ML19319C573
| ML19319C573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/19/1972 |
| From: | Garfinkel J, Luebke E, Lyman J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002191009 | |
| Download: ML19319C573 (4) | |
Text
-
s'
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gg ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPAW, ET AL.
)
DOCKET No. 50-346
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station )
Unit # 1)
)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN SUSPENSION HEARINGS The instant motion of intervenor Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power merely reiterates some of the arguments presented during the course of the hearings held in Toledo, Ohio, between May 2, 1972 and May 4, 1972.
These consisted primarily of contentions that environmental effects of operation are relevant to the issue of whether irretrievable commitment of substantial resources during the construction stage may affect the eventual decision reached on the NEPA review.
During these hearings this Board outlined with substantial specificity the reasons why environmental effects during operation were not pertinent to the present case.
Tr. 29-33, 36-38, 447-449.
In the present motion, the intervenor argues that by
" preventing quantification and identification of the environmental harms of operation which could require e
abandonment of the project, this Board has foreclosed the most important line of suspension inquiry."
e W
8002191
M
. The intervenor, however, fails to elucidate on how the rulings of this Board foreclosed the intervenor from the "most important line of suspension."
On the contrary, we believe the record is replete with testimony regarding possible abandonment and the relationship of additional investment cost to that possibility.
Moreover, as indicated in the reply of the Licensees to this motion, dated May 15, 1972, there is substantial evidence in the record relating to:
(a) the environmental effects of continued construction; (b) the alternatives to the Davis-Besse facility, including design alternatives; (c) the cost of abandonment of the Davis-Besse project; (d) incremental investment costs during construction and how these costs may affect dis-position of the facility; and (e) the' effects of suspension or abandonment of the project on the public.
l l
Further, this Board provided the intervenor with i
(
every opportunity to introduce evidence regarding alternatives
(
that may be available as a result of potential environme ntal findings.
The intervenor chose not'to do so.
In this regard,
t
, the testimony is as follows on pages 447 and 448 of the transcript:
"We have permitted the Applicant, the Regulatory Staff, and the Intervenor to introduce evidence with respect to all alternatives.
Alternatives are the decision apparatus of the NEPA review.
"We firmly believe that implied in this decision of allowing all alternative decisions, or alterna-tives to the plant to be intreditced, implies auto-matically that all the various decisions with respect to environment, safety, and health, are included, whether they be adverse or favorable to the decision-making function."
(Emphasis added.]
In view of the foregoing, and for the reasons cited in our Initial Decision of this same date, we see no reason to reverse our prior rulings regarding receipt of evidence on the environmental effects of operation of the Davis-Besse nuclear plant.
t 9
e I
l
I e'
, Accordingly, it is the Order of this Board that the instant motion be denied.
BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.w&Yh
"!k Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Member M
Drk John R. Lyman,dmber
}tk?YlA-M JeromeGarfinkhl, bhairman Issued: May 19, 1972 Washington, D.
C.
i e
- -