Which federal government creation led to the use of Environmental Impact Statements

Summary

Each EIS is required to contain a summary; this is often called an “Executive Summary.” It is suggested that the format of the summary follow the general outline of the main body of the EIS. The summary should outline the decision to be made, and should stress the major points of the analysis, including alternatives considered, conclusions, areas of controversy (including topics raised by other agencies or the public), and the issues to be resolved. For a long EIS, the summary may be published as a separate volume of the document.

Technical Review

Evaluating an EIS for technical content is perhaps the most difficult aspect of review; however, it is also probably the most important. Many of the concerns in technical review are the same as those voiced in general document review; only now these aspects are subtler, often almost hidden in discussions of complex processes and interrelationships. Just as no one person can possess the expertise in all technical specialty areas necessary for the preparation of an EIS, it is doubtful that any one individual can accurately determine the technical adequacy in all categories of a completed EIS document. The technical review is thus usually the sum of several reviews by specialists.

The EIS process

The EIS process, as described by Bregman (1999) in his book Environmental Impact Statements, is as follows:

Task 1 Scoping meeting: The purpose of the scoping meeting is to determine the scope of the draft EIS and to identify the major project issues to be addressed in it. Individuals and firms that may have an interest in the project impact are invited to participate in that meeting. Also the public, represented in groups or individuals, can participate.

Task 2 First draft: The product of the scoping meeting is an EIS first draft report. It describes the existing environmental conditions and evaluates the project alternatives. A brief discussion of the scoping process and the comment received from the public are also included in the report. The potential impact of each alternative is assessed as well as the “do nothing” alternative. The report includes the potential short-term impacts such as those associated with the construction phase like noise and dust. Long-term includes air, water pollution, wildlife displacement, and overloading of infrastructure. Mitigating measures are included with their costs and benefits quantified if possible.

Task 3 Public review of draft: Public participation in the EIA process is very important because it has a potential to lead to a better project. The public often have good suggestions for items to be incorporated or given more emphasis in the EIS report. The public are usually concerned for social and environmental aspects of the project and how it affects the natural resources, wildlife, and historical monuments if any. The contribution of the public in reviewing the EIS report makes the public a partner in the project. They know the actual facts about the proposed project.

Task 4 Final EIS draft: After the responsible agency and the public have reviewed the EIS first draft and suggested changes, a final EIS draft is prepared. Administrative or policy questions are answered by the agency and given to the EIS preparer. He develops answers to the technical comments. The final draft is then submitted to the EPA for review and approval. Eventually, EPA takes one of the following decisions:

Lack of objection: Project is accepted.

Environmental concern: Mitigating measures are suggested and implemented.

Environmental objection: Changes should be made.

Environmentally unsatisfactory: Project is rejected.

5.41.3.5 Updates

In March 2020, the NRC issued a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on the HI-STORE proposal.

The EIS evaluates all phases of the project from construction through to decommissioning, addressing the impact on land use, transportation, geology and hydrogeology, soils, water courses, wetlands, historic resources, etc. The NRC determined that in most areas the proposed CISF would cause minimal impact.

Criticisms have been raised against the environmental impact assessment being restricted to only within 40 years, given that the facility would be likely to operate for a much longer period, especially due to the current uncertainty for a permanent disposal repository.

The NRC is currently seeking public comments on the draft EIS. These will be considered before NRC publishes the final EIS in March 2021 or so.

A parallel technical safety review of the proposal is planned to be completed also in March 2021. A decision on whether to grant the license would follow subsequently.

2 U.S. Clean Air Act

Since pollution is connected with industrial production, and, thus, with gross national product, the U.S. has accumulated substantial experience in the abatement field. Industrial leaders from all over the world observe trends in U.S. legislation, even though it is still very much in flux, and the final form of the law is still difficult to predict. Knowledge of the numerical listing of air quality standards is meaningless if it is not clear whether the law constitutes a presently enforceable regulation, a statement of a realistic future goal, or merely a programmatic expression of a theoretically desirable quality of life. Those who are engaged in corporation planning, and in transfer of the U.S. experience to other countries, must be aware of the basic cultural context in which the law is applied; particularly the legal climate of American common law. They must recognize the present trends as expressed in court findings, the mood of Congress as expressed in the size and conditions of funding appropriations, and the action of the President as evidenced by withholding or supplementation of budgets previously approved by Congress.

The Clean Air Amendment of 1970, the presently valid law, is based on two centuries of experience. Common law doctrines are plainly visible in the law in such concepts as “best available technology,” land use controls, and control at the source. It employs administrative remedies based on common law court techniques, such as control efforts extending over time and monitoring and preparation of reports on emission data. The Amendment of 1970 integrates experience from earlier air pollution control laws, and from water pollution control. The latter is reflected in the “no significant deterioration” policy, which is at present hotly debated in Congress, in legal circles, and in public.

An excellent summary of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and its implications has been prepared by Rodgers (1977). The first step toward the present amendment was the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, which confines the Federal role to research, and delegates control to the states. This delegation has been significantly diminished with the most recent three revisions. Specific and local problems were to be investigated by the Surgeon General, but only upon request of state or local government. The Clean Air Act of 1963 expanded the research and development scope, and established that, in cases involving interstate pollution, Federal intervention was no longer dependent upon requests from states. In these cases, a conference would be called to deal with the problem. In the following 8 years, nine conferences were called. Of these, only one case survived, and it was settled out of court. The 1963 Act also established air quality criteria, based on scientific knowledge of pollution's effects. Its declared goal was “to achieve the prevention and control of air pollution,” but legally trained readers noted that neither the scope nor the extent of the problem were spelled out anywhere in the text. The Air Quality Act of 1967 established atmospheric areas and air quality control regions. The contiguous U.S. was divided into 8 atmospheric areas; Alaska and Hawaii each formed an additional area. Since then, some 247 air quality control regions have been defined within these areas, their boundaries being determined by climate, meteorology, and topography. This Act also established air quality criteria, advocated the development of control techniques and reports, and urged states to adopt ambient air quality standards within the control regions. The word “ambient” is of significance. For scientists this term is well defined. It refers to open, freely moving air which can be sampled and quantitatively tested. For lawyers, it refers to the atmosphere above a community in general, without reference to origin, boundary, types or number of emission sources. Thus, “ambient air” does not constitute a meaningful base for legal expression or enforcement. For Rodgers (1977), such standards “rank with an official statement of a desire to reduce annual inflation or the unemployment rate below a given value.” They are valueless as legal mechanisms.

The Act of 1967 also called for states to develop plans to implement ambient air quality standards. This provision developed into an implementation and enforcement plan. The Clean Air Act of 1970 sanctioned the Federal role in implementation and enforcement, and provided a comprehensive programmatic and regulatory system by providing technical and financial assistance for research programs, and by developing standards and implementation and enforcement channels. The Act contains three titles: Title I deals with stationary sources of air pollution; Title II deals with mobile sources of air pollution; and Title III deals with administrative and judicial reviews. Only some of the most important sections are listed here. Section 104 emphasizes research and development of new and improved methods for the prevention and control of air pollution resulting from fuel combustion, which would have industry-wide application. This includes laboratory and pilot plant testing, up to and including construction and operation of full-scale demonstration plants.

This provision has made it possible for the EPA and other agencies to establish scientific leadership and a high basic level of competence. Many reports quoted here demonstrate the impact of this provision. Section 105 establishes funding programs for air pollution control agencies on the state, interstate, city, county and local levels, with the goal being to produce information. This information constitutes a treasure trove for scientists, but it is not readily available to the public, because the reports must be individually purchased from the U.S. Technical Information Center, a process which requires knowledge of order number, author's name and detailed titles.

Amendment Section 107 deals with air quality regions, Section 108 with air quality criteria and control techniques, Section 109 with ambient air quality standards, and Section 110 with implementation plans. Section 111 deals with new sources performance standards, and Section 112 with hazardous air pollution standards. These two sections provide that state standards may not be lower than Federal standards. Section 115 preserves the old conference procedure, but only one conference was continuing in session during 1970. As to enforcement, Section 304 provides for citizens to sue violators, and Section 309 requires “Environmental Impact Statements,” a procedure which is supplemental to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which became law on January 1, 1970. This act has been called by some “one of the most significant pieces of domestic legislation to be enacted into law this century.” By others it has been charged that it forces the EPA to tackle too many problems with too little leverage to make its views felt. This act requires for the first time that all Federal agencies consider the environment, along with traditional and economic factors, before embarking on major projects. It also creates a “Council on Environmental Quality,” (CEQ). The Environmental Impact Statement is required according to Section 102(2)(C), and is discussed below. This section may contain the seed for other, long-range developments for which the climate is not yet favorable. Among these are procurement disqualification for offenders and mandatory patent licensing provisions. The latter have not yet been implemented by any government agency. The present patent policies of the various branches of the Federal government are inconsistent. In the case of Federally sponsored research conducted in private laboratories, they range from full patent ownership by the government to full ownership by the grantees or contractees.

Section 312 of the Clean Air Act of 1970 requires annual reports by EPA estimating the cost of carrying out the provisions of the act. These reports are most valuable and are quoted elsewhere in this book. The 1970 Clean Air Act establishes a detailed process for setting and enforcing ambient air standards. It involves (a) the designation of air quality control regions, as discussed above; (b) the issuing of air quality criteria and information on air pollution control techniques; (c) establishing national ambient air quality standards for major pollutants, (d) preparation of an implementation plan by states; (e) administrative review and revision of such plans, and, finally (f) development of enforcement plans.

This Act also provides for the Commission to issue and regularly review lists which include potentially toxic materials that might occur in the air in critical concentrations. This list presently includes 22 air pollutants. All are high volume organic chemicals; sulfur dioxide is not among them. The Act takes several crucial steps toward providing ameliorating features. For example, EPA is required to accept State plans, if they are properly prepared. This has on at least one occasion led to what a federal judge called ‘a paradigm of confession and evasion.’ The Act also allows for exemptions, such as temporary suspensions with the possiblity of extensions, authorized as part of the Energy Supply and Environment Coordination Act of 1974, which was created to lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil imports.

The enforcement provisions authorize EPA to ask industry to establish and maintain records, make reports, install monitoring equipment, and certify monitoring methods. As a result of the latter, EPA releases quarterly reports listing air pollution detection instruments which fulfill EPA equivalency standards if used according to the instructions provided (Chapter 4). This service was at least partly a result of complaints about the commonly used and well accepted opacity standards which are intrinsically insufficient to serve as absolute standards (Weir, 1976), because opacity readings depend as much on geography, time of day, weather, and other outside factors as on the plume effluents.

In addition to the above, the EPA commissioner can solicit other information as ‘he may reasonably require,’ and EPA can sue in U.S. court ‘any person contributing to an air pollution problem presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons,’ provided that ‘appropriate state and local governments have not acted to abate sources.’ Only one such case has occurred to date: A lawsuit filed in Birmingham, Alabama, in November 1971 which was settled out of court. Possible further actions include administrative orders and supervision of federal facilities. Federal facilities ‘have been notoriously laggard in abating pollution,’ according to the Senate Committee Report on Public Works of 1970. Furthermore, the President can exempt federal facilities and the U. S. Supreme Court recently decided that they need not secure local or state permits, or comply with State laws. TVA and other federal organizations have regularly and successfully pleaded for lenient regulations because of their tight budgets. The future will determine if the Clean Air Act of 1970 will take and retain an acceptable form, whether, as its proponents fear, it will turn into a hollow policy statement, or whether, as its opponents claim, it will grow into a tool transforming the U.S. into a non-growth society with rigid land use laws and government interference. Part of this question will depend on developments involving the function of the environmental impact statement.

2.7 Conclusions

An environmental impact statement and environmental impact record process generally requires hazard identifications, scenario development, and a risk assessment. The risk assessment generally involves an analysis of the frequency or probability of hazards, such as oil spills, occurring, and an analysis of the consequences of these incidents. Often prevention measures are considered to reduce the frequency of incidents, along with mitigation measures to reduce the consequences (Fig. 2.51).

The modeling tools described in this chapter provide the means to quantify both the probability and consequences of different types of oil spills for the purposes of risk assessment. These tools are also invaluable for contingency planning for oil spills, providing a means to project the most common types of spill scenarios, as well as those that are more likely to be infrequent but result in much greater consequences and impacts.

As with all modeling, the inputs will drive the accuracy of the results. The modeler or model user must take great care in considering the reliability of the inputs. When there are uncertainties or potential variable inputs, a Monte Carlo simulation or stochastic approach provides the means to generate and evaluate ranges of outcomes.

When time is of essence or only incomplete information exists, a preliminary set of modeling runs can be executed to generate results that provide a general sense of the possible outcomes. These analyses can be refined at a later time when more information becomes available. In some cases, as in the example of the potentially polluting shipwrecks, more basic modeling, incorporating data that is easily obtainable can be used initially to “triage” or prioritize particular cases for more comprehensive analyses later. Stochastic modeling for spill impacts, such as can be done with SIMAP, allows for the identification of the worst-case outcomes for more comprehensive modeling.

1.5.1 Draft EIS

The draft EIS is the document prepared by the lead agency proposing an action. It is circulated for review and comment to the line departments, state and local bodies, and public and private interest groups like nongovernmental offices. Specific requirements with regard to timing of the review are identified by the concerned provisions, and the proponent of the proposed action must make every effort to disclose and discuss at appropriate intervals in the draft statement of all major points of view on the environmental impacts of the alternatives, including the reliability of proposed action.

10.4.2.1 Analysis of Significant Environmental Impacts and Corrective Measure

In order to comply with the EIS, the Santa Eulalia SWRO desalination plant has been subjected to the following measures [34]:

Impact on habitats and species listed in the Directive 92/43/CEE. The project was modified with the appropriate technical requirements for the capacity to dilute and disperse the brine discharge with a dilution factor 2:1. Calculations of brine dilution and dispersion result in very few cases where the concentration of salts in the area of Posidonia oceanica seagrass exceeds 38.5 g/L.

Impact to the land use. To protect birdlife power lines must be underground. The areas where it has proceeded to removal of vegetation cover will be replanted and 80% the first year, proceeding to the replanting during the first 3 years to ensure complete coverage of the affected area. Autochthonous species it will be used. The promoter is responsible for the maintenance and conservation of plantations during this period.

Landscape protection. The existing facilities must be integrated scenically to minimize the visual impact.

Population protection. The facilities will have acoustic insulation required to meet specified noise in the national law and the relevant regulations of the Autonomous Community. For this purpose, emission levels and noise emission are controlled.

11.9 Commenting on the Draft EIS—A Special Case of Public Participation

Commenting on the draft (or final) EIS is another specialized form of public participation. It is mandated in several places in the NEPA regulations (Sections 1502.19, 1506.6), but is the subject of a separate section in itself (1503). Here, among others, the specific injunction (1503.1[a][4]) is to “request comments from the public, affirmatively soliciting comments from those persons or organizations who may be interested or affected.” Note that the term interested is shown as more important than, or at least equal in importance to, affected. The meaning of this wording is clear. The technical (i.e., the agency's) opinion as to who is affected is not a determining factor in soliciting comment. Everyone who believes him- or herself to be affected, as well as those who are merely interested, are to be solicited. Some writers have gone so far as to suggest that the scoping process may be the most important aspect of public participation, in that it may serve to shape the final action itself (Ketcham, 1988; O'Brien, 1988).

If only a handful of comments are received, it may not be necessary to establish a formal scheme for classification. In most cases, however, the comments received following distribution of a draft EIS will be numerous enough that development of a systematic classification structure is recommended. For example, responses may commonly be grouped into at least three groups: 1) those which express support or opposition, with little or no explanation of the reasons for the position; 2) those which ask for more information, or raise questions about the completeness and accuracy of supporting data included within the draft EIS; and 3) those which propose different alternatives, or modifications and combinations of those alternatives already included. The responses in group 2 may further be subdivided as to the focus of the question (i.e., which aspect of the environment is flagged?). Social consequences, employment, wildlife, health effects, public safety, noise, drinking (or irrigation) water availability, and similar headings are among those regularly arising following public examination of the proposed action. In very many of these cases, the issue will have been anticipated—or flagged as important during the scoping process—and will have been examined in the document to some degree. The following case study presents an approach to the analysis of thousands of responses.

16.2 Requirements for Environmental Protection Design

1.

During design of the power plant, environmental impact statements shall be proposed during the feasibility study stage, and a special article on environmental protection shall be prepared; in the preliminary design stage, a special article on environmental protection shall be prepared, and engineering measures shall be proposed for the prevention and harnessing of pollution.

Except for design norms and requirements for solar thermal power generation, the special article on environmental protection of the power plant during the feasibility stage shall also include the following content:

recovery measures after land excavation in the solar concentration field

wastewater cleaning treatment-process flow chart, water-balance chart, and the landscape planning diagram for the solar concentration field