR (YES,_)
NO (_y,'_)
SDroggitis HNewsome DCleary AHodedon MHorn Environmental Justice File JHickey PSobel CEO File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ ROV \\ CAMPBELL.CEQ T3 soselve o espy of ede document, indleste in the boa: 'C' = Copy wehout ettechme,rt/ enclosure
- E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure
'N' = No copy OFFICE OSP l
OSP:DD l
OGC l
[
NMSS;D l
NAME RVirgilio:nb:kk PHLohaus STreby FMiraglia CPaperiello DATE 04/16/97
- 04/16/97
- 04/17/97
- 04/17/97
- 04/17/97
- OFFICE NAME DMorrison RBangert HThornp6pl5 V\\
LJCalle@
DATE 04/16/97
- 04/16/97
Mr. Bradisy M. Crmpbsli -
appears to make the document internally inconsistent. It has been NRC's understanding that, as advertised by its title, CEQ's document will be only guidance for agencies in J
implementing the EO. The addition of new " mandatory" language throughout the document does not appear to be consistent with that purpose. n addition, as demonstrated by the following excerpt from Section Ill.B., th document now sends a confusing message on this issue:
"There is not a rote formula for how environmen al justice issues should be
)
identified or addressed. However, the follo itig principles provide general guidance.
To comply with the Executive Or er, agencies must consider the following issues:... [ emphasis added]."
Provisions such as these in the CEO dopbest, confusion for NRC and other a c
ent that are held out to be " guidance" but also contain mandatory language will caus at attempting to implement it. Clarific on of this matter is necessary to aid agencies in their implementation of the draft CEO idance.
Although independent agenci, such as the NRC, were only requested to comply with the EO, NRC has endeavored to arry out the measures set forth in the EO and accompanying memorandum. The NRC' 1995 EJ strategy is based on five principles of implementation and emphasizes NRC is ommitted to giving consideration to the CEO guidelines on how to integrate EJ into agen decisionmaking under NEPA. The five principles include: the integration of EJ int RC's NEPA activities; the continuation of senior NRC management involvement to pr ide guidance in this area; openness with the public and clarity of agency position, communication and the welcoming of public participation with s
stakeholders, ciuding minority and low-income communities; and the continuation of j
review and onitoring of Title VI activities of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which are limited to nding training and travel under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, l
as ame ed. Until CEO guidelines become final, the NRC will continue to consider EJ issue as currently outlined in our strategy and implementation guidance documents.
~
If you have any questions, I can be recched at (301) 415-1713.
1 Sincerely, Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
CCraig 4
OSP DIR RF BMorris PDR (YES _) NO (g,J SDroggitis HNewsorne DCleary AHodgdon MHorn Environmental Justice File JHickey PSobel CEO File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ ROV \\ CAMPBELL.CEO I
Ta receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box: 'C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachtnant/ enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP l
OSP:DD l
OGC l
NRR l
NMSS:D l
NAME RVirgilio:nb:kk PHLohaus STreby FMiraglia CPaperiello DATE 04/15/97
- o4/16/97
- o4/17/97
- 04/17/97
- 04/17/97
- OFFICE RES:D OSP:D DEDR [
EDO 4
NAME DMorrison R8angart HThomp6priV (
LJCallarW DATE o4/16/97
- 04/16/97
. Mr. Bradisy M. Ctmpbell
.3-appears to make the document internally inconsistent. It has been NRC's understanding that, as advertised by its title, CEQ's document will be only guidance for agencies in implementing the EO. The addition of new " mandatory" language throughout the document does not appear to be consistent with that purpose. In addition, as demonstrated by the following excerpt from Section Ill.B., the document now sends a j
confusing message on this issue:
"There is not a rote formula for how environmental justice issues should be identified or addressed. However, the following principles provide general guidance.
i To comply with the Executive Order, agencies must consider the following issues:... [ emphasis added]."
Provisions such as these in the CEO document that are held out to be " guidance" but also contain' mandatory language will cause, at best, confusion for NRC and other agencies attempting to implement it. Clarification of this matter is necessary to aid agencies in their implementation of the draft CEO guidance.
.Although independent agencies, such as the NRC, were only requested to comply with the EO, NRC has endeavored to carry out the measures set forth in the EO and accompanying memorandum. The NRC's 1995 EJ strategy is based on five principles of implementation and emphasizes NRC is committed to giving consideration to the CEO guidelines on how to integrate EJ into agency decisionmaking under NEPA. The five principles include: the integration of EJ into NRC's NEPA activities; the continuation of senior NRC management j
involvement to provide guidance in this area; openness with the public and clarity of agency positions; comrnunication and the welcoming of public participation with stakeholders, including minority and low-income communities; and the continuation of review and monitoring of Title VI activities of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which are limited to funding training and travel under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Until CEO guidelines become final, the NRC will continue to consider EJ issues as currently outlined in our strategy and implementation guidance documents, if you have any questions, I can be reached at (301) 415-1713.
Sincerely, Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
CCraig j
OSP DIR RF BMorris PDR (YES,_) NO (i)
SDroggitis HNewsome DCleary AHodgdon MHorn Environmental Justice File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ ROV \\ CAMPBELL.CEO M.d dg 4/01 JHickey PSobel CEO Fil b receive e copy of this document. Indicate in the boa: 'C" = eqsv without attach t n( osUre
'E*/. Copy wit ettechment/ enclosure "r = No copy OFFICE OSP j [f OSP: g /,
OGC g,
NRR l
NMSS:D l
NAME RVirgilio:nb:kk (!
PHLohaus ' N I8' STreby 3il FMiraglia CPaperiello DATE 04Rf /97 04//l, {97 i 04// ]97 04/ /97 04/ /97 OFFICE RES:D l
OSP:([ h DEDRl EDO l
NAME DMorrison RBangart 8"~
HThompson LJCallan DATE o4/ /97 04/fL /97 04/ /97 04/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-E-7, SP-C-1 )
j
.Mr. Brrdl2y M. Campbell
- appears to make the document internally inconsistent. It has been NRC's understanding that, as advertised by its title, CEQ's document will be only guidance for agencies in implementing the EO. The addition of new " mandatory" language throughout the document does not appear to be consistent with that purpose. In addition, as demonstrated by the following excerpt from Section Ill.B., the document now sends a confusing message on this issue:
"There is not a rote formula for how environmental justice issues should be identified or addressed. However, the following principles provide general guidance.
To comply with the Executive Order, agencies must consider the following issues:... [ emphasis added)."
Provisions such as these in the CEO document that are held out to be " guidance" but also contain mandatory language will cause, at best, confusion for NRC and other agencies attempting to implement it. Clarification of this matter is necessary to aid agencies in their implementation of the draft CEQ guidance.
Although independent agencies, such as the NRC, were only requested to comply with the EO, NRC has endeavored to carry out the measures set forth in the EO and accompanying memorandum. The NRC's 1995 EJ strategy is based on five principles of implementation and emphasizes NRC is committed to giving consideration to the CEQ guidelines on how to integrate EJ into agency decisionmaking under NEPA. The five principles include: the integration of EJ into NRC's NEPA activities; the continuation of senior NRC management involvement to provide guidance in this area; openness with the public and clarity of agency positions; communication and the welcoming of public participation with stakeholders, including minority and low-income communities; and the continuation of review and monitoring of Title VI activities of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which are limited to funding training and travel under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Until CEQ guidelines become final, the NRC will continue to consider EJ issues as currently outlined in our strategy and implementation guidance documents.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at (301) 4151713.
Sincerely, Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
CCraig OSP DIR RF BMorris PDR (YES,,,) NO (f)
SDroggitis HNewsorne DCleary AHodgdon MHorn Environrnental Justice File JHickey PSobel CEQ File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ ROV \\ CAMPBELL.CEO T) receive e copy of this document, indicate in the boa:
"C" = Cojw without attachment / enclosure
- E' - Copy with attachmeg/ enclosure "fr* = No copy OFFICE OSP j l,7 OSP: Egg / J,
OGC l
NRP gt/
NMSS:D l
NAME RVirgilio:nb:kk (;
PHLohaus f STreby FMiraglia V T"/j{ _
CPeperiello 8'
DATE o4Ff /97 o4//l,, {971 o4/ /97 o4// 7/94p 04/ /97 OFFICE RES:D l
OSP:ff%
DEDR l
EDO V
l NAME DMorrison RBangart 8"~
HThompson LJCallan DATE o4/ /97 o4/f L /97 o4/ /97 o4/ /97 OSP FILE CDDE SP E-7, SP-C-10
~
..Mr. Bradisy M. Campbell appears to make the document internally inconsistent. It has been NRC's understanding that, as advertised by its title, CEQ's document will be only guidance for agencies in implementing the EO. The addition of new " mandatory" language throughout the document does not appear to be consistent with that purpose. In addition, as demonstrated by the following excerpt from Section Ill.B., the document now sends a confusing message on this issue:
"There is not a rote formula for how environmental justice issues should be identified or addressed. However, the following principles provide general guidance.
To comply with the Executive Order, agencies must consider the following issues:... [ emphasis added)."
Provisions such as these in the CEO document that are held out to be " guidance" but also contain mandatory language will cause, at best, confusion for NRC and other agencies attempting to implement it. Clarification of this matter is necessary to aid agencies in their implementation of the draft CEO guidance.
Although independent agencies, such as the NRC, were only requested to comply with the EO, NRC has endeavored to carry out the measures set forth in the EO and accompanying memorandum. The NRC's 1995 EJ strategy is based on five principles of implementation and emphasizes NRC is committed to giving consideration to the CEO guidelines on how to integrate EJ into agency decisionmaking under NEPA. The five principles include: the integration of EJ into NRC's NEPA activities; the continuation of senior NRC management involvement to provide guidance in this area; openness with the public and clarity of agency positions; communication and the welcoming of public participation with stakeholders, including minority and low-incomo communities; and the continuation of review and monitoring of Title VI activities of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which are limited to funding training and travel under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Until CEO guidelines become final, the NRC will continue to consider EJ issues as currently outlined in our strategy and implementation guidance documents.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at (301) 415-1713.
Sincerely, Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
CCraig OSP DIR RF BMorris PDR (Yl-S _ ) NO (f_)
SDroggitis HNewsome DCleary AHodgdon MHorn Environmental Justice File JHickey PSobel CEO File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ ROV \\ CAMPBELL.CEO Ta eessive a copy of ens document, tuneste in ew ben: ca - cqq wthout ettechment/ enclosure s* - copy with attachtnent/ enclosure
'N
= No copy OFFICE OSP j lf OSP:g j j,
OGC l
NRR l
NMSS:D l
NAME RVirgilio:nb:kk gj PHLohaus ' d F
STreby FMiraglia CPaperiello DATE 04Ff/97 04/ 6 971 04/ /97 04/ /97 04/ /97 m
.- n: - - - - -
NAME DMorrison
-ff4 RBangert J " ~
HTnompson LJCallan j
DATE 04/ }D /97 o4/fk /97 04/ /97 04/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-E-7, SP-C 1 )
)
. Mr. Brcdl2y M. C1mpb;il appears to make the document internally inconsistent. It has been NRC's understanding that, as advertised by its title, CEQ's document will be only guidance for agencies in implementing the EO. The addition of new " mandatory" language throughout the document does not appear to be consistent with that purpose. In addition, as demonstrated by the following excerpt from Section Ill.B., the document now sends a confusing message on this issue:
j "There is not a rote formula for how environmental justice issues should be identified or addressed. However, the following pnnciples provide general guidance, j
4 l
To comply with the Executive Order, agencies must consider the following i
issues:... [ emphasis added)."
i Provisions such as these in the CEQ document that are held out to be " guidance" but also l
contain mandatory language will cause, at best, confusion for NRC and other agencies attempting to implement it. Clarification of this matter is necessary to aid agencies in their implementation of the draft CEO guidance.
1 Although independent agencies, such as the NRC, were only requested to comply with the
)
EO, NRC has endeavored to carry out the measures set forth in the EO and accompanying i
memorandum. The NRC's 1995 EJ strategy is based on five principles of implementation j
and emphasizes NRC is committed to giving consideration to the CEO guidelines on how to integrate EJ into agency decisionmaking under NEPA. The five principles include: the integration of EJ into NRC's NEPA activities; the continuation of senior NRC management
^
involvement to provide guidance in this area; openness with the public and clarity of agency positions; communication and the welcoming of public participation with stakeholders, including minority and low-income communities; and the continuation of review and monitoring of Title VI activities of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which are limited to funding training and travel under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Until CEO guidelines become final, the NRC will continue to consider EJ issues as currently outlined in our strategy and implementation guidance documents.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at (301) 415-1713.
Sincerely, Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
CCraig OSP DlR RF BMorris PDR (YES J NO (g_)
SDroggitis HNewsome DCleary AHodgdon MHorn Environmental Justice File JHickey PSobel CEO File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ ROV \\ CAMPBELL.CEO Ts receive e copy of this document, indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure
- E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure
- N* = No copy OFFICE OSP
) lf OSP: g /,
OGC l
NRR l
%,NMSp fg/
NAME RVirgilio:nb:kk gj PHLohaus ' Nf 8 STreby FMiraglia paperifilo ['
DATE 04FJ /97 04 71 04/ /97 o4/ /97
~
04/ly/97 numamummmmmmmmmmmmmmm uma eius i
num OFFICE RES:D l
OSP:
DEDR EDO l
NAME DMorrison RBangart 8"~
HThompson LJCallan DATE 04/ /97 04/fL /97 o4/ /97 o4/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-E-7, SP-C-1 J
i Mr. Bredisy M. C mpbsli
- appears to make the document internally inconsistent. It has been NRC's understanding that, as advertised by its title, CEQ's document will be only guidance /or agencies in implementing the EO. The addition of new " mandatory" language t roughout the document does not appear to be consistent with that purpose in dition, as demonstrated by the following excerpt from Section Ill.B., the do ment now sends a i
confusing message on this issue:
"There is not a rote formula for how environmental ju ce issues should be identified or addressed. However, the following princi les provide general guidance.
To comply with the Executive Order, agencie/
s must consider the following issues:... [ emphasis added]."
/
/
Provisions such as these in the CEQ document that are held out to be " guidance" but also contain mandatory language will cause, at best, co,nfusion for NRC and other agencies attempting to implement it. Clarification of this matter is necessary to aid agencies in their implementation of the draft CEO guidance.
/
/
Although independent agencias, such as the NRC, were only requested to comply with the EO, NRC has endeavored to carry out the m,e'asures set forth in the EO and accompanying memorandum. The NRC's 1995 EJ strategy is based on five principles of implementation and emphasizes NRC is committed to giv,ing consideration to the CEQ guidelines on how to integrate EJ into agency decisionmaking'under NEPA. The five principles include: the integration of EJ into NRC's NEPA activities; the continuation of senior NRC management involvement to provide guidance in this area; openness with the public and clarity of agency positions; communication an'd the welcoming of public participation with stakeholders, including minority an'd low-income communities; and the continuation of review and monitoring of Title VI' activities of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which are limited to funding training and,tfavel under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Until CEQ guidelines become final, the NRC will continue to consider EJ issues as currently outlined ir$ our strategy and implementation guidance documents, if you have any questions, can be reached at (301) 415-1713.
Sincerely, Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs As stated
['
Distribution:
EDO RF
/
MWeber DCD (SPX2)
CCraig OSP DIR RF /
BMorris PDR (YES,_) NO (g,)
SDroggitis HNewsome DCleary AHodgdon MHorn Environmental Justice File JHickey PSobel CEO File DOCUMENT NAME: fG:\\ ROV \\ CAMPBELL.CEO Ta receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box:
- C" = Com without attachment / enclosure
'E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure
'N' = No copy OFFICE OSP j l,f OSP;Dg") /,
OGC l
NRR l
NMSS:D l
NAME RVirgilio:nb:kk ()
PHLohaus ' N !#7 STreby FMiraglia CPaperiello DATE o4Rf /97 o4 71 o4/ /97 o4/ /97 o4/ /97 mei niini =: =n m _1 = = =
geigi--
g 1
sjiiiiig OFFICE RES:D OSP:
DEDR EDO l
NAME DMorrison RBangart 8"~
HThompson LJCallan DATE o4/ /97 o4/% /97 o4/ /97 o4/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-E-7, SP C-l')