ML19330A173
| ML19330A173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1972 |
| From: | Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | MAPLETON INTERVENORS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007150944 | |
| Download: ML19330A173 (4) | |
Text
- .t.u.
L. ent;. 6C bki,') W f.
.t 2.O '^ 72* n-t.
1' UNffED STAT 2S OF MERICA
-\\
/;/
d.
P'\\
e %. /9' ATCMIC Ei2RGY CO'ciISSION o'j'.lc T y,T f: b c JT In the Matter of-Docket Nos. 50-329 50-330 COI SG:ZRS PO'iZR CCMPAI.T Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 ORDER On April 17, 1972, attorneys for Mapleton Intervenors, moved for an order 1.
Requiring the staff to transsit certain.information to those agencies and crcups to when the draft' detailed environ =cntal statencnt was transmitted;
~
2.
Requiring the staff to serve an amended fi.ial enviros:cntal
~
statcacnt containing discussion of that material; 3
Postponing the enviren= ental hearing until after staff compliance with 1 and 2.
The motion is denied.
l=
I Yhe infor= tion which it is clai=cd must be circulated and i
discussed is "the scientific opinions and information presented by Mapleton's c:Ocrts." This information' is contained in a scrics of affidagts $'iled with the Board in this proceeding between the first of December,1971, and the 5th of Janua-y,1972.- The filinCs consist of some hundreds of pages of =aterial, much of it reprints of articles appearing in the concral literature, and much of it bearing no specific relationship to the propose /. project. Fcr example, the testimony of THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
,. 8007150f POOR QUALITY PAGES t
=
s
/.....
s s
m Dr. Ernest Sterngicas consists of a four-page affidavit actting forth
~
his qualifications and the substance of varicus studies which he has carried en at locations other than the proposed site. J.utached to the affidavit, as an exhibit, is a docuncat of appro:cL.ately 50 pages consti-tuting a core detailed cucacry cf his studica. Dr. Sternglass does not purport to di cuss the prcposed project at all, except in one paragraph of his affidavit in which he says that based upon his work he concludes that there is no justification for granting the requested permit.
Dr. Sternglanc' studies have received vide circulation; they have been
. cxtensively reported and have been firmly challenged by other scientists.
Although the infor. ation was submitted in advance of the tiac that the staff's detailed environcon;al statement was circulated, Mapleton
~
did not requcct that the staff Sclude cuch infcr:aticn in its d' raft
~
statement, nor did Mapleton, although requested to do so by the staff, make any co: ents with respect to the draft statement.
In the circumstances, its position enounts to a claim that the staff is either required to circulate anything, no matter how repetitive or irrelevent it may be, which a party chosce to put into the record in the pending proceeding, or that the staff, at its risk, must cull the material to see whether it contains any " respect-able scientific opinions." We think that in any circu= stances the proposi-tion fodhich Maplet:n argues vould be of doubtful validity, and in the l
circumstanec ; of this case vould be wholly disruptive of orderly process.
Mapleton's argument that it may nov, after the fact, require the st.ff to go through the prccess of circulating agencies and groups and cahing up a new detailed statc=ent is said to be baced on Section 102 of e
1
C
-3~
-.e the National Environmental policy et and the decicica of the Ccurt of
.c Appeals for the District.of Colurloia in Co..nittee for Nucicar Responci-
/
/
~
'oility v. Scabor, decided on Cetober 5,1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Cannikin Decicien).
There is simply no bacis in Section 102 of the Naticnal Envirca-mental policy Act (nor the cuidelines prenulcated by the Council on Environ = ental Q,uality) for Mapletcn'- position. Accordingly its cajor reliance cust be on the Cannikin Decision. An excsination of th t deci:icn tches clear that it does not require the result contended for.
The thrust of the Cannikin Decicica is that the tersen nakin : the decicica==t be informed of "the full range of responsible opinion on the environncatal effects in order to =che an inferned choice." passing the--question whether-the information here i..volvci is responsible scientific opinion, the fac; is that the re con tahinc, the decision in this caso is the Atenic Safety and Licensing Board and tiie information in question has already been cub-nitted to the Board in the form of affidavits. Unlike the Cannikin cace, intervenors trill have a full opportunity to present their points of viev
' to the decision-sking agency and to cross-examine into the sufficiency of opposing points of view.
Sureb. ny possible defect resulting from the failure to include (if indeed such a failure cccurred) responsible opinien in the draft statcacnt can be cured by the presentation of evidence before this Board.
In the circuustances, Mapleton's ~ argument beconos the execcdingly
- technical one that the cc :catinc agency nust have before it all facts which are ultimately before the person making the decisien. The logic of f
b E
e
9 e
e Mapleton's pccition would really require that the statc=cnt be circulated after the Botrd has cado a decision.
The proposition is, we think, self-evidently without.2critO For the Atonic Sadety cnd I,1 censing Board
- S.7 llcu York, 1.Y.
i Nff"
/* ' '... v * * ~~~
i May[71972
/c-thur W. Kurpny Char.rcan 6
/ /
e o
E Q
e w
S pG N
'e
- e O
e S
5 6
e 4
9 9
e e
O e
O O
4
,e~
e J
e O
9 O
e t
f 9
e
.