ML19331A846
| ML19331A846 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1973 |
| From: | Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007230880 | |
| Download: ML19331A846 (30) | |
Text
Y a O
.i tu ;.,
3 JHIS Docuygtg (
' " 1** *
- HL' UC' 5 H'E ?'
^-
POOR QUAUTY PAGES s.
Ao \.
e \)
l '/,*, /
/ i
, ti t: I f I I L !!
- 'r)<
\-
- TATE Oi' ILLINOIS ) "> i J Ai;I a 373 - do
) SS., . . . sur COUNTY OF COOK ) ( ". A
~' #
/f
. rm[Ik k D
AFFIDAVIT OF MYRCN M. CHERRY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PICALL AND REVOKE INITIAL DECISION ON THE GROUNDS OF BIAS Docket Nos d -3293 50-330 Myron M. Cherry, on oath, deposes and says:
- 1. I am the attorney for the Saginaw, e_t al., _ _
Intervenors. The Intervenors represent many national -
~
organizations and include a corps of citizens local to~
the proposed Midland site who have donated their time and money,in pursuit of issues of prolonged public concern. Thus, one or more of the Intervenors here have not only pursued an intervention in the Midland dockets but are also participating in the Emergency Core Cooling.
System hearings (Docket RM-50-1) and other interventions (e .g . , Dk t . Nos. 50-301; 50-295; 50-304; 50-315 and 50-316) and intend to participate in the upcoming fuel cycle hearings. As such, the Intervenors continue to I
rerform a service by representing segments of the public M ST330 0
-s in At . mii. Mn i .iy 1'iiimit i nn ii ni p rims.. il i si.in si it .it h i win.-
i . i . . . . s. o . l . .1 ;
- 2. Accordingly, the Intervonors herein bring this motion after duc deliberation and mindful of its purpose and impact. If Intervonors interpretation of the relevant facts and applicable law are correct, then the force and effect of this motion goes far beyond the Midland dockets. The issue raised by this motion goes to the very basis and fairness of Atomic Safety and Licensing --
~
lloards. This is all the more so since the Initial Decision itself (premised as we believe upon the personally biased views,of the Chairman and other members of the Board) attempts to _
nuggemt a manner of prococding in the resolution of environmental issues for all Boards to follow. See paragraph 44 of the Initial Decision of December 14, 1972 in Docket Nos. 50-329, 50-330, hereinafter referred to as Initial Decision). Accordingly, the bias represented l
by the facts and law applicable to this motion must be scarched out and neutralized as quickly as is possible in order for the Initial Decision not to be the bellwether of further decisions in the Atomic Energy Commission l licensing process; l
1 M.
- 3. Under date of December 14, 1972, the Licensing Iloard issued an Initial Decision authorizing issuanco of construction permits for tl.c Midland Units 1 and 2. I received a copy of the Initial Decision late Monday after-noon, December 18, 1972;
- 4. On December 23, 1972, I received in the mail a copy of a law review article written by Arthur W. Murphy, Chairman of the Licensing Board, entitled "The Naticaal Environmental Policy Act And The Licensing Process:
Environmentalist Magna Carta Or Agency Coup.e De Grace?",
printed in 72 Columbia Law Review 963 (Oct. 1972). This _
article details in depth Chairman Murphy's personal bias -
concerning permissible participation by the Intervenors the AEC li* censing process and, in particular, Intervenors in these dockets. The article discusses in some detail the controversy surrounding the proposed Midland Units. The I article itself notes that it was written at an earlier date and in connection with a part of study of the Committee on Licensos and Authorization of the Administrative Conference of the United States. I recall some time in the summer of 1972,ofhavingbecomeawtYeoftheexistenceoftheprecursor of the Columbia Law Review article which was submitted to the l
l
4 v ' in i . - [o n . e . I cliel not deal with that article at any great longth inasmuch as I was involved in the trying of RM-50-1 and did not fully appreciate its significance until I both received and analyzed the Initial Decision and the final vernion of the article as it appears in the October, 1972 issue of the Columbia Law Review;
- 5. In order to confirm the genesis of the article, on December 29, 1972, after having finally formed an opinion as to the impact of bias associated with the collegial - -
reading of the article in the Columbia Law Review and the Initial Decision, I telephoned an employee of the.Administra- _
tive Conference of the United States, the organization for - . . .
whom Chairman Murphy's article was originally prepared, in order to fix and ascertain the date the article was.first written and released to various members of the Conference and the public. I was informed that the article was originally submitted to the Administrative Conference in May of 1972.
I asked to be provided with a copy of the article submitted at that date but was told that there were no more copics I
available and that the Administrative Conference was, in its-official records, using the version of the article in the Columbia Law Review; l
l 1
l
7
~
- 6. The Liming of the views or chairman Murphy originally and publicly expressed and held in May or 4
carlier of 1972 with the decision-making process in those dockets is crucial. I point out that, during the fall of 1971 and the spring or 1972, ;he parties and Licensing Board in these dockets were actively engaged in framing the issues for the upcoming NEPA hearing; that a portion of the radiological case had been con- . __
- cluded but that the matter was still pending decision by the Licensing Board, all evidence not having been -
finally roccived by that date; and that the hearings ,
dealing with environmental issues were not due to com-mence until May 17, 1972. Accordingly, it is clear beyond peradventure that the views expressed by Chairman Murphy in the article submitted to the Administrative .
Conference in May of 1972 were held by him not only prior to the Initial Decision but prior to the comple-tion of the evidentiary hearings then pending. This.
timing demonstrates all the more the bias which affected Intervenors in this case, inasmuch as the article uses the factual background, in particular, of the Midland dockets as the vehicle for the discussions of the (c) Chairm:in Murphy and thn IT ' d d id not. even
.ipply i lu re <lui re int nt n of NI'l% .ori itil ii.:. l..I l.y
. .s ! . I slilin, whi<l Cha i rm.in Mie rphy ' . .i rl i < I e-ailmi tn are app]icable, and the failure to do so was an a result of prejudicial bias:
- 9. At ached horcto arc true and correct porti n:
of part of Chairman Murphy's Article which reflect his
.ind thuc the Daard's personal bias.
- 10. italow follows selected referencon to the Midland Tran: script which now becomo clear statomonts of bias whbn ~~
viewed in light of the Initial Decision and the article.
(a) Dr. Goodman's remarks pre. judging the -
ef fects of cf fluents at tr, 1347, liner: 4-13: - --
(b) Dr. Hall's 'bnderstanding' of the burden of proof, suggesting that it in Intervonors who bear the burden of proof. Thus, at tr. 1048, lines 11-13, Dr. Hall stated:
"It is not up to us to convince-you that the reactor is proper. You
[the Intervenors] have to convince us that it is improper.";
(c) Dr. Goodman's acknowledgment at Tr. 2697 at linen 22-25 to the effect that the Board has made up its mind before hearing all of the evidence; (d) The ruling at Tr. 1893 at lines 19-22 that underlying assumptions of the Regulatory Staff's analysis are prima facie r.?aconable, uselen:
the contrary is demonstrated by Intervonors:
- ) Dr. Corniman ' u rema st s ' .it '
.i! t y so.it i . ::
. m il t it.1. . annini*iali.i t hi t iv i l li .i t . 1' l* w t sti i
- .io.:iit;I .i . tis ort I o r piew " I' ( c"I I . i il I y ,i li i an"<1 e8' u
.inci+ even the AUC admitu that it doe- not sin 1 may not weigh powcr needs against uafe'.yl . The complete statement of Dr. Goodman is as f o i l e' ': :
"The point is in nuclear pcwer plants that they are built and we do not license them unless we arc convinced that they. arc built so that the probability of some extrcmc accident of that kind is so small that it is reasonab1c to allow that reactor to be built and operated because of the need of pcwcr or nteam or some other thing that it wiil produce * '
in the ccmmunity." Tr. 1921-22; ,
(f) Chairman Murphy's remark that -it horri fice him if a full environmental review (precisety the -
kind dictated by NEPA) ever takes place. The exact ,
text of Chairman Murphy's remarks is :
"This is one of the things that horrifies me about the position that the Environmental twfense Fund takes about environmental issues. I really shudder at what is going to happen when the full environmental hearing contemplated by -- if it over is --
l contemplated by EDF under the (National]
Environmental Policy Act is had." Tr. 821, lines 5-10; and (g) The prejudging evidenced by the colloquy regarding burden of proof as follows:
"[MR. CHERRY 1. Mr. Chairman, we raise this because we really think that the Board is fol-lowing -- and in trying to analy7c the under-standing of the Board, I have como to the conclusion, perhaps erroncously -- I don't mean to be disrcapcctful -- that what has happened here is that the two technical members have-said to themselves in their minds. "The crons-exanination will reveal nothing , because I know the answers based on my experience in the induntry; therefore, I won' t permit the cronn-examination."
_g.
"Cll AIilMAN MilitPIIY : Wo 11, wi i li t lie- .ideliI. ion.tI caveat, until you, who have had this material availabic for some time, come up with some prima facic showing that will shako their faith that they know the answer, yes?" Tr. 2102, lines 4-16.
f 9
Ih 1 1A0 V
'IIIADi oW M . Cherry
! ICf )
'/ f.
~ ,
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of January , , 1 9 7 ,3 ,
/!Is..uf (' . .< r Notlary Public TIIE ORIGINAL OF THIS AFFIDAVIT IS DEING SENT TO THE SECRETARY OF T!!E ATOMIC ENERGY CO& MISSION I
COL ~MB::A LA V IIVIXW Wl. 72 - OCTOlirit l');2 .%. 6 i
Tile NATIO.%AL ENVil(ON.\lENTAL l'OLICY ACT ANI) Tile LICEN8ING PitOCES8:
22 i ENVIIiON.ilENTALIST MAGNA cal!TA OH I
AGENCY COUP DE GilACE?
im
, APsTI!Ul' W. .TIUliPilY" 1a ! The reretit and continuirg Cood of environmental legi-lation is having a .'
profoinid effert on administrative agencies, gcrticubr!y .ti,.o-c engaged in issuin,: licemcs ai d authorirations. The varitty an.1 req.c of the legi.htimi, as well as tia unmler ..f agrucies inu.hed, make it impracticd !c to 1. ep up -
with doctr.pmet.t.s in more than one agency; a survey of the Seld will be outdated lefr<c it is written. Acenrdingly, this article focuses prinnrily rm , ;-
ont- anctay.-Ile Att mic linergy Cumnissi..n (AEC)-and its licensing of a facilities for Ilic production of electric is.wcr.
Tim choice of the AliC can le ju tified on a number of grounds. E!cctric power gener.ition, whether nuc! car, fossil fuel or hydro, has a substantial environmental imloct, and is a major arca of controver>y between " environ-mentalist >" and the advocates of econcmic growth.2 Whatever the outccme of that controversy, it seems inevit:b!c that there will lave to be a substantial , , .
increase in generatitig capacity over the next ten years; the plans to increase tlat calocity Ime placed major reliance on nuc! car power. Unfortunately.-
AEC licensing is in severe crisis, with xrious implications for the ability of
- This article was rerpareti as a report to the Ccnunittee on Licenscs awl Anthorira.
tions of the Administratisc Conference of the l'aited States as part of the Committee's sluity of slic impact of envirmmental !crisfation on Llw licen ine pr. er *. Tin. C. nmiur.:
is presently coini.!.t n.c the rrnirt, sh+c with a staff stair. I's,erent l'e,./J..ns c o flic inart<.e li.ensin 7. l.5 hirsus. Reelui.I K. I'. s c. Ilarry ll. II..yrr arul Jame. !!. J.4:n t.ai.
as urli as i.al.cr innits of the staff wl.ich are reflectril in the statnn-nt by H.c r C.
Cramten. Cinirm.us .f the Ashuinistratise Cunfermee, Tlic lifect -f Niil*el on theirian.
blating br Federal'.ldurioistratire ilgencies tefore the 'scuate Committ.cs <m Interior awl hhular Atiairs aml l'uh?ic Works. Starch 7.1972. Wlule I have liad the bensfit of g the a. trice of the Cenmuittee on I.icen es and Authont.ations and the stafi of the Ad- .
i.
miniurative Conference, the views estressed are my -n ani leve net been apprc. red .
by the Conmiittee or the Conference. I
" l'rofre-or of I..w, Columbia University. A.B.1943, liarrard University; LLD. ,
1948. C..hmit.i n t'niversity.
L ti ehtics t cienplain, with some justice, that romer plants are relatist:y r v g erwitril nors to pr4tuness cempareil to inant other artisitice. arm! th t er.s.r.n r -ti:.t.
luu ten. lot to eseminnate .n util.tio rk>t Iwan.c ther are the w. trit ofirnster.. Inst '*
trean c tiny aie rn:ulent anl, therciure, more caily subirrtcl to ceraf t:4 unfer cu tirg lair. .
^
M ,
- sto l I cliI.Llll:1 I I til 111 I II II l Y..l . '
- st.*1 the niilities l. supply necelrel p nu r. Fin.i!!y, I!r. diur niti i 1.< ing et. o m9 re el in Alt.C licensing are typiral of what nny be exp< s teel in r,ti.tr :;ruci..
Except for air polltttion, mo t envirc=nmental prr.blems of st:Ntance nre i!ca!!
with in ennnection with an AF.C licensing prorce ling.
A similar selection must be made with respect to cr.virom:rn::.1 le;;i A. tion At this time, the major fe.lcral enviroamc.11al legis!:. tic.n indixndng twuir plant siting inehtdes: (1) the National Diviromnental l'olicy.ht <d A?> ? (2 t the Water Gnality improvement Act of IfiT072 (3) Section 13 of tl e !!ivers am! Ilarbors Act of 189P (which riualiGes as a new act 1.u mc c.f the inter.
pretation that applies it to the release of pollutants into nwi.:ahte site:.m.);t anel (4) the Clean Air Amenelments c f 1970.8 As r.f An::n:t,1972, there arc peneling in Congress a nmnber t.f bills peci6cally i!caling withl wer pl.na siting,7 attel two bills conceaul witt: !an< bit e planning, which al'o nt.iy have a
~
signi6 cant impart on power plint licen ing.' ,
- 2. 42 U.S.C. [I 432149 (l'4d). The major i rovi ions of the Act as thsy concein us hire .:re descritet in the text accomoinpry nam 13 saira.
J. 33 U.SE fl 1152,1155,115/ II.V Ilm-7J, !!74 (l'CO) (f 8 Stat. 91). Nth Ilouses have 1.as vd bills wl.ich wou!d have a maior effect o.t es.i ting water rc.r.hty X-ris.
lation (S. 277d. 924 Cong.,1st Scu. f 1971) ar.111.11. Ilh"' N.i Cuag, 21 4 . (1972It _
The bills contain major differences in the 3.rnvi irent for.fh,.ancmg. itderab<t.,M tc'ation-
. ship *, anel permit programs, which so far have re i ttd ciru;n.rm c. lic,th bil:* weru!4-ut , g ,
a natir.nal goal of the total cluninanimi of disch:n nc, c.f pdlutants into nuir.d,le rircams
- by 1985, and of water riuality fit for swinuning an.t Ibii by 19ol.
- 4. 33 U.S.C. I 407 (1970).
. 5. The "reinviraratinn" of f 13 heran with the deci ion of the Sut.renz Cc,urt is United States v. Stanilant Oil Co, 384 U.S. 224 (19at.), which uphel.1 an irclietmtnt based on the accidental di< charge of conuncreidly va!uahte aviation gasoline into the St.
John, leiver in F!urida. Althnngh net cutirely clear, the ihti inn wt.uhl arr sah!y amborize proscentien for *' thermal ilhcharr.rs," the major wattr pothnant resultmg fa,m ste:en.
powered ge ner. Sling p! ants.
- 6. 42 U.Sn 11 185743 little effect on nuclear or hydr (uelectric g.lants.1970). At the present time this Act
... 7. Of these, the most lihely candidate for eventual enactme-t we,n!.I seem in be ll.R. ,
5277, 92d Cone,1st Sess. (1971). (an adminknation hill): and II.R lita.,92J Cong.
1st Sess. (1971) The bills difier in material respects: however, both weaFt requ:ve electrie utilities to er gage in long range planning and to comider projecitd needs f(t electric caergy and the imract of proposed facilities on the environment. The rrmisicni of the administra on bill are extensively diteured hv prcr.enents and critics in II. wines on 1114. 3277,112. 6970, ilR. 6971,113. 6vi!, llR. 3331,112. Tul!,11R. IX*,
and 11R. HR6, !!clare the Sul.comm. on Communicath.n and Potter of the lionse Ccmm.
on Interstate and Forcion Commerce, 92d Cone, lit Sess, ser. J1 (1971). As the utie indicates, the Snbeommittee conii-Icred eight b:ll< in all. After the hearingi, it produerJ a new draft hill, H.R 11066, 924 Cong, ht Scu. (1971). Su!requemly, a number of other bills on the same subirct have twen introduced including II.it.13'Y.6. 92d Co-e.
2d Sess. (1972); II.it.151'r1. 92d Cong., 24 Scu. (1072); and S.16S4, 921 Ceng. 2.'
Sess. (1972). These bilh (as well as II.It. 3277 and II.It 110%) are extensively di cu +e!
in Electricity ond the Entirt nment The lieform of I.ccal Imtituti..ns, l'e:r. t of t' e -
Association of the liar of the City of New hel:. Special Committra on F.lcetne l'o.ser and the Environment ch VII (1972) iherrinafte r cited as Elcrfrhiry nud the Est-ironmentl.
- 8. S. 612, 92d Conc.,1st Frw (1971) ( prwren r4 hv Sen. Jact <.n); 5. y/2, '01 Cong, ht Sess. (1971) (spomoted by the Niu,n A hninistrati .n). Ihah bdis per vi.'r for the consideration of federal, staic and h. cal1 3 ns and inr ti:e me of fr4r.d fu .S to strengthen state land use planning. For a more extinded di cussion, rec EIc tricity an.i
- the Ent,vonment, sutra note 7, at ch. VI1.
- 9. One other pendine hill ib..nid he mentionnl-the llart.httGovern hill, S.10.11 92tl Cong, bt Sess. (PJ1). This Icgi 1.Minn wnnhl cretc a f eden.1 cau e of actW .
a in faner of any person against "any individual or organiration, or any department, aciti? I or imtrumemality of the United' States, a .%te or local gonrnnu nt, the thso gt el I
I 1 .e. . .. . . . . . - . ..-..~..w... % < . . - w. - ..
, _ , , , . v ,, u... hi M:U. 'f
_ p . . .. . . - - - .- ., ..
J (U -- J G _. ... O 0' 1.1. h.
r-s t !5 . l 1
\ lJ n, i i y\\
..-_2 .h, .
L. l
_ 1 u JL_f .. \
- ~
.r.LC.L 7
s '
\
/;! t;. * ..l l
lf
- 'fx ad s
3, T(xcrQb/ c 3
/. ' t' v
'ff- p ,,,. ~"'. 'A (10'/ . .Q_';C #-
. ... . . ,l .
<. JA.!10 i373 do uj f ,
) i
. , . ; . n.ca<,
tis ...McSLS
.,1 s s. r
fY {7', W
% . _~
. .y_ , , . .
t_ h Tun NATroNAL ENvinoN.stcNTAL Poucy Act AND TI!C l!CENSINc Pnoccss:
ENvinossinNTAusr MAGNA CAnTA Ort .
Act:Ncv Cour us GRACE?
strthur IV. Murphy ,
a l I
JuDicrAL Renew or A!:urAny Scavrir.uxcs or Civrurss:
.' Bic Dnorutn WEAN $ h!oDERN AndY CitEEN I
Jcotc:AL Rtvizw Ann AfrurAny Drsciruxr-Cortright v. i Resor: Tuc CAss or Tus Boys in inc DAND
. .i i .
1 7 .
l
}
VOL 72 OCTOBER 1972 NO. 6 i
t l'
t
Cha i rtaan 's .new of the law and f act s niis t i>un.li nit t h.
.ip pl ..it i.in .it I h. - H.i t i . in.i l i:evii..nin. nisii ..ii.j A. i . . n .1 iii.- c.i..- i .iv i n t.e i pre t i ng thal-. Ac t: .i:: atipi r o ! to si p.irt i e-nl.it .inel pi tali suj 1 icenning hearing;
- 7. On January 2, 1973 at a meeting in Bet'.enda,
"..irf l aial with counsel for the Regulatory Staf f in the:re clocke t s , I called attention to the bias and solicited th; Staff's assistance in connection with t.his '!otion. I took this step before filing the Motion in an effort to ha m this mattar resolved expeditiously. On Friday, January 5, 19'3, I was informed by David Kartalia that .
the Rcralatory Staff would take no steps in the absence of tht filing of this Motion. Accordingly, this~ Motion is being filed as soon as possible in light of all the ',~~~
circumstances.
- 8. As is clear:
(a) Chairman Murphy, and hence the Doard, were well aware of the requirements of NEPA, particu-i larly as interpreted by Calvert Cliffs; (b) Chairman Murphy and the Board viewed the requirements of NEPA, particularly as interproted by Calvert Cliffs, as interfering with the produc-tion of needed energy and development of nucicar power and particularly the construction of the propoced Midland units:
i l ' 8 ,'*.' l Nfll'.I 'No 4
!.o f.d as the AEf' licensing pim cw is t ota cincil the ein t important environme ntal irgidation is the National Environment:.I Nier Ae t (NJ:PA).
~
. The telatie, whip rif NEPA to AEC li c ising is the pimary c .nar't nf thi<
article. Since much of what followr. is crhical of the f.pp'ia. tim of '; EPA it is approphte to emphasi.~e here that NEPA is a !ar;prerdue am! atary step
,, toward rectifn ation of an imhahnee in exhtin;: practice amt hu Ja To embatk j on major government programs wid.ont con & ring their S ng term impact on the environnknt is obviously unmund. As a statute to i > .np'cr. n:cd, Lowever,
, i NEPA pones problemsi it is, in the words of Ju.!ge lienry Friendly, "so a ; bro ul,3ct op:vpie, that it _will take even longer than usual fully to comprehend
, its impact."" For eramp!c, it contains littic gui<hnce for agencice in balancing
, their traditionta miulom.again'.t the demands of the envirotum nf. lInd NEPA
, g been applied only to inture prograns, the adju>tmenta cont,1 have been inade i relatively casily. The trouble has come when NFPA has been used mote I broadly. It may he that had NEPA Leen enacted revemy.five years :'go. we . .
would have forsworn the automobile and other aspects cf our high energy i
! cconomy. P.ut it was not and we did not i acd at least for the,present, we must
! live with the con <cquences of one earlier decisions. The effort to use NEPA
" retroactively," to inquire in:o decisions aircady acted upon, is dimiptive -
i . - of existing programs. Nowhere is the disruptisc cfIect more evident than in i the application of NEPA to the licensin;: process." - . - - -
' ~
It is the thesis of this article that the job required of the Atomic Energy Commi9 ion by NEPA, as interpreted by the courts, is one which the agency I canno perform, and, in any event, one which.the licensing process as it citrrently exists Is ill designed to handle. The task imimed ini att alre:uly overburdened stratetiire has liad, at least temporarily, a disastrous impact.
., Colum!.ia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Pico, or a possession of the United States," g,,
to enjoin any activity which is claimed to result in " unreasonable pollution, impairment .
. or destructinn" of the environment. Ahhrmgh the preci<e elitet of the bill is arguable, i a fair trading aimhl, in my opinion, petmit the courts to make a de novo determmation of reasa.nal!cnc>s uittumt regard to piior agency determinations or standards such r.s water or air quality stanshrds.
- 10. Devite my di claimer, the criticism presented in this article is certain to be taken
- by some as part of an attempt to destroy the act. Ncr llarnik. Tcstii,a the .lforrment, Its '
. Time to Nin c N/i/*.l, Exstkox. Actiox ( April,1972). Speaking of the attempt to pass
- interim legislation authoriring operation of completed plants prior to a full NEPA review
! (sce pote JJ intra), the author said: "Shouhl the AEC open the gates, other agencies i s are sme to follow suit in their attempts to rid themselves of what is widely regarded in ,
- Washinrton as the most annoying and troublesome law to be teassed in recent years .
-NEl'.\." For an indication of the reverence with which NEPA is viewed, sec !!anks .
A 1fanke. 4n linvironmentalliill of Rights: Tlue Citi:en Nuit anel the National Environ.
. ment.nl l'cIhy .4e r of /wn, 2 8 Rincras 1. lity. 2.10 (P/70). Fm a more tial.mred view
- (i.c., one in gemral acreement with my own views) of the vittues and dangers of NEPA, see if e testimany of Racer C. Cramton, supa note *. !
- 11. New York City v. linited States,338 F. Supp. 792 (E.D.N.Y.1972) (three. judge court).
- 12. This article is concerned with licensing. It may be that the effect of NEPA on operati. mal pregiams will l'c very similar. Ihmescr, my tentative judgment is that the requirement of a hearing and the availability of tradibunal judicial review in the case of hetn,ing make it significantly different from operational programs. ,
b
.t ;
,i . i
.. . ... . . . .. .... _.....___.z . _ , . ,
n w L-
4 46ts t's11l'1till I 1. fli' l.'l I ll 11 lY.,L ;'. m..
P.nl I dewsilw" the Ulti;ttion as it evists npl an:dy/c. the retrane for t'.t rtiris l' art il offers so;Testions for t hanges in the *!rneture of the liten ir ;
procc s to enahic the Al{C and other agencie> to better deal with envinm ment..! gncstions.
I. Tun Nxr onat. F.xvnn mr.xnr.1% .a y Arr or 173 (NF.i%)
A. The Act The National Envirc.nmental Iblicy Act" declare.; a national enviio:..
me:.tal policy in broad and general tenus. Section 101(b), for exampic, > tate, that "it is the continuing re ponsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicahic means, con.sistent with other essential considerations of nation:.!
policy. ." to achieve stated "cr.vironmental" objectites. Section 102 "authose, and directs that to the fu!!ut extcnt peible . . (t]hc policies, reguktion --
and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administerr.1 in accordance with the policy set forth in this Act . . . ." Part 11 of the Act establishes the Council en Environmental Onality.
Section 102(c) contains the major suh,tantive provisicus of the Act. It -
provides:
All aneuries of the Federal Goverinnent shall . . . (c) include in .
cycry recomnu ndation or report on -proiwis.ds for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly aficcting the quality of the human environment, a detai!ed Statement by the responsible official on-(i) .the environmental impact of the proposed action.
(ii) any adserre environmental etTects which cannot he avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the pro-losed action (iv) any irrescrsible and irretrievabic conunitments of resources ,which would be involved in the proposed action should it be impicmented. ' . "'
The thrust of this provision, as well as the Act itself, is to require an agency to demonstrate that it has considered environmental factors along with other relevant aspects of any proposed major action. .
- n. 1. ice:ning as " Major Federal A< tion" Whether Congress intended to include agency licensing proceedings within
" major Federal action" is not entirely cicar." Certainly, the pts.,isions of Section 102(c) seem to have been drafted with operational programs in mind.
- 13. 42 U.S.C.11432147 (1970).
- 14. Comidering the remarkahte lack of attention given to the Act by Congrc<s, nne mmt wonder whether Congress had any idea of the potential inneact of its action. 't he
- bill, in its oririnal forin, passed the Senate without delute and 0 e erinin.d lica.c
did not untain the prosisum in quc> tion. liscept for the bilr> relatiemht;* to the W...
Quality Act (see note 39 infra), the specific provisions of NI?PA were not examined ri depth. The origim of KliPA and the course of its enactment arc de cribed in Tutu
- Axwou. lu rour w int Coexcu. ox F.xuno.nirxtar. Quaury 221 24 (1972) iherrin-after cited as GO Tulun lu.ront].
~
nin COI.li.111:1.1 1..ll!' l.*1:l'lI:It' lVol. 72:w licene may be issued to rrnup?cted pLuts in eerdn chcent Pince,14. -
the final NF.l'A review.:'
}tupentant ns these cGuscquenct s are, i:0weser, they are thort-rt n. I this 1 r.rtiots of its rireision, the en:ut has c:.lv ri g.:is ed
- r.1 t{.e N! .
criteri.i l>e ap;Jicd at an earlier >tage th .a that choa by the AEC. V."
as nearel ahme, trie ma" criticize the court .tr ni rig m 4.c. t.c .f a perimi of r.djustinu:t,2' the eficet 'of this n>;xet of the eginion will cli ipf over time.
- 2. _ Certifica! Ion. The pattern of reliance on certifier. tion by other gnve ment agenrics was the major philo-ophical tun!crpinning of the appr<nch the AEC ro emironmental agne aions Appen<lix D slexifically stated the Al.
belief i that the preecrvation of environmental values can best be acecmpihhed.
i throu;th the establishing of environmental quality standards and re- .
! quirements by approptiate Federal, State, aml regional agencic>
having responsihihty for environmental protretion. 3 Ahlein;;h any party conhl rai<e environmental tunes m a proceeding,"
j - certification of ecmpliance by an authorized agency was to be disposit.2 _
! of the issue.37 In the case of water quality, the AEC took the position ti. .,
$ WOI A super.seded NEPA and that the AEC role was therefore restrica i to assuring itrelf that an applicant had procured a certificate from the app priate agency-state, interstate or federal (EPA).2' ,
less tiun full prmer licen n base been inne,1 to romt plant.. In inany ca o, host.
the ionam e of such licrme, is being In.tly enntr .tel.
- 33. See note M3, inf,a.
- 34. The AEC was criticized by representatives of industry amt by one Con.mits for overreacting to Calwrt Clifs by forbidding operaticio of comp!ctcl plants unnt , ,
NEpA envir<mmental review was fmished. (Scc the statem<nts of Osnmioioner R:e i
and Charles F. Luce of Consolidated ILlison Co., NX., before a hearing of the .<r i Interior C<unmittee on November 3,1971, retortc! in IS Nucrian Ixn. 24 25 (E 1971)). .
- 35. 35 Fed. Reg. 18474 (1970).
' al 36. "Any party to a proceeding for the issttance of a construction permit c' -
operating licen<e . . . may raise as an issue in the p?oceeding whether the issua:::
> the permit or licen=e would i e likely to rc<ntt m a sigtut cant, adverse eficet e t environment." 14. This prmision applied only to facilities where the notice of 1.a 1
for the comtruction permit was issued en or after Mitch 4,1971.
1
- 37. With respect in those .mapects of environmental quality for which enviren-i enental. quality starwlards amt requirements have been established by authorire!
Federal, State, armi regional accccies, proof that the applicant is equipped ta
} observe and agrees to ob crve such standards and reinirements will he considerc!
.i a satisfactory showing that these will not he a signincant, adverse clicct ein ite I crivie..:mo nt. Certi6 cati..n hv the appropriate .u ency that there is i.-astml>
t num.n= r tlut the appbrant for the primit s.r linn.e u dl e.!rme .ue h .tand.a.'.
l amt iryuirrinents uds he ca.inidered th mitive for this pmi r.c.
? In any esent, there will be incorporated in con.trncti..n ternuts and og erstir e licenses a cotuhtion to the etTect that the licentece shall car vtre such starular '-
d arut requiteturnts for the protection of the envin.nment as are validly imi M
- pursnatit to authority establi hed under Foletal acd State law aint as are derrr.
nined by the Comeniwion to be applicable to the facihty that is subhet to t'f liccming action imulted.
Id.
- 38. 35 Fid. Rec. 18470(1070).
t k
7 1 'J72 Col.U.1 fill.I 1..lll' RI:l*ll:ll' (Yo!. i.%
on its cren regulations as establishiog pers:d"i!6 P *- : r! - P *- ,
for all reactors. l'nder existing practise, the AEC tr>ts the aiuy of a r.
- by refcrenec to compliance with its re;pdations-l' art 2i>'
- dealing with ;,
j sibic relea>cs in regular operation and Past 100" dealing with aed :
l releases. These regulations are framed to alinw substantial individu '
consideration of a singic unit. l' art 100, fr.r cumple, require t!':it in -
event <,f a hypothetical "desi;;n las anidi nt," sah ul.ne;l do.e3 .it 7 ; .
j di.ttances outside the rc:ictor not cuic<l ceitain limits, but the it;;u' allows " credit" for engineered safe;; nard <." In> precise as thew >tandai.! ,
- they do provide a reference for decision. If the calculations show that ti.e E will not he exceeded, the reactor may be licen>cd. Whether this is still ne i after Cahcrt Clifs is questionable."
? '
- 3. The Requirement of "Adjudi.<: tion" of Unwntested I sucs. Vri. -
Calrrrt Cligs, Appendix D provided that the hearing I! nard would not p --
on environmental issues unicss they h:ul been raised by a party. This pr. ,
dure was not an abdication by the AEC of its duty to conduct an environn review; the review would be performe.1 out41e the hearing preecess, i.c.,
the regulatory staff in the preparation of its impact statement. Thi< appr. -
was sharply rejceted b) the court as a " crabbed interpretation that nr.k
- . inockery of"" NF.PA. The court rerpdred the I
- nard to examine the ades: - -
~
of the regulatory staff review and to " independently consider the final ha!:e l
ainong conflicting factors that is struck in the staffs reconnnendatic.:
In reaching this conchtsion, the contrt applied to environmental quet the unique format used with respect to radiokigical questions. As to thcm..
Boards are required to make independent findings even though the licc.
application (or the particular radiological issue) is imcontested." The wi.>
, of the court's application of this requirement to environmental issues i-least questionable. This is not the occasion in rehash the long standing <!i!
over the AEC licensing process: Board review of uncontesteel innes has 1-attacked as wasteful, repetitive and worse." Although the precise nature the Board's function has resisted definition, all seem to agree that it the 42.10 C.F.R. I 20 (1971).
43.10 U.F.R. I 100 (1971).
- 44. Id. Fin a description of the trquierinrnts. ice .\linp%. Arnanic Naf tt un I li ing llotads: An li.rferinsent in Aduninistruturc !!rcision blaling on Safety (.herro.
law & con 7r.sr. Pann. 566 (19f,8).
- 45. For purposes of the environmental " cost.henefa" analysis, an app!! cant r.
now consider the possible effects of a spectrum of accidents less severe than the ik basis accident. 36 Fed. Reg. 22851 (1971).
- 46. 449 F.2d at 1117.
47.14. at i1IS.
- 48. For a di>euss'..n of the role of the Doards with respect to uncontestol inec .
Murphy, sutra note 44, at 578-31.
- 40. See, e.g., Cavers. Administrative Deci<iennodina in Nuclear Faci?i.'! r 1.i..-' '
110 U. PA. L RFV. 330 (l%s2) : Dasis, Nuclear Facilities 1.iNnting; d mll.,^r Vs. :.
b U. VA. L. Rtv. 371 i1%2): Cavers. NunIcar Facituric.c 1.icenun.n A Il'orJ ' -
U. VA. L 1:s v. 359 (Inc.2) : Grevn. Sal.-t: lhterminark.ns in Nus te.ur l'.. .r I.s A Critical Fi c,43 Nmn DAM. l.AW. Id3 (IM).
- .e .W . e+ ee. gup .m ee e e geai , ,.
- . . . . . . . . . . s. . .- -
l . .,
I Nfll' ! " .'.t e
lui.' ]
n..t be t.. dog th air taff iniew?' In paarti.c the I:utids haic tended to olvd chtch the woih e.f the staff. Such a ' review is :.t len>t fea ib'c on radio!c;;ie:.1 iwnes heian c it is ennducted by peop!c with con iderdde es; rti-c in the (;c!d.
In t.n.trast. Ihe it.urds 1. ave nn :perial cr.:npetenie in < nvii..nnrntal untters,58 awl, even if an adequate number of "cnvironmentally qualiGr.1" perinnnel are found, the snession 1.cr>ists whether it makes senic to extend the cc.ncept of im!cpem! nt review of uncontened innes to new area 3.
Ilow >crians a prc,hicm is posed by this aspect of the C.:!rrrl Cl!Js deeI> ism rtin.iin< ura:! car. Ar7ttahiy, there will he no eme in chalk gr a l's rd*S cc.n<iih ration of uncontesteet emircnmental questions. The failure c.f an inter-unnr tr. c..nte:t an ione shoitld preclude him from charenging third action with re pect tr. that issue (although even that is not certain) but, imder c>.i. tin;; law, it appears tiet a person " ads crocly aficcte.1" 1.y a <!ettrnun . tion.
but nr.t a party helnw has >tandmg to .rech judicial review of a Board decision." 7
- 4. The Rcqrtirement of Ultime:t.1:a!ancing in the .Idjudketory Precced. g
- ing. The nujar theme that t merges frr.m Calecri Clifs is that in an adjndicatcry ' -
pnircedin::. the P ard itwlf mmt habnce the erniuunic and techni.:d advaniTges
[ again t the om.io nme ntal rn ts of carh ptope. cd as tion in en:.uis an ng.tinntm ,,
result. In on ruling the Court es cntially adopted a losie position of environ- . .
mentalict , nith far-reaching implications. That po>ition is fairly > imply stated:
limiremnwntaliste feel that for a long time actions detrimental to the environ-ment have breit taken with' int consideration of the ultimate consci[uences.
They befine,inoremer, that a frsquent cau-c of this practice is that no single 3rmm or agency Ins been given responsibility to con >ider the total cficet of
- 50. Sce 'Jurity. sutra note 44. The court in Cah crt Cli Ts t doet conente tint as to
- environmsntal i>>ect the Ilotrel's review would not ncressarily have to Le cutirely dntheatiw e-( the Staff review. Sec 4N F.2d at 1118.
. I 51. Fech Hasid con ists of two "icchnically c:nalined* meirters and one member i "qualifiel in the ennduct of administrative geoceedinct." %c metnbers of och Peurd are I' chven from a p.uiti. I
- 52. Ser Yinvin., Some Thou.shte en intervention 11rferr Cv atr. .-l.ornrire an:t t l
, .6 Art.serata r.l;l liset I lo v. 721, 7t,I (.7 (19.:i). S.cti..n IPs ..I the At.*nk I'.:ri s:v Act, l 42 ti.S.C. I 221's (l'87at), pein.its inirrventhan in a licensieg pp crv.hnc ley No.y irr>nn
! i uhree initics nuy le aficctnt" aiwt males 's fina; - 3.s reviewable in "stn+ nenner
.. ! presoibed in (the Review Act of 19501 aint ocction 10 of the A<hninistrative g Prucedure Act." Sectinn 10 permits a " person cricly affecto!" to >cek roiew. Ilow
. these emo Acts are to le read tocether is unc5.o. Ccmtare Fmton 1*nh'ic4 Co nm'n v.
AEC. 424 F2d 347 (D.C. Cir.1970), trith Iraak Walton League v. Schletinvr, 337 F.
J Surp. 247 (D.D.C.1971).
Section J13(h) of the Federal Power Act restrict < judicial review to tarries in the
- . acency procenting. Thie (het was stressed in Scenic IImtsen I. 334 F.2d 4o3 (2d Cir. .
- a. ( 1971).- One etTect of relaxcd stamling criteria (see note 12S infra) is :n interest in restricting jedicial review to parties in tbc ocency proceeding. See Pub!!c Lacd Law Review conuni -uen Report One TAird of for Aation's Int (Reco.mncatation Na 110). at 257: "To minimite the ditatory effects of enurt invetvement, we recommre.1 thar
- in grneral the assil.ibility of judicial revicw he limitcd to tho<e parties who p:irt;cimted in the administratisc pericreding foe which review is toucht." Cf. II.R.11F* W.I Cong t 2 t Srst. (l's72). This fiell we.uld autherire (3 505) "citurn suitf to eni.irce t%t standants; it dtCncs citirent to inctwie citi im of the "gregra;. hic arci." the.*e havire
-l>6 l a "ilitect intevi t' alicetel, or %ny grn ::, ni per*ons which has twi actiniv tre cra in the administrative t.reve s :md h.as thetti y slamn a steisal interr t in the 1.tv reathic -
arca in inntri,vrtsy." (I SD3(g)). :*
E F
I
971 C01.ll.111:1.4 L fit' l.'Ti'll:lV (VvL n:
a particular entregniac. For cump'c, the FI'C ".1 t l . .\EC L- c a er tc p..u ibility for p omoting !! e eme tin. t W. .f a :- ! ; r' Snt h agencice base, in a very wal sen e, a single intue t focne Ti.e sv.
I ment:ditts want to snahe sure that .wmo.ne is re pr.mib'c for coa-ideri.m f only ptrecer nceds (and safety nerds) but d o the impact en II.c s mIrer-1 of the sati faction of thme necd . Amon;t other this:g , the. rhatic:
accept:.nce as gisen cf the po.tala:e tbt p,wer :acd, na:.st le uti31;cd.
.l Alth..ngh ti.e ]m ition of the envi>onment:Ji ts is hardly ohjte'iomh>
{ an ideal, there is :s serions danger tha as t.pplied to a pirtit ular adjudic-l pts.; reding, the ideal is unattahtabic. Ti.c CitTv isity 3rcin; from the re.c
- ment that the adjndientory body mal.c an indc] o.dt ut determination of i
! issue coup < d with the number of ]>otemi:d i--uc< in each case. As .
I s
observer of the . dmini-trative procc>s at ted:
i If an ni'mi:m rr. tor, each time he is faced with a de: Ian, mmt per-force evahtete that decision in term < of the whole ran; c of hm.:an a
values, ratiotndity in administration i i upo . ihic. If he n",1 con <i4 i
the decision n:tiy in the light of limi:.A org .rizational aime, his ta i. i-
, more nearly within the range afInnnan pov.tro. Timf'icman can con. -
j eentrate on the proh!cm of fines, the he.ihh of!icer on proh' era, cf
, distate, withnut irrelevant concideratir ns entering in. . . . If the fie j -
chief were permitted to ro:an over the wh sie field of hum m valocs-
~
'~
to decide that parks were inore imlwittant than fire trucks. And con.
wquently to reneihe his fire dric.rtmt nt iir.. .i recreation d partment.
ch. ins woulil displace nry:mi7ation, and testuar il.ility. would di>-
i appear."
d q Lest this viewpoint seem too alarmist, it is useful to examine what <-
l interrenors, post Coh crt Cligs, consider to be at issue in a licen.ing prec.
ing. Chosen for this purpose are execrpts from the respences by interrenon a request for a preliminary indication of the issues in the 3fidland, Alic!'
j construction permit proceeding." The execrpts do not cover all the 15-
- argued in the case, but are suflicient to ilhi<trate the scope of the poteer
{ inquiry:
4 (1) All adverse environmental effects and social and econnmic costs associated with the nuc! car tuel cycle, to wit, mining, milling.
feed material preparation, inel enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor operation, transpirtation, fuel reprocc> sing, anel ultilnate highdeul l radioactive waste storage and clistwd should I,i considercel in thi-1 proceeding."
- 53. II.A. Sistos, ArmmsnATIVr. Urn At101t 13 (1937). Although the autit concernel with "the phenomenon of identiGcation, or org.mintional loyalty in adnra tion," his rrinasks seem npIropriate here.
- l. 54. In rc Consumers I ower Co AEC Ibeket No<. 5th.229 an.150 3.t3 (1c721 ~
authnr dat as the non-trehnical member of the Atomie Sattty awl 1.iern-ing Ito.n!
l hearel the case.
I 55.1.stter from counsel to the Afap!cion Inte-rc o. Sc .t. 3,1971, on nic h .
A AEC Public lbeument Room. Washington. ItC. The .it:. c of Ums< La< inten.m a numbcr of precudic;;s to cunteml that ths. irues !sione the I:aards inclu!e the a:M
, . ~
+ a - p;sl N/ l. I arl:,
t
.I i l,
- n. . . l l. .
lb.. , b . t,;. in .in,I art. ... t n e pe..p.. .ls in In.n .. hon nr.o i 1. s 16 oy. Foi in taw e, pubbe pr.;t.au . t ' ..ar-anc the nonn e siasy ute of ein idrity by tia. ncimial pahFc an 1
' imhe tty, rate schedules which im for cler: irity'during peak demanpo c sn!r tanto!!y higher (harges dming ia a! peri <wls, a rc. 1 periinh, rationing of ein tricity Ahrnatise usans for pre.viding the cicctricity wl.ich it ha< p:r-dictr.1 will be needed, including hnaning in tvivccr from Cam.<!a or
- other penver t.ystems or conserting to nv.re etkient means of ttans.
Initting cln tiici'y inchtding direct curretit transiniwinn and nuder. q ground t ram n iwion." '
(M A NF.I'A awdy>is for a nuclear [nnter pl.m! al o reynbr> i 5 an analysin of alternatives. Thus, given a lon;; ran;y ekw ofl eoper
. nati. nalieation of our natural resources, if a ymer plant is needed.
then lumbi it la a nuclear penver plant :' Airordinnly, it appean nc.ci ny to .malyic long ami shoit ran;y :.npplies of coal. oil, nas and m.minm and male sotne judgment as to wlatl.cr or not a unckar , -
prmer pl.mt on;;ht to be hnik, given the relative supplies of various
<>f om natural resources. This i >ne is all the more significant hee:m><-
of the proliferation of nnelcar Imver plants and the obvions and con- g tinm d use of avai:able nranimn. This analysis must con <ider the I feasibility of the Atomic F.ncrgy Connnissinn's so-cal!cd " fat t breedtT" i poigram. The Conanirion ha3 stated that with ihvindling snpplies of
_I '
nranmm it r. necessarr tu increa>c activity renarding the fast breeder ~
program. To the exteEt that asailable risources of uranimn are to be - ' -
generated by the fast brceder, the 31idland environmental review shonid aho an.d3 re the telatise enviromnental and operaticinal feasi-bility of the fast breeder program."
Kans,* - _-
ih p.. n . in ih..: ; t.ne.of ihr pl.en cm rently undsr con <itcration to store lour livnl "a irm in salt
.r.
. I hc Fmit.o.nu ntal t h-ftn r Fmul's (l'Dl9 Statnnrni v.f Sulice if'/.n l tt.tleif
' II. / ifl.u./. .t.o. I Se pt.n.l r pi, P01. is on fde in ihr A FC Public l hiennn ut Reun
- i Wa hmrton, Dr. 'lhe vunniaph, in the test and the escripts in this foumote have been ,
8 I change in sen c. Ashiitional contentions by the EDF include the followin
.! reliability phnt awl of the 1.oner to be generated by this plant. The new syston
imsibic cutagre which tr.ight occur as a result of these new sysicms.
The predictol non+perating days fnt this plant. The predictol average tunnber of I time whethsr to kop radioactive reles<cs as low as pssible or to comu
' operating the plant in order to by de inn numii6 cations meet electric necd Ddays which could be caused bec for imtance. WASII. Ils and compare the recent modi 6 cations in ECCSret InTrs it stad by the .stmi.5cale tests.
pl.mt alTrcts the ik rision to buiht the plant and build it at this k. cation tive availabic in Dow if*the plant is not built incluiting imprnved fossil plant "s
pn<hirtion of stram anni di commuinr; untcon.wnical aml/or ommoch,1 opt rations.-
Potoitial e its.ts on the Slidland ci.nummity of the enn*tnicti.wi of this plant. The pu ible ;nh.uitarn to the o.annmoity if t.nh Dow and the plant urre foratnl e !*r-
'e ulu ir .nni ihm the riev was utievnt .4 twn major ,onsces i of ndhnum. The effrrt l ern ration unin-try to trpi. cc Dow.on ihr noinant id Alid!arni mehnhttr the po.sible develnp '
l In a.hhtion to Ptwhiting s kytricity the propo ed plant wouh! supply steam to the adjacent l lb w ( hrminal t hen.my for use in m.mutatming. Atmther group of interu nors would
- l htir. tr the h n. ht, of ninving 11ow', plant to Texas. D m is theunployrr hipil.npl. nomid;ng j .h fe.t sinne 10.0f 0 ter ont.
majos in M. t he itsnt. un h r "(.1)" are imm Eshibit H to a Istier far". afyren Cheny, conned '-
o
, _ - - - . .. ~_ --
-~
4 l[ .- )
% 97fa col.U1tnLf 1.: fir tu:rtar W..l. n:'.ss
't Of coterse, the fact that the intrarnors anrrt th. ' nie h i -t:" * - ' *r:
i tu .srt ntiny in the pr.< ceding does not em.t:.ldi h v.h..t snay 1 ? :nb At
} , pre-t ut, the intu venon po ition is under cla!!u.,:c, and tl.e A EC n:ty ta'.c I
a na:tourt vi. w of tiie penni.ssihie range of issni 3 .5' The crut in Cald rt 1
Cligs, bouner, di.1 nn: drier to the AEC views, :.nd nr.c most re.distica!!y j 4 disonn:t thent.
l' {' An indiatie.n of the ruurts' attitude concerning the > cope of the re!crat.t .
{ iones nuy be gathered iront the recent decision of tia Court of Appr.ds far l l the 1) int:ict of Cohnnhia in National 1&smurrescIs ien.e, Ceu. ' : 11ertan?
I In that case, ennte nation groups cha!1cuged the aileipmey of the enviroinnent-d statenx nt prepirni ley the Depirtment of Interint in connectina with the i- ) pro;u.cd ha ing of oil and gas drilling rights in the Continen:a! S'n # :-4. ___
l l spcci6ca!!y, the ade.ptmy of the " discussion of aftenwncs" nr.nh:cd by
! j NEl'A. The court ioinal the statement deficient and disapproved of the ~
{ agtney's tein al to ana!yre the environmental eficcis of7dicrnatives. In par-j titular, the tourt rejected the conc!nsion that there uns no need,tn comider _
l alternaliscs, such as climination of oil impmt .ptotas, that were beye.iul the j pen cr e f the pneury tu eficctuate. On the other luuni, the ennrt su taincel the -
8 anotais ufusal to enmine ahrrnatives such as >olar and fusion prover which "
[ woe not "sta>ntehly asailah!c." While it is impowib!c to draw fina condu-r i sions froin the decision---especially since it involves an operational program j rather than a licen ing prnecedirg-the opinion, on balance. Sams to >upport j a hneut view of the issues to be decided by a hearing Board.
I In the Cal:Trt Clips deci< ion it>c!f, the court appears to reciaire the hear-ing P.<urd to >crutinize a wide range of issues in arriving at its final deter-minatien. In the words of the court:
NEPA nnndates a case-by-case balancing judgment on the part of federal agencies. In each individual can, the particular economic and int the krieuw Inttrveters, to the Iloird. Sept. 30.1071, on filc in A r.C Pufdie DncuiE Rocm, Washinco.u, D C. thher ca.nirteinos of Ncieuw Int.rvrwirs inslu fr the foli..wiur:
Any analpis ut=?rr NFI'A must inc!wie a trvice of w heti.cr Comuinen' detronination to I.uild the 1!idtand units is justified at all. Thu if it i= not demon.
stratet that Consiwers has lone range netds for an additional pnuer plant, it slweld tw.: he able to build it. NEPA. it wotdd aho aircar, reqmrcs an inquiry as to whethcr Con <umers. if additional power needs are demonstrated, enutd gnerchade ntec5=ary electricity, by virtue of a Prc5cnt or ncw inter.cnnnectio i. front utilitics hasing a difierent peak rerirvi than Con muers, rather than l<uht a facility.
An analy>is of demanul for electricity must include a discus icn of what creates demami. We all know that utilitic- spend a gnnd deal of money in tiromoticg a need for cisctricity. Under NEPA Should a utiliiy tic .ib'e to build a plant ha=ed in w-hoic or in part upon disuand for cicetricity which it has created itseff! Or indetsl *hould a toutal,long rance emironunental policy require a utility to invest sume to promote a decrease in the use of cicetricity in order to con crve natural resettrees arul avoid smrtecessary or unwiec espen.liutres of ca;* ital co It.
!Il The Atumie Safety sal I.icensis:g Areca Ituud has uphe:d the runne of t!'e Bond in <me ca*e that eschtdot from con ideration .dl i ues of the fuel c3cle concertdng nutters lefere tran testation of the furi to the reactor site armi aftrr traumata'iort to the
, s
' im! rrptore sine plant es tintiil Site, la rc Commucr> Power Co., AhC Ikicket Nos.
%329 and 50.JA. .hdy 19,1"72.
j 59. 453 F21 N7 (Dn Cir.1972). .
1 i i ;
- l. .
b F , i 4 !
t
I 1
I-
- " e olil'111cl I I til fit i li st l Y..I . ' n. . t
! A. . . . . h oy I. . 1.. . . .. n s . "a i he l. . i t e. .n w. . i . ... l . .I g .e . - . . !.n .11, i a ' . a n e h t ' i n b. .i. . d ..n n!. s ..i n .n .n el h .!.n r o.g i.1 o g ji . ..n. .r..! l i .. - .....le i' jn// v nni m u" I l.3!II' -it n Ihe re. p..m ilubi) . .f )." . .uu t.. ir . . e . ""- "I hr.
c:n; bis ou pru rdure tettui innecunus b::t any 1.oac to ' e !ctini. \\ L..I dor-i it incan to give "iull aial good faith consideration"in issues of tin hind inte.tved
-l in the e procc-dingd
. The pr.tenti.d din.cminns (.I il.c pr..ble:n of deCning "in'! :.n.: n ..! faith
- consideration"
- ne highligh:rd by the dirent ni Juhe Oake. in Scccl/ //irdwn ll." In the mnv. famous fir.-t deep. ion in this ca.c (Sccn c ilmlwe 1), the i
- Couit of Appe
- ds for the Second Circuit set aside ti.e FI'C ap;onval of a pro we-ed " pumped storage facility" to be built at .4:m King Monntain in the
' 1lud .on liiver Valley." The court remanded the ca e to the Fl'U, inter al!.i.
} for consi.feration of ahernatices to the propo ah On renand t!.e FI'C n;tain l apgnmed the. propered facility with. 9.me nuoliticati~ns, . nd on appe d the , ___
i Second Circuit uphchi the FPC deterndnation by a 2 to L vote.
j in his di9 tut, Judge Oake+ cited fonr theories com;.c!!ing reversal of the FPC decision." The first invohed the possible cifect 6f ihe f.rcility on an l
j aque. hat upp!;.ing New York City and othcr municipalities. The evidacc of _
' possib!e d.nn:;;e to the aqueduct was conjectural and contrmlieted. The wit- ~
' neres in v.l.om ,ludge Oahe. gave credit testified that there was "a small but ~
real rid." to the agueduct ; th::t the degree of the risk was " unknown ;""' that -
the "ri>1. of faihtre cannot he regarded as innuinent but it represents a definit <:
- harard;" and that "craluation of the risk . . cannot he unde on an ac tuarial hasis. . . [ft] might he taken as a calculated businc>s risk if oidy m mey were l
1 inuelved ; howner, a failure <>f this water suppl) spin m might je..pardi7e ihr j inrs an.1 wrliare of millions of persons. . ."'" Judge Oakes' p.dh hom this cvidence in his conclusion was somewhat ohxure. At one point he statul that "the burden is . . . on.the applicant to prove and the conunission to find no
+ . - . . , . . .
I s danger to pul.lic ' life, lu altit and to t.fer ty.' " ' l.nter in his opininn ]ndge Oakes i .
' 65.11. at 1115 (rinphasis added). '
i 66. Scenic Ilmbon Prc.rrvation Conference v. FPC, 453 F.2d 463 (2d Cir.1971),
- cert. ricitic.I. - II.S. , 4.! S. Ct. 21(1 (1072). .
(.7. N rnir limivin Po-civalion i onn o n.r v. F1 C. .t*. F ?.I (et (2.1 Cir. I':M).
f.M. h tre i s..I c:. huld n..t eve n e rn.an.i ihr .cr t. hn ilu i pn- . . .I.ne 415 IL '.I at 1-1 49s. ,
t.9 1.1 ..e .1"e.
l 70 I.I ai 4Y't
- 71. J.f. at 4: / t rng l ris a.liled). *l br lusis for this St.itrinent is inonnote 11 ubiili .
is . . 1.w iti brir ni its e nna rie -
"Fueih. i, it.c pn.ir : inn.t 1.c .afr .n as not to e n.lancrr life. he dih an ! : r..p.
ri eg." ( innun n.iu s Per , ihsseniine in C.ur ntalair.1 Isle..n F... ..I Ne w Y. 1. .
hm . (I PL ' At.n. h 14r.'.h e r .'.I ni S. ri.ic t h 1.nu Pe r . i rati..n re .I v. F .'ri al P.m e e t oinni n. .M I F..'. (.se: 1.'.i t u. Pr..* 1. , e a t. J. =i. ./ .t31 1IS 4tI ( Pa.r.i.
l .Yrr uli.. ' .. in.n IUfe ) of the l r la ral Iburr Art, It. ti.'(. $ in.l(r) ( l'c, n ) ,
o quo n.r a brrn re to "rnnloon to
- n h i nles an.1 e rrulati..n . s the C. .ni j
nir. mn mas lo*n time in tmer pre - esit.e for ihr po.h. tu.n ..I hir. l ..hh an.1 s pn.p. s y n.1 o nil. t ing ti.c bce u s e hal le "fni all el .marr .i. . .e ...n. .I to thi
) peopeity t f ..LI rs by the consiith fiets . . . eif lin' pinjra t u.41.. . . . . " ;
IJ. n ll.
'l l
- t
.- 4 t
pen +te e ed. 9*9 9 :_ ,j * * * * -- ~8'.'"
,w. .e . g .-
" ~
r , --
-1 s Ps7.'J _ NEnf 979 r iern,. d t.. hnige on the sequiicment ..f im danger: "If a a inn. r is Sen . te' tir degr re c.f 's emolencos' a umes ituportatire in ptoportion to the m- '" l I thr d..rger. J h rc the n':.ngi r is < Lvion4y gre.e. an.1 there is no 6u ::cg ..- t. the -
drgice of n m..te neu."" It i dif60 ult to avoid the concin inn ib.a Ju@.c ( td.cs tim;.ly diu;: ced with tiu FPC's evaluation of the in.;natance to be amuded I
ti=c po ihih~ty of dannge to the aqueduct. Ilc rejetted tht maji.rity vie c that "the icsohnion c.f bigidy compics tect.nofogical innes such as the. e weie en-t e m trd by ( hngien to the Commissian and not to the tourt>."' This rejection alprendy stenanni from the belici that the FPC does not pos.wss "any par-t ic ul.. r e.sperti c in geo'..gy."" lli.s own ;;tological qualiGcation> do n..t appea r. 1 The second ground for Judge O.d.cs' dinent involved air 1milution. Ile . ;
dis.sppim ed of the FPC'3 faihne "to order that only the most ef6cient and 8 least p..:!ntig gen sating units [on Cons,1idated Edison % system] he utili<cd for ; umping }ower."" Again one nut.. conchide that the basis of this ennten-tion was judge Oahc3 helief that the FPC waa inwnsitive to ti.e probleins -
=> rd by air pr.llution. -
The third ground rhed by Jm!ge Oakes as a basis for reveigd was his
-pawinn.ite disagr: cment with the FPC view of actthetics. He inund "out-i an. . ,n ," and ">l,whin"." the FPC 6nding tint the nunntains "will swa!!nw _ .
the : ti m im e- whiih will tene the needs of ther people for eleitiie power."" -
lie did not atte mp' to explain the theory of judicial review that made his view of aesthetics . superior to that of the FPC.
Finally, Judge Oakes woubt base reversed bec:mse of the failure of the
. FPC determination to satisfy the requirements of NEPA." Speci6cally, he was concerned with the inadequacy of the FPC treatment of alternatives. Among
{
, other things, he criticized the FPC for considering only alternative sites within one hundred miles of New York City.
. The implications of Judge Oakes' opinion are disturbing. Take, for
! cxample, the i%ne of possible dannge to the aqueduct because of the location
! of the plant. Every nuc! car power plant involves what is thought to be a snull l risk of serious accident. There is at present no meaningful way of quantifying 8
the probability of .such an arrident. Ihtinutes vary by onters of magnitmic.
For example, the linmWt.en Report estinated'the prolchility of a "nmjor selea>e" of finion products at between 1/100,000 and 1/l,000,000,000 per re-actor per year." Obviously, there is room for disagreement about the degrec ,.
- 73. 453 !?31 at 487. J~
- 73. 1.1. at 4Sa. '
- 74. Id. at 4?G. -
- 75. Id. at 489
- 76. Id. at 491. i
! 77. Alth.. ugh NIT.\ was ciucted after the FPC hearing. it was conceded that t':e j l Act as phot.
3 s 7K At nvie Yncrev C.nnsul~~1an. T1.reretical 1%dH*ities an.1 Consequences of Alaj.r j .treid.nt. inn I an.oc A'ucl.ar l'erar l'lants (WAhli 7to, Yn7). I I i I
, e I -
h
. . . , . . **d'***** + . . . . =q % ;e6 ~ e===.. .
l l
" w. .
, P.872 l NEnl 981 ta.! . imph im ntation of t!m pi< ferred ahrtnathe. One rem <en is th:.t evh p:r- t ":.g i_
.'.i ...n. i r m oni, a r.in;:h t ite. The ih i.i<m in l'incredin.: .-f t L:.t ite /!i,1<t:r:r .
- d. o i th.m ite A d. e not obviate the pouibility that in l'sw cedin;; It tin: anet.sy will
.o& fm.I rite C is I.rtier than it or, since there is no ses jm!itata, that sin A is .
j . v. f m h briter than 11." Am.ther problem is that the siabHity of the ahernatives depends [
h on ihoice.s that are within the province of other agensics, or;;:mirations and l
,% i indisidn d . The Midland, Michigan dispute, referred to aluve, coeurrning th" Mo . powih!c ofiert on the location of a pnwer plant of the operations of Dow
- ,m. .? Chemical Cornp
- my provides an examph: Putting aside for' the moment the ,
,m., diflienhy of cotabli.shing the truth of the broad propositir,n.; contende.1 for by :
t inte venorr, it mu> he realired that neither the Ibard, the AEC, nor anyonc !
I j.c che has the power to order the optinnun resn!t." The only hinding effict of the
. -in;! choice of an alternatise is the negating of the site under exan ination. In the l ciremn t:mec>, there is a strong temptation to approve the conte >ted site and . ---
i w ,. n , fudge the question of alternatives."
, What has been said should enggest that even in the be t of ciretun tances
., g a the ta>h rerguited of the agtucies by NEPA as interpreted by t'alivrt Cligs may i
, nf , i.e impeihic to perform. And, unfortunately, we have far from thej,est of , ;
p . circum:tante>. It cannot he a surprise to anyone connected with the licht to be ,
yr ,
tohl that there are some environmentalists who do not want hearings to end. _ j.
To them a power plant delayed is an environmental vaine pre >crved, and - - ;
gn ,,
Calrcrt CliJs nny provide an irresistible temptation to use the procen for ,
.,,;. delay. Ah!.ongh I believe that the delays caused by interrenors to date have '
.t. ,, been exaggt rated, the potential for delay is ever-preocut. Even before Calecrt m ,q Cligs, there was a serious quc> tion whether the adjudicathe process, with the j j full paraphernalia of court-dercloped rules of diseevery and cross examination,
,g I was a viabic method for handling compicx technical problems. With Ccirert .
' I Clips it becemes imperative to take a cloie biok at the role of intenenor in r w'
! t.nrh piorredin;;s as well as other aspet ts of how he'.t to appto.a h the tash cf ;
' 4, 3
, g mal.ing etnis onmental decisiotw.
, i d d il l 82. *llic inherent dif".culty of the sin;;fe site investigation has been noted in England to tha e in connestion with their town planning program: l The tradition.d form of a single site enquiry has this basic drawback. An ehjector j
- to Site A may acecpt the necenity for the project, but bare his opposition on the !
l greater alleged >uitability of Site D. Ilut an enquiry into Site A cannot result in l
' I ' a decision in favor of Site 11 becau.e the neeenary notices, etc., have not been
',".1" i given to as to enahte those objecting to Site D to have their say and perhaps
- IM adna ate Site C. And so on. i.
[
So we are f. iced, on that approach, with the prospect of a continuin;: series ni l I
Jlhu j enquities, with perhaps an urgently needed project recceling crer further into the
- ib .ut , limtio.
I Walker Fmith, Publir l'artitirations ins 1.ocating Facilities Dedicated for Public Use,
- vy ), ! l'eu. titu. tot.s FoaTNtcu tt.Y, Sept. 17,1971, at 95,96.
.,, 83. A natural dismition in consequenec is to plump for Site A and have it done l.
with. *llic rc> ult of >uch a ci. uric, however, would be a traction on the part of the
,, c e s public that the ritipiis y was not mr ningful, or increly a charas!c to cloale a pic.
, nn . , .
[ fabiicatnt decisi<.n u nh, at any rate, a miniskirt of dem .cratic proprie ty. -
. .. t _ n, ., , '
t IJ.atun.
i '
i, _
.l .
\-
t S '
.=*** *
- _ . _ _ ; .. .,yng mp ,
.g., _ _ mm.. .e . .. . ..
I Q . COI.U,111tl.<l latir I:FI'll:ll' [Yul. 'D:'Xu . I'L
.l. . .
satisfaction of demand, at:d, if we are, should we attem;st to coatin! the fator- 8" which no into <!an: mil or leave thun as at pre ent to tl c im! Nidi.d m;r:y t
,. the it tomer ? TI c ansacr to the c que ti nn im ois e av. c.ete o. i.d : .. a '
~
(( pediti. 4 in.1:: :cet .. (inc may accept with it;u..idmity the pro-y:1 of a unild n, l
witi.ont certhelio, or cien aInminnut herr iMW hnt tho dWat mit. v.i!! nr.t
, ali he weh. m- Ehrt to crmliente prnerty md to ryn: e rq p .rtuv are arr pt r.lirau" I on t he t S.istenit' Of a higit energy cChafj;tV lt tir;r he th rent l awnnp iuns m:h: he r:alicany .het ed." l bnveter, at the m.. ment (ve do not I"' r
- has e new pirmi e- to tal.c the ir place, and it would be->hnching to nrihr deci- Ion;
- 7 n in.. l.
- Iv.. < n pm n and ihe em ir6mnent witinint con:.idering >nch fact..rs. ~5L f jmtginetas on the c fmul, mental que. tions are es>cutially [*litic .1: it is fo.>Ii-h (">
to sug; c>t that they shnu!d he ma.le by a three-man .\tomic Energy Saicly and >h .
1.ireming 1:oard, or, indeed, by the Atomic Energ3 Commi>-ion it> elf. The the noti <ni that an whninistrative agency or a court shouhl decide, without legi>la- ,
tise guidance, quotions such as the desirability ofI wwer rationing and the ___abl, order in which varioits types of dentmd shouhl he Jati3fied"",is wholly nn. that democratic. Yntil the legislature give.< some guirlance in the>c' iiicas, inwer in
- rationing cannot he viewed as a ren>onable alternatise under NF.1%, and 8"etf shonhl be excimled in.m ager.cy con >ideration.'ar. 'ab!c Similar prohJcm, inhere in the descinpment of a national.fnel ;wlid. One - forf, needs only to a rit the literatute alpent the available 3.ource . of Int l to scali/c -
that to sequite an'adjndicatoy- lauly to elecide whetf ier a single in tallation - route inyt IstS a Costuloitturnt of illCplaCeabIe fttel httpplies k3 3 fittiIC Rt t ul e."'#' 11: I 30 II onc orn c, any commitment of fuel is the use of an irreplaceable national IN ansus tnl ..n an indisi!nal plant basi >." ISi.re.v Ibucy Sr.u r, (b ru r er Scu.su. axo lt Tu nxou c.v. En carn l'oua n axn uts 15uronn xt at si (l'00), the p. ,
103. In the Unin4t liinm'om, a gnair of Scientists has usinel, intcr alia, that the wj))[.'*
countiv inet soon top buik ing roa.fs anel eventually reduce it p.pulation by one.Inti.
N.Y. Timr>. Jan. I I, PG2, at 1. col. 5. Scc also 1).11. l!ranow>, Tut. l. wns. To Gann in at 23 ( PG2):
If the prc>cnt grow th treivis in world reputatian, inwhetrialiration. Inihttion, h=,I . I h.
prorluction. azul rc..nirre deplstian cont:nue unchangest, the limits to giunth rni If T" "
this planet will Ic reache l sometime within the nest onc laneirol uare. The 'I nn.st prolchic rr nit udt he a rather tud.len and unconnollabic decline in Iwh Ck twtola inn an.1 indn tiial capacity. 28 I f (II cour r. >nch !ic ?ictions aie not univertally acecpted: The 1.inrits to Cro:cth lu 1rcen 80' char;u triieelI y one critics as "an empty anet mi Icaeling norte." Passell, liohet ts & I?v 5, - che
!==.k icrirw, the X,Y. Tiur- lunic lbr, At til 2. PG2, at 1. . Pal 101. The conto.I of drmat.d pnnui c , to be a cranplex pn.hicm. Some e.f the cun. 0" pirsisirs air ..utlin..I in No hidir .ne.1 tier lintin.nnunt, suten n..tr 7 at ih. VI. a I.3"I"'
- 10s. I Ir.or open she ein -In.n whribrr the shii' ion shonhl he federal, state ur local. U'"lihr I ;
it brcnn alrai that we nrtit a autumal n. hey, let it may be that a rouperative rather than '
M' a pe rmplise stru(tnre is appropriate. l'or an intere ling di ruwions of the siting poh!cm, Re,nur o with privnary focus on Drrmia. sce Willric's. The linrryy.Eneirenenent (on/hrt: Sifiny i of the 1 litarde 1%u cr Facilities. is %. l.; thv. 237 ( PG2). t' can su. .
IOri in junr, PGI, the Senate Intriior and In ular Affais Con.mi:vec font :qc tion.
naie rs to all federal .n:rncirs in the mirrgy firiel to obtain infermanen on stn.! . . . nl COU'I such a '.I '
irt*a t
- ih u lon d b3 thun w hich mic.'.t he "sa nable for the C,mmuttrei Stn.!s .. Na. b3 8' "
tineul l'ia l . . nut I'm e gy Ibhey." The hi!cs of the licru t cmn , U p cc '.... ! wrv relas e heiil abai.a ts cou r atum t Sen pans s . Srxait Cos:u. i,v Is u rion sNn Is ri ur .h >.uin Ih* C
S n en - aso lai m s Itn u nr in Narrox.u. Iha wy h+n r. 72d Cong., l>t Scy arer_tl
( PCI). I'
.,_,,_,,,,,,,.I..,,,,__
s ots : ( i si I: l* *:I I I Ili 1.*l ! I t n lhl
- A. s p..ii tb . 1o.3 4. fine ni 1
phelr$ni in.n ,1.nt .ah .* no nf p,niet ne i pojrn' e ~. I n f or e ,
the. n t..n.c-ll I PA ne ic h. in;; e nn _tiin .1 n.o n.nly t., n . pun ..nh t h .t .,, n;yn. ir .wl .e / in.f r.n nc;c fin.p ernn i rt f<n t h ti.ece n.r > <pe n . of t ' '" pv,r . in , anni ..f abri neh n'po nnins, the ina d for tus - h c.i,' dion wii ! he !. me . I:ni .N:lt!'A has n o is e.1 a very 1.i<u.! intell retdion fium the run t ;"" it is _, airwid ;is a o.n;:nmien:-l unn ! ate to a; yin ies to consi.!cr om n m. ital wh
;. . rquiil!y uit ti their tra.htir.nal ohjrrth es. As in Ut preted, N Rl'A rei! he n ".1 ,
to un'lify an agency's regular iniWon. If tint is v;ha t Ce a.",n n im M . . [.. l Con; re.s tmt t face squately the imp?iction of its arti..n. Whilc :en.c r.f tl.e ha ic yne-tions ian and mnet he it. . - :t : k ;;:4.- [, y
-' th e in cl. ne cann... ca.pcet the it;;i 1. dure to a<holib.. 11 j.< .cr pro.::r: n g ,'
Some admini ttative agency, or agencie3, mn i impMnent th. !c;p':.sh e d.cci- .;.
~! ion. Shonhi these arceries p:reced on a rate.h,urase or a generic ha-is ? As ,.,,,
t.nteil i ail r. Un f
.ut fliffi n m o. teject tyn. iir pn.re cdins.s an.1 nrneLte gr,
.l an in.hsianatice d e a c. hue r ticitnria of all que tion . If thi . inicipichtinn ,,.
of the de r. .n. i a n.rrect, it is a gi.mt step m the wtong ih.re: t.rm Thue ate a girat inany < miromnental yne: tion > that should he settled on g, a genttie basis" One of tlicm enrrently under examination b the uhimate g, ,. l stora;;c of nuclear wastes. If the prohh nis of high-h scl waste storage c.nno! ,y, he sohrd, the reactor licensing program must .he re-examined. This doc <. not ,p i mean, honner, that the que. tion um:t he considtred in colinection ui!It cath g , innihidual sca.Inr liccu-c t ratl,ict, the major parane ters of the yne tii.n shnahl . _ ,,' g he consideird at one time a Thi. unnld m.: ,n he a de-emphasismental of environ,nd questions. The ih :herision hindin:: of the Alt.C intoimlivi.htal put ca c: a pernnnent- waste.>torage facility in Kansas-r!r elsewhere-is one which mm
- ought to be the subjrct of an cuvirotunental . statement." The s:nne teem' dmd
.. - . . . . _ - ..- . g.
N110,' ,S' - c.p., Arlinnton Coalition on Transportation v. Volpe, -1;K l'.2.! 1.12.1 tPi7.') . . my. The't.pininil icainv(p. IM6): This a aii'tcr. hwy casc It is the strelarol public Inilicy of the (*niint States to E
}
. to pn.irce an.1 presene the iiational enviionment "in un iullest vst nt pouihit."
?
National lu vis o.un.uial h.hty Act of lo ro, 4211.S.C.Ae 14.tM t N EI'A). The w., j
. N EPA is a value jn tr.ms nt IS the Congress slut in oi.!rr in "io to ..n.114o:nner ihr etno al welian" r.n h ri n s anno of Amreicans inn t. In ninnier s... . act "a-in' siir t. c ..I ila ruvin un.. nt for m r.,lmg rinciad.n.- 4.' 1.'<..) i 41tl . E A n, j h ol -
g. la.l.1 it..n . . . n . i nn .I hn;i.u .n . .a. t ou t.on ..ne t n. l.t t.. it.. . . .r. m.. .all y
# . n u. i.n . .I p. .. a n:
lie s i.. .t. n .l..la . ..i "n.tr n. .I n., " , d. . . pe. .I a :n. .n s .. t. . .t i .nh I.s nu. e to"' HM-do nin..m u .nn e .n:,in n - lihi . e- 1;nhin on seife.s in.or l i t. f .i a sw.i. ..! e .t. . . . . .a HP sl.e pn. i. .n ",' 1 1.' l'br \l't' ann.amrril on June 17. In70 that it had trutativsle tho -n the salt mine. 37g"." urar 1 wr . Is.m-as as it.c Site of a su.i.nnt nuttrar u.mr ti end;E.s.1 E me <.s. Itu . - ; , I- ' Cri.re u t h s e n rm s i<. 179 t itN A 1u70). The n adioactis e w a te inato i .1, u s.i:11 1.c . d"""' placnl in ns.m, nunut in the salt fonnations apptodnuiriv 1.fm fee.t nadrir: : art. This ""' plan was critiocol by the liansas Gent..nical Sursey in a trpor t submittu! in R.- G .u rn .r of li.ar.e, i.f. .it 1.'n7. :nul, on .\lais h lie, 1971. sun al a rpo .tnintna . fo. n !* .n p. .e ~,^~~ . . '.'h"' , r in oppo inon in the Al's N plans h fare it.c Joint ruun.uitre on .\i..nns Fh"i rv 1.f f..n ' l r.icw of. at 1.'7n. The Fnut Envin.wntotal Statemtnt un ihr rn.p.. a! was fInt June -1 1971..w Foi R.r.lin3.4(1"71). (*""7 in ihr Att .mihniiemg the appropiiation, for the AF.C for fi cal year 1072,14 nvi. i. .n . ['.I l
./ -:
I T
.t -
~.i .,...- . - .m... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. .
i ot, ; P)721.- N/:/'.! - WI oi pic h. .. . . .u n t h . . .. ' i he in.h. i. n n I ri ., e a . ; .'.. 3 ..'.
.. - .e,...r..o. t .o. .' .h , t. .i, ,
. 1
,. - . ..; . . i a
- . : D . s . a o n. ne: @ ::-ma 4 fi.e .mp t.. . i .4'. t n. :.. i t. -
,,. . @ de: :r:iot .b ei c.p:enecW' The deri ;oa te. p fot .. d with me! car p!..ntr
,a. is, thriciorr, a saine jm!;. ment that the ti L is we.rth aunming. One can arpm-t' ihether a ri:h sl.ouM he taken, but it is nset U eful to " tty' that ejttution in the tradition..! adjudicatory scitin:. With regard to the /.re! of pernyihte r.nHation, inrxeser, the jmignu nt may be based on information tin.t can he approjcia:cly developed through tome of the techniejuc> utili<ed in the stial procc - P 8 At the very least, the agency shouhl be riquired in di> chi e the e
basis of its " factual" jud;; ment. Some opgmrtimity shonhi probably be gis en for inquiry into that ha. sis, and, certaindy, an opportuni:y shouh! he arowed for oc the intrmh:ction of contrary scientific evidence into the record. - -
;d- A similar .epectrum of is>nes is present in the contrc>ver.sy over the ,
c' emergency eore corJing system (F.CCS) of pressurized water reactors. lice:.u<.c
.., of the importance of this contreiversy to the future of tme! car ponor, and the c:qa.itam e of slic F.CCS be:ning now bein;; inmincied to the e nhjee t f. -
e this paper, I will, . t the risk of gross, error, nati mpt a lawyer's description of
... .. . . . - . - - - - =
~. . .
n- 119.1%.f.* .r Ciamton, .rtttra note 118, ile-cribes t! c evential, of triablyt.e proccifure as the fo!'oain;t: - tiu >prial chaiacteri tics of the tribmul, ubich theai'il f.e impartiat an.1 coinpcirut ; the sirht of the parties to participate thneigh *Lwial t ri.colui I !dsc., such as runtirnu1st to notier, optertunity to prc>csit prouis in I tu oo3 % umine oppaing uitneres, a:Pl the liLc; a Special acquirement that the aircisi<ni be h.i-cd on the reconl, consi* tent with acceptot principlc ans! ratiorn!!y explainerl; ami, lhully, as a means of enforcing the other rtriuiremmt<, reviewahili:y of
'. eleci<i. ns hv an apre!! ate court.
.. l he pas.ubr.in for the u.c of the trial as a decision-making technique is the criminal
; or civil case in r.hich the ilefentlant is chargol with vit.lating pic.csisting fera! .tanslaril<.
, Alttu. urb the sharacteristics of such cairs are familiar, Scitral are north luiri mention.
- n. First, the prort !ure i aihrr>ary in nature, with the partirs taking n;to ing p. iiions on
- the i n. . Seriol, the f.irts gentially are within the c<ainvil or Lipm lo!re of the p.irties anel .a i r oin e.f tuwi in m s ing p nt events. Thiiil, the iv ur . are f.ep.t.ir in II at thry r ill .
l foi a "yr," or "sne" aenurr. l'om th, the court is impas tial .nvl is callol unne to ilrrisic a
. .! : limitol immhrt of eiucstions that are usually within the conum.n unstrist.urlir.g of the
. ; arciarejn.lge. i L'0. One of the major sitential efTrcts of low ! cycl radiatir.n is that huntin genes i may 1,e damegol or ahrrot. The ri.k of genetic damage lies !=hiint mo t of the r
. reciumurmlot stantbrds for radiation exposure. There is a natural mutation rate !
anu.ng humans uhkh is helieval to le canicil, at Irast in part, by n..tura! luck.
- i- ! gromal radiation. Firun thi< it is reasoned that any man-made sourets of radia. !
, j tion which aunment nutural harkgromx! raeliation uill Similarly be rc<pon.il,!e for
- og j a proportionate statistical increase in the number of genc> affectiet. The ritk of .
such an incrra c argues most struogly for a conscintive radiatiun exleure I pi .'e t :(cs. , g.e I Fmst .h s eas. Ih rom or Tuc Coexrn. or Extmontrxtat. Oi auty 141 (l'Cs)).
; 121. The mmt p-r i tint critic < of the .\l:C .eculation governine penni sh'r reica<e< i during norm I ms ration (10 C.F.12. I 20) lias c heen th s. A.It. T mp:m an ! J.W. Gniman: ,
., a o,lics n..n of it.rir stipiirs, the "a ciutation." of the c stwlics nn.1 f t .rir til.att. I :.rc con. '
tainel in ll.aruurs en I?nriren.ntural litice te unf I'ro<tracinal lilatr:c 1%:.cr I;.fere the feint Conar:. cu .it..mic I?ncryy, '>lst Cong.,2d Sess., pt. 2 (vol. !!) (l'yo), F f e t
~
'nti _
t (IlI til:1 I I IIt' $1 I l1II lGI d "o t pn . tude a p.co. i.c ..i;pnir. tion 6 .m filin:. a n.triu t o i ' r i n t d . ' "' I w.r.re. ..I a Un. . d :pp q.in e- i. ..d.! m .
- A . ., .' r ;s n.c n yo o u r.cn. .L , *
':s -'m
.h fmiti<.a of t h'c tr.:e of t!.e intertenor becom" t.i en i.. im;m tan e. It is fair in ohu ru that mo t intene:mrs in AEC licen ing prom .iing- siew their i<de to be slot of driem! ants in a law suit. Cin n that t!x..r,s, t!.- applic.m tor a hs't ?. e ha% Ibe h!!rthd of proof on all b413C5, atul 5iitCrs!Dif N nla;' inf!II!I C I'
fu ely into asiy :npert of the "appliennt's case" by way rif di em .ry er cion-P examinatinn. Within limi:. . this ..pproach is utu,h,icctionabic, bravever, the types of qut.tions inmhed in these proceedings-and in any inmer plant ,, hearii:g +n emironmental question <-arc such that the potential for itniniry is siituntly limit'ess. Sr.nu method of control is therefore c. -entiah l' In auenin;; the props r role inr the into venor, it uni 4t he ie-empha iied
- ~~
that a licen in;; proceedin; has a different fcrm than that of the nidinary law suit. TI.c Piard is not int re.ted in v.ho "nethes the best showing" but only, { to the extent postib!c, in a certaining the truth. In-this sen c,-all issues are e^ open wheth.r or not contested by a party. On the other hand, it is less im- .
)
portant that a person have hi., say than that he have sometlang ta say. As a general rule, interrenors shouhl he alh.wed to introduce afstmative - t. . - evidence freely. While this is not logically neecssary, the offering of aflirmative .
,,'"j testimony by intervettors ha? to date, not posed any sub>tantial threat of c-delay.'" In mo t instances, i .terrenors base not attempted tu make their ),'
case affirmatively, liather, it is the intervenors' in>isten c upon tuilimited. [ examination into the case of t.ther parties that presents the major threat to im . the proceedings. Serions con.ideration should he given to a requhement that 'g . crov. examination on certain innes not he permitted unless the opponent has i' i
'[ i inade some t.s pc of threshold case."' Where the iss.uc is technical, for exainple, tiu p.nty might he irquireil to have had a tecimical expett scrutinize ,the y'.
cridence offered by the opposing side."' In nuny instances something addi- W ni : 1.o forence adopted a ntunhsr of recomtnendations on public pasticipation. !!rcommendation ,g 11 (c) wnnt.t t.crmit an agency to inse its allowance of intrrvention on "the adequacy of g, . . reprc>rntation prrwided 1..- the exsti:ig parties to the proceeding" p, ' 128. The Al?C practice, for exampic. has bren to permit almnet anyone to make a ., timely "limitui appearance." 10 C.F.H. I 2.715 (1971). Profes or l{rnest Gellhorn (superr, ..i. note 106) discus cs the tosselde tyi.cs of limittd participation. If an inte wnnr is agree.itdr, ',n3 such a limiteil participation may he ten ihte, but, as Pinicssor Ge!! horn points out, the rih Saving in time may be otstweighed liy the argmnent and the risk of rciersal, where the di s ' inten en<.r is not agireal.!c. I 129. I emph.oire that it is the threat of driay that is cause for alarm. Although the ,;.i, - time spent in the fictnsing process is significant, there it, at pre ent. little evidtnte that is pul.lic partici;ution in the procc
- has lxen a major factor contrdaning to driays.
130. Whuc the ione is local or particular to the case and turn on er.n prcialired info madon. the re is paviably no rea on to imper.e a thrast.r.! 1. I t'.n.t. tint t! i rtu.m. nu n.lati..a ihn n..t rnn counter to that of Pruicuor Ge llhorn f..r fi!! I attiri;:.tp.n a a paity, n..tr I.'t. 3.etos. lly t.ro;v al contrinplatc< full 1sn tis ipa:iras to t!.c rsitnt that the pan y h . inon it.ing n, ennta ilanc. fl. .$ hapiin. .on/ n note 51, at m, 7.r.'s. 'p%.' . 131. Foi i s.unple,in ti.e ca c of a reactor construction pronit, an :.ppenpriate requier-
, . - . . . . . .-.-. . . . - -- -- - - ~ - - - ~ ~ - - - - - ~~- - -
- 3. ,;, ; iM2) NEnf 10fG
.g, towrn. to ininiiniec thernal clive ts e.f po e.rr pl.. .h. Mc h .s e * "'
g ,, . y c.x;nien, e with <iperrting 1: age. nur!c.:r p . cit a. O:wir.a!y,:!> .a nr 3; he irre to re c.samine jur.i: ions as new imir.r:ci'ge b, a.me, ava" M.. In.: ',
-etu ! it may be under a duty to re.c>. amine rhe:c per aa.ive evi.! nr e com t..
li;:h: that the earlier clecision was incorrect."
' 3. 'l'roNna.s of ih-l3dtiva and lGaia. Es en :i ce aa .;me tL . : c iv .
,, ;n will tal.e miran: age of the rower to hM,1 generie .e r:r:p. .nd tia , t!v court .
.g, will gh e such agency deri i.,ns 1.indin;; cfir.: in e:a r ; ro 'itg ":m
.,g dillienhirs remain with re;:nrd to the widespre:.d u.e e.i Su h prce din, The lhet is a proh!on of identifying :un! deCning the i. nc- to be U.sn!r.1
,;n , generi treatment. Some of the issues appropri:'te for mi acro. .the.bnard
. ni dCI"f"'ination are obvious: air and water quality 3rnmhrd ni::cneral app!!e-g.g ability. radi.uinn prttection >tandards, the denrmd lesci for cicetrie power,
;,~ and the pnfened method of sati>fying demand on n regional basi <. .ifattcrs
.u.,.
such ai the criteria for site diection, howeser, po.-c dif5en tie,. Second, from '
,, , the point of view of fairness to potential intervenur- as well as the eficet on
- s. I e. Sub reguent heniing<, the i snes to be given generie treatment mu t he ih-fined
;y precirely. Ilere, the ECCS esperience may be mi teading; the ECCS i ne in 1 g,
dcreloped in inctividnal licensing proceedings and had defined it.cli'as appow priate for gerk ric treatnient. Similarly, in other arcac, partienlarlf where - '-' sechmdogy is unsettled, it may be necessary to wait until imiivirh:.:! .re g define the qmstions, l'inally, notice of the proceeding may be mon: of a problem with respect to environmental deci inn < than in <.ther areas. Where a decision will base an impact on an imhistry, there is ordinarily little
;d dif6culty in notifying the people affected. Yet, notwith>tanding the pre.*ent high level of interest in environmental questions. it seems fair to asume that 3
members of the public will not focus 6n environmental i>>ues surrounding the construction of a nuelcar lmwer plant at Icast until plan < to buihl the plant are announced. Even then, the public niay nm he fully aware that a generic proceeding in Washington is foreclosing from further inquiry many questions
," conecruing the proposed plant. To a great extent, this sitnation cannot he
'; helped. EITeetive public participation cannot mean that all decisions must
," wait until the arcrage citir.cn is made aware of the problem: rather, > peri.d efTorts naist he made to give tu, tire to environmental group., state aml local g agencies, amt imlividuah, atal groups in the areas likely to he afictted. Further.
more, special attention shouhl be imid to unking avaibble to these groups the opportunity to challenge the generie decisions.
T 171. In I?nvironmental Dt fence Fmul v. EP.\. - F.2il -. _ _ D _ r. Cir. '.t sv : 1072), the court S. nil that re.caamin.ition of the ar.cury*S deci>i'.n en re(sript of .s scist.'td
'(" adsi... y (onunhtre report wonkt !.c "an implicit toquhrment vi law, for er udn9. vath e procc 5 n a camtmmng one, and call for continuing reexandnc.ti.. . :.t d;;n . , .:.: ; :.,t; (d. * ,
a
. . . ~ .---. . .. . .
,o *
.I -
i
.f -
I
.- lin st. CHl.I'lli:1.1 1 Ilr 1;ITil.It l \'ol. *o;*.oM
. , ' G r..ie n..
I t :.. . . s. n f . .ai .9 i n;. ik : ! i c .n . o. , . . s v a n c.u r.. : i ,p Gu dr. n v.1 *i i.e hop'i. .ai..u i.f N L i'.i :n e t e nis :co.1m ;..n .: y Ti.- n 'inb rn ent g t h..t we tale e ndro.nn.-n?al effet h into :a o.m.t wil! L.a t; isn; . ms rom.e. ynt um, f..r n> > 1 gmernmental :.ml unny priv.ee deci, ion , ~ inchnhan a nmnLi r mit e.rdin:ni!y thought oi :.> aficetinp the emiroum. :.'. Ws h..:ne ...- .
^
it is NI'.I'A v.ill take dome ulju. ting to. Its ap;4ication to the is -h;g u;iv u is gir.:tly rimidicated by judicial interpictation. In partic. '.a,' t!.c. G ' .i! i fliffs trynirurent of imlividna!izul ha!ancin;; of emito:nm nta! la tor 3 in s:.ch lu ensmg procir. ling i< nuworhalde. For power phant . liien>ing. certair, step.e won!d scon to be .nectrary *
'. l.cfore the g nis of NEPA can he caliveil.' Firt.t. Congre - mu t nvic ..me sprti6e jmtgmert.s as to energy pedicy tructure of th( power >n;.p!y inJm:ry. *
~
e of g.nt!7atihn of the rejptlatory pNWest, and; nH rTC fum! aim nIaUy, natb naI groatb l .I5Cy. It is $rit.]d fi ibIr to pl.tce IIN bor.I. ti inf etn iinflin6 n!!il tht 5 . 43 Oc.'.itig I on the wy n ir , with no ;;nidas:ec as to the pan r halun e of miso exntal ~ I atel e. tin r s.iltte * #' W1
, Even v.itl inore u.agre sion d guishmcc, the job of the agencie will be el#a nit. T.he irue- are ninnermis, ircquently value. laden, and +4tes. int >he _ ,.
>pecialieol 1.nowhdge met sendily avai!able t'n the public. Un!ces niiny of the . .-
, iws:es are re.o!v .1 by "ru!c " ami senm!arda, the indisidual prmeu!ings will
, 1.c unman:q;i;,b . To acenmn.o. late the need for generic d(cisinns with the -'7 "
dairol public paiticipation, I have sug;.csted' the desch.pment of hybrid - puredme to shci.le' question, comnu,n to nuny proceedin;;>. I'reci ely which '
- qncetions will he :nnenable to ;;tneric treatmcut nm>t await nuire esperience, "'
. hai que tions oi >afety tecimology. and unximum emis-ion st:mdards would *
, certainly sc.m til.cly candi.l.acs. The ten. ion hetwren the general rnic amt the i po si. nl.n appli aiion i. inherrnt in the pn r s and will not di ali.c:n. We 3$
mini, i.I u nr>c, try to iletide cach case fainly, taking account of the indivi hrd. D."
,1 . a.
iini riscunn.tance , but we cannot ie.ex:nnine all of our prouises in every case. ce l llow the proeninral sugge.tions nude in this article will fare in the i"" { courts is ilif6ruit to predict. In the last analysi<, one can only holv that rd I
, courts will _hecd Judge Friendly's irrefutah!e dictum that Gm;;rce" in the courts is only t"mporary-a redertion IA of frustratio's tlut will disappear if the courts become cominced that agtn ics a.' .i are mal.ing a gml Iaitit effert td 5:4ve clif6ruft probicm4 Yet,there is sin ng. , - rrb }
a . . - .. .. .- .. ._ . ... _ . .. .. . . . 17.'. W l'I '.*, In. . v. (*niint .5 tati s, Mr.1.24 ml, (.17. G'.I Cir.), e .s t. ,I. ni, ./, .yd
- It* *.14 t I- ~i. :
i l,
+ .
g
-r i. i.
s .
.e , b . . ea.e e & g g, g g g.g gg g.gg __ _
g.ggg , u 3.gw g g ,., gg ,,, g 4.me
s
!II@.T_l,1' 11@Tli_ANI). AUTill:Jr!',1,CNU :ql I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion and
,"p;mrLing papers were mailed, postage pecpaid and prop-crly addrenced, on January 7, 3073 , to merbers of tiu. Atomic Sa fety and Licensing Board, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, the AEC Commi.csioners, a31 councel of record, and the secretary of the Atomic .
Energy Commission. ,_ _
% -~ ~ ~ : , ,y
. I. f l l ,.l,..l--....-...--
-}
}4yron M.' Ch e r ry '
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT EFFECTIVE THE MORNING OF JANUARY 15, 1973, SERVICE OF ALL PAPERS UPON COUNSEL FOR INTERVENORS SHOULD BE MADE AS FOLLOWS: MYRON M. CHERRY One IBM Plaza Chicago Illinois 60611 s (312) .222-9350
%.}}