ML19326B059

Brief in Support of Living in Finer Environ Exceptions to 710323 Initial Decision.Full Hearing on Environ Factors Must Be Held

ML19326B059
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	04/09/1971
From:	LIVING IN A FINER ENVIRONMENT
To:
Shared Package
ML19326B055	List: ML19326B054 ML19326B059
References
NUDOCS 8003060836
Download: ML19326B059 (6)

Text

.

UN I TED 5 F A TES dr .urUsIC A AT0r1C CSCRGY CJrt 1551.W J- ;ne matter of ) ' Docke t No. N'L 146

)

THE T;tCDd EJ3 Sh C ;1rdwY mig )

T"C CLEVEL M.0 Eticf alc )

I L L ui t.. i.71, C C ,f.,:4.Y OfI"I '" 0"#E"#

) tJrC's esorptians ta

(,, avis-0. coo .ucle ar sover ) Initia3 u cisian Station; all of Lift 's dur.wptions to the P. arch 23, 1971 InAi.wi aschmi an of t re a tar.J r. tief.ety an d Licensing Board are based an tw _v..d's

.*t fallu:o 10 r uc.rf.12 e !!.st thu femtional i.nviratmer ta) vi i s. f or 1969 (!';r A) (inuut ruc tly ruforred to us the Kational environ-montal - c.att etion Act in p'iraccaph 49 of the Initial .,cclui an) ro,uiruc roll conaldoration of non-radiological onvi ronmental f actars priar to the inauonce of a constructicn pernit.

Lxcoption t;o. I lu caced on the fact that the 00ard has erronoovsl f diurep:r led the ci:3nificance of an intervenor's object 2ons as appliud ta t5a specific circums tancos of this cons. L I FL 's can ten tioriv cor.curr.in g r: P4 aru not cbotract propositions but portain to the fact tnat ;Ja sis-90Juo aili bo built under an involid c anstruction p'. colt losuod by u Board ahich nover considered its possible adverse anvAtans.ntc1 consequencco.

Lift's 3 xcep ti on d 2 and 3 cre substantiated by t'w clear intent or .UA as w preasuc in its language and in its lo;,a iat2ve histoty, t w :.s n..pects of r.C.'A have been fully discuaved on pp. 1 - 10 of Ll e; .e "Ur Au f ret implerron tation of f.atianal Envitan.mn tai '-clacy

..t" nr ! Li f.'s " fogly Orio r" on this iscus flied gruvioasiy in LIFC ruapectfully ruforo the Conn 12alon to

(* :c a u . racce:lin gs.

thaue 0-J a rd and .horaby incorporates the argamwots ao .: citatinns of this tire, authe:ity nurein ratlice than repeating thur a in detull at Tho -Jaard snoa1J have found that the Commissinn's pactponor.ent 1971, v .s an unrecc..at ris of fual c ;;pilt,nce with ACpA until t orch 4, One of the key problems oxurciaa of ni:ireictrative discretion. the environ-reco]nizud by NEPA was the need to considor and protect  ;

ment be foro a prajuct had been so for compluted thet irrovocable f The action-forcing procodures of f. EPA comrii tmente nad been mado.

on:.,inud A, baction 1C2 were to be cos.pliod with unless existing

.~

r '

t W e4).3.0 6 0- U 6

law positivuly prohibited complianco.

. . it is the intent of thn conferous that the proviolon "to tha fullest possible" shall not be used by any Federal agency as a means of avoidin0 compliance with the directivos set out in section 102. .{ather, the isnguage in section 102 in intended to assure that all agencies of the redoral Government shall comply with the directives set out in said section "to the fullsot extent possible" under their ~

statutory authorizations and that no agency shall utilize an excessively narrow construction of its existing statutory outhorizations to avoid compliance." (emphasis added)

(H. Con f. Rep. 91-7 65, p. H.12635) ,

The unreasonably long transition pcriod during which the AEC has not permittod considoration of environmental factors at evidentiary hocrings is in violation of the statute. Tho stated AEC rosson of administrativo convenience (35 Fed. Rag.18970, Dec. 4, 1970) is not a rocoonable justification.

Arguments of adminiGtrativo convenience may be appropriate whoro largo numbero of smn11 administrative decisions are involvod, for example in ucifaro, social security or selective service casos. But the present situation, chore a handful of cases involving hundruds of millions of dollars and irrevocable commit-ments for futuro genorations is ut steko--mera adminiotrutive convenience must not prevail.

The authority all indicatos that the postponomant ombodied ir 10 Crn part 50 Appondix 0 in 1110091 (1) Tho act itself doso not include a" grandfather clause."

(2) The logislativo hictory lo full of refarancos to the environmontal cirsis und the noed for speed of remedial and proventive nunsuros.

(3) e resident Nixon himanif in Exocutive Order 11514, rarch 5, t

I rJ D ( 35 ru d . iag. 4247) ordered all fadoral agencias to include a discus *. ion of onviron.nantal fcctors in their existing public hearings.

(4) The Council on Environmontal duclity Interia Guidelines (tmy 12, 1970, 35 fod. aeg. 7391) require all agnocios to be in c.sepliance attn NEpA nod Exocutiva Ordor 11514 by Juna 1,1970 All of the abovo (ncts indicato that the AEC's puntponament ons a cicar atuao of diucretion. If any troneition period was alloceDia, it unded on June 1,1970 -aix nonths baforo hootingo in tho Davis-ricsso coco bogan1

Since NLPA's enactment, nunerous cases have held that failure to comply alth its requiroments, at least 4han the final decision is not made until af ter Jan.1,1970, invalidates aguncy actions.

In a very recent caso, Environmental Defence fund v. Corps of Engineers, 2 CRC 1760, roported subseduont to earlier filings, an

~

Arkanese federal District Court held that environmental factore had to be fully considored pursuant to NCPA even in a project begun oevocal years prior to the enactment of NCpA. 411derness Society

,v Hickel, (District Cauct, D.C., April '23, 1)70) 1 Environmental 1 sporter 1335, involved an application filed beforo Jan.1,1970 for permits to construct the Transalaskan pipoline end a road parallel to the pipoline. The District Court held in favor of thu Wilderness Socioy , granting a preliminary injunction against the issuance of a permit until the requirements of NCpA had been met. I t should be noted that thu Hickel case injunction won granted in April Just a row months af ter the enactment of NCPA. Cortninly thoro is much more reason to demand compliance by tho ACC with NCpA in the prosent case coming over a year attor NCpA.

In Texas Committoo on Natural assources v United States (J.D. Tex, february 5,1970) --F. Supp.--the Court ordered a stay pending appoal of a dunial of preliminary motion. The Court's grounds for granting the stay woro that the potitioner had c good chance of success in uppoal in halting the grant of funds approved but not disbursed prior to the passage of NCpA until NCpA wao implacented, label y Tabb, 430 T2d 199 (C. A. 5th July 15, 1970) hald that NCPA tbyuires the Army Corps of EngineGr8 to conSidor n11 environ =

inental factora b4 fore granting a dredge and fill permit. Sierra c loh v wi rit - *.Supp.--(f rirona, June 77, 1970) in another case

.t . .. a .

. ..d :sinary injunction until NC AA is appliod to a or ut' r t rad cy statutw prior to January 1,1970, t i gig.. . n tal Da ronos rend inc. v U.S. A rmy Corp 4 of E n utr.fy r s ( _' .0.C . J an. 15, 1971) the court issund a pen 11minary inpaessun to r..ir. construction of the Croom-florida Bocce Canal (a .ir o jec t uutc.aelsmo in 1942 und for chich construction began in 1964), All of theso cases invalidated aqsncy action for railure to comp 1r uith NEpA. They did not happan to involve aguncy action base d an the record of a public he aring, but the cases clearly establish the principio that an agency must include environmental

_ 9,

- factors in whatever decisionmaking proceau that agency happens to follow.

The decisians citod above demonstrate that the Courts intend ,

to take NCpA seriously and that compliance is a judicially enforceable administrative duty. Indeed, whatever the form of the ovidsncs, (4hether a Section 102(2) (c) " detailed statement

• or some other environrental study) a thorough canaideration of unvironmontal factors in this case is nececoory as a matter of ganaral administrative law.

In Udall v F.D.C., 337 US 482 (1967) und Scenic Hudocn prosorvation Conference v F.D.C., 354 F.2d 600 (Ca 2nd 1965) cert, den. 384 U.S. 941 (1965), the Courto required that all dots relevant to a federal action must bo includod in the rocord upon which the action is based. See also, Environmontal Defunsa Fund v Hardin, 422 T.2d 1093 (1970).

tIFE furthur excepto to paragraph 51 of the Initial Dociaion (Excoption No. 3) on tho grounds that the Dourd hno no basis for datormining that the purportad environmontal otatomont was in fact an anvironmental etstomont of the type required by Appendix 0 eince that statomont oca not mada u part of tho evidence end therefore not oubject to svaluation by tho Soard. It is therefore impoacible for the Board to know whethat the AEC complied with interim Appendix U.

The adequacy of an environe:ntal statomont can be challonged and cetornined in en appellato court revica of theco procuedings. It saa orror to penhibit auch a challengo at the administrative lovel.

Even if tha environmontal statomont were cdoquate, it served no purpose in the Onvin-easse case because it was not introduced into evidence, intervonors wore not permitted to question its assertions,  ;

and the Gaard did not considor it in making a deciolon. It was a l

noeninglose documont. Tha interim proceduros admittadly requirod that it's otatamont accompany propopod action through existing agoney review prucocoes. Soction 102 (2)(c). UCpA did not specifically nome each roview procosa, becausa overy agency hoa ihn svn vorcion decision

.*m41ng pescujures. If a public hearing is part of the review peccess, however, ~ the detailed statacant zust ba part of that haaring. This aos ciently the intent of UCpA as is indicated in a convont by Council on Environmental cuality Clicirman, ausoell Train in a latter to Congresamon Dingo 11, dated Novomber 19,1970 (ths to ut of uhich la published in ICLR 10000.) Sposking of the tir.o relationship between public avallobility und criticism of a dotallad environmental state-mont and the 'agoney'u decision and action, Chairman Train said:

-. -- , . ~ .- - -

a. . .(1)it la clunt that completion of the finci dotailod utatomont must prucada tha ultimato decicion and action and (2) tho finsi dato11od statucent should ' accompany the propoucl through tho aconcy review prococoea.' It chould be borno in mind that the Oroat majority of onvironmental ototoconto deal uith activition, appropriationo, or Icgiolation alth respect to which full public hourinne in advnnce of decision are ulroady requirod pronently by eithor Ccngrossicnal, s tatutory, or odn iniotrativo procedure."

It is nonoconca to claim that tho detailed etetomont has accom-poniod the application through tha rovioc prococa uhen tha hearing board, an intocral onet of the revica oracoca, deco not have that statomont in nvidenco before it and, therc rers, cannot even conaidae it in co!:ing ite dccicien.

Finally, LIfC oncoptc ta the Boardic conclu;ien that tha propomod Ocul?-Up co f.a.:i?ity uill not ha inimical to tho houlth end autoty of the public. (C woption flo. 4) Such a conclucien can not ba buacd on cdcquate findinge of f act sinco ncn-radiological anvironmontal consequenuac mrs not concidorad by tho Gourd.

Jithout reviou of anviron.?.ontal iscucs, the Daard ic not able tc conclude that the uov!n-nasco plcnt 4111 not endangcr the public hnalth cad For this reason, safoty by its cusarue e f fectu en the envirensront.

LIFE alec excepte to the Gaard'o ordct in scragraph S7 of the Initini Decicinn crar. ting the c;nctruction parnit. (Excoption rio. 5) The riLC daciclon-maning prococa in thic caco ignored f:Ep,T and its mandato to canaldor anviren: ental cenacquencao. A parait ictued under such circurotnncon io invalid, Ucithor the pootponc.m onc of full complionce until artur ricrch 4, 1971, nor tha cantent of tho interim procedurco of Penpnaed Appondi:: D can ba justified oc a logitimato encarcisa of admir.: e t :ativo discre tion, furthermora, theru ic ne proof that prapno >d Ap,sondix 0 cac cwplied .31th in this ccco.

7 tic ocuenca of i;f.Ds, la plenning und ccely action teforo Thic requi rua con-dina.st,coua onvironiental con:cquancos occur.

aids r otion o f trnifi cen.nental factura oc curly au ponniblo b3foro ma jo r fadc ral tu tien ir, tchen. Thoro la no cucLc; for feiluro to ccr,,1y esi th T:E . 8 P. in a cao lihu Drivin-:anac in anich the hearings gyr1 clec .t a yuar af ta e htP,V u encat.:.cn t. Tho coactruction permit ctaga in the first opportunity for rajor fedural comnitmant to tl.e projact. It ohould clec ba un opportunity to concidar anultormental ccncsquancoa.

.  ?- s2 ,

,, J.il - , ,

, 0:Jwis-ffweee its an installetion of considerable i.agnitude.

Its errects will be falt' ror a lang period or tirro over a larga geogragbical cron. 'fo hevo totally Lynaro*J its wovironmuntal in. poet wee ten abuse o f f.CC authority', and ' bu fore conaldoration of whether a conattucti in perrnit sti)uld be Isouca, a full hearing on all i

unvironcontal factors must Le held.

e h

l l

i

)

'S e

e e

l 1

~ - - ,

CEdTIFICATE OF SE3VICE I hereby cortify that I have mailed copeis of the foregoin g Notice of Cxceptions and Orlef in Support Thereof to Gerald Charnof f, A ttorney for Applicant, Shaw, fitmon, Potts, Trowbridge, n.edden, 910 17 S treet, ?).J. Jashington, D.C. 2000G3 to Thomas G.

Englehordt, ALD dogulatory Staff, Jashington, D.C. 20S45 to Russell Baron, Attorney for tho Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power s Grannon, Ticktin, Baron, and I.nnzini, 930 Koith Oldg. Cleveland, Jhio; C

and to Gionn Lau, 3R.1, Dax 186, Oak Harbor, Jhio, this I

• day of April 1971.

eu s e .

3 l

l 1

f .

procedures the Applicant will use to transport radioactive materials from its proposed plant location.

v%

\ Mad /s ,

k Oht Jero:::e S. Kalur lh25 National City Bank Building Cleveland, Ohio hhllh 216-6,21-h333 Attorney for Intervenor Coalition For Safe Nuclear Power SERVICE Copies of the foregoing exceptions and the brief attached hereto have been sent to the following by regular U.S. mail on this day of April, 1971: Gerald Chanoff, Esq., attorney for the Applicant, 91017th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006; Thomas S. Englehardt, Esq., attorney for the A.E.C. regulatory staff, Atomic Energy Comission, Washington, D.C.

20$h5; and Beatrice K. Bleicher, Esq., atterng for Intervenor Life, 7th Floor Toledo Trust Building, Toledo, Ohio h360h.

s

\ r

\(WhW l.- 6. wg .

Jero:ce S. Kalur

'\

\

s I