ML20004B410

Informs That No EIS Has Been Prepared for Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute Routine Operations

ML20004B410
Person / Time
Site:	Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute
Issue date:	05/14/1981
From:	Rickard D DEFENSE, DEPT. OF, DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY
To:	Carter L Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8105280199
Download: ML20004B410 (1)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:[[

          'b.'

_. . , g l DEFENSE NUCI.T. AR ACENCY w ,u m s.. m s. o c. m us W.. J . D MAY I 41981 cc p

SUBJECT:

Renewal of Facility License R-St., Docket No. 50-170 '$. J q

                                                                                                     = - =

Tp Louis J. Carter, Esq., Chair =an 0- gg i s 1981

• 6 ==='a -

Ad=inistra:ive Judge M - e ..., M. Ato=tc Safety and Licensing Board  ;\ * ' .p

                                                                                                              .J. C '       '

i 23 'a'iltshire Road e ~~15'*- l '"~ ~ f / Philadelphia, PA 19151 'q Y

Dear Judge Carter:

Dur1pg the course of the special pre-hearing conference held on 1 May 1981 regarding the above license reneval proceeding, one of the Board re=bers expressed interest in whether or not an installation-wide environ = ental i= pact state =ent covering routine operations had been prepared by the National Naval Medical Center (N'O!C). Since AFRRI is co-located with the Nm!C, it was =y belief that if an EIS had been prepared for the Center, it would also consider AFRRI's e.nvironmental effects. My investigation has disclosed that the Navy has not prepared an EIS to address on-going operations of the Center. *1hus, since AFRRI is a tenant at NNMC, no EIS has been prepared for AFRRI's routine operations. The only document that came close to an installation-wide EIS was prepared in 1975 in conjunction with the construction of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. That IIS focused on whether or not the

       =edical school should be located at N2!C. The section of that EIS which

( referred to AFRRI =erely mentioned its existence and described its =ission l in only very general ter=s. I doubt that that EIS would serve any useful l purpose in the present proceedin,qs. Should you or other me=bers of the Board desire further information in this regard, I would be pleased to assist. 1 Sincerely,*

                               ?' g                                         '0 'r   /

g<4dgMfI .h N 1 o - ,[tw g' I / j Ll /AVIDC. RIC:ARD

                                                        -8   Deputy ceneral Counsel I                          b. ul.,iA'f 2 '( 1981, M Defense Nuclear Agency CY FURN:

(N sNe*'l - l Service List /,

                                                  '['

l i N - :;:1 p 5i i h8185280) ,}}