ML20062D554: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 34: Line 34:


On August 2, 1982, your staff requested the Council's views on the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to the                                                                                                            j Department's exemption request to the NRC under 10 C.F.R. 50.12 to conduct site preparation work for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. I understand that the Department is requesting the Council's views because of the NRC's decision to supplement the final environmental statement (FES) issued in 1977.
On August 2, 1982, your staff requested the Council's views on the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to the                                                                                                            j Department's exemption request to the NRC under 10 C.F.R. 50.12 to conduct site preparation work for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. I understand that the Department is requesting the Council's views because of the NRC's decision to supplement the final environmental statement (FES) issued in 1977.
In my January 27, 1982, letter to you, I indicated that considering the exemption request under the Procedures set out in 10 C.P.R. 50.12 would not be inconsistent with the requirements of NEPA. The NRC's decision to supplement the EIS has not changed my views on that issue.
In my {{letter dated|date=January 27, 1982|text=January 27, 1982, letter}} to you, I indicated that considering the exemption request under the Procedures set out in 10 C.P.R. 50.12 would not be inconsistent with the requirements of NEPA. The NRC's decision to supplement the EIS has not changed my views on that issue.
It is not clear why the Comission determined that a supplement is needed in this instance. As I stated in my letter of July 13, 1982, to Chairman Palladino, the CEQ regulations require a supplement when there exists significant new information or circumstances relative to the projects and its environmental impact. Existence of new information which does not relate to the environmental impact of the project would not trigger the need for a supplemental environmental impact statement under NEPA.
It is not clear why the Comission determined that a supplement is needed in this instance. As I stated in my letter of July 13, 1982, to Chairman Palladino, the CEQ regulations require a supplement when there exists significant new information or circumstances relative to the projects and its environmental impact. Existence of new information which does not relate to the environmental impact of the project would not trigger the need for a supplemental environmental impact statement under NEPA.
                                                                                                                         ~
                                                                                                                         ~

Latest revision as of 15:24, 1 June 2023

Comments on Applicability of NEPA to DOE 10CFR50.12 Exemption Request to Conduct Site Preparation Work for Crbr. Consideration of Request Appropriate Despite NRC Decision to Suppl EIS
ML20062D554
Person / Time
Site: Clinch River
Issue date: 08/04/1982
From: Hill A
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
To: Edwards J
ENERGY, DEPT. OF
References
ISSUANCES-E, NUDOCS 8208060136
Download: ML20062D554 (1)
v • d • e


Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _

2;::

- ^

i EXECUTIVE CFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ,-

g c UNCIL CN ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY 00CKETED i 722 JACKSON PLACE. N. W. .USNRC ,

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006 12 AGO -5 A9:02  !

August 4, 1982 .

0FFICE OF SECRETAO 00CKETING & SERVICE.'

BRANCH .

Honorable James B. Edwards '

Secretary of Energy Forrestal Building 54-539 ,

Room 7A257 o Washington, D.C. 20585 '

Dear Mr. Secretary:

On August 2, 1982, your staff requested the Council's views on the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to the j Department's exemption request to the NRC under 10 C.F.R. 50.12 to conduct site preparation work for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. I understand that the Department is requesting the Council's views because of the NRC's decision to supplement the final environmental statement (FES) issued in 1977.

In my January 27, 1982, letter to you, I indicated that considering the exemption request under the Procedures set out in 10 C.P.R. 50.12 would not be inconsistent with the requirements of NEPA. The NRC's decision to supplement the EIS has not changed my views on that issue.

It is not clear why the Comission determined that a supplement is needed in this instance. As I stated in my letter of July 13, 1982, to Chairman Palladino, the CEQ regulations require a supplement when there exists significant new information or circumstances relative to the projects and its environmental impact. Existence of new information which does not relate to the environmental impact of the project would not trigger the need for a supplemental environmental impact statement under NEPA.

~

Regardless of why the NRC decided to supplement the EIS, it would appear that considering the exemption request under the procedures set out in 10 C.F.R. 50.12 is appropriate. The Conmission regulations require that NRC fully consider environmental factors and make certain findings before granting an exemption. The factors set out in 10 C.F.R. 50.12 are not inconsistent with relevant CEO regulations (see 40 C.P.R. 1506.l(a) and,

- hence, with the requirements of the Act.

I hope that the above is helpful to you.

r> ,

o A. AIAN HILL Chairman 8208060136 820804 /")

v PDR ADOCK 05000537 G PDR i

-- _____________________________i _ _ _

g -

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20062D554&oldid=3555351"