ML20037A481

Living in Finer Environ Brief Re Implementation of 1969 Nepa.Board Should Conclude That Postponement of Full Implementation Per App D Violated Statute.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20037A481
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	03/16/1971
From:	Bleicher B COBURN, SMITH, ROHRBACHER & GIBSON, LIVING IN A FINER ENVIRONMENT
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8003050699
Download: ML20037A481 (11)

Text

_

7-

-f.p.;ggg

j. --

m :

T s

~ m'.: - q %3y.~:q 3 w- (.

< ypq3gpg;..:g~,y

. ya g y.

.....~,

L h '.Y

s. b,.

,,;u

c..y ~ ;,m;_ ~,

,/

....g.

s,. c,

....+

z.

r x

'k y

b N

$ u& eh e y

,i

. UIETED STATES T A" ERICA l

k Q MJ j

6 gg 4

ATGEC EN5ROI CG9ESSION dY S ly y

an f

e

, f U.

[

.g N

u%m 1

In the matter of

~l

)-

n. a@;.yg. 4 y

n x

,nt..

TIR TOLEDO EDISGI COMPANIL 2>

g

-4

~

~-)'

. iDocketNo'.ESO-Qn,/,n.m,,WE[ys

,y?

M,A

-

• E-

";'" M M l

AND THE CLTIELAND ELECTRIC

" _ ^ ') f 7M"

)

LIFE'S REPd IRIEF R90ARDING ' OfyS2p ILLUMINATING CQ4PANY. '

)

IMPLDENTATION OF NATIONAL ~ 97Tf ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT i. f M'

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Station

~

-)

~ IW1%9 GEQ%

z N'Mk

,V c

+

.. :A u:%

gt:

..r.."',. M %.~

,~

y.,,z....m 4'l Wpg%

The following brief. is LIFE's reply to the briefs filed by the AEC

.g:, 2,m y y:

~

~<<.w.q,j

. s.

";1lEM;M b Regulatory Staff and the Applicant regarding implementation of the -

National Envircraental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). It should be read i * <!{> sj

?z n

together with LIFE's ori@al brief as we have attempted not to repeat' pgg.

2q the material contained in that brief but only to address. ourselves'to W.'@"C):ng.~_

~

a, r

n:

s. y-sp&u; d $4 t

s the matters raised in theI'riefs of' AEC Staff and Aremet.1' Unless %. d dM Nl 4

"[ p;<

b A

~

7 q'-

.s

,-9

. ~.g p~g. ye l ;c s

.x 1

., gw.; g%gg&

~

~ NQ fQ otherwise noted, all forms of emphasis have'been "added. '

y t

+,

u g

h.. n :..

r +., g

~

'4 l- "4

{>.5,O_

V'M.

h

,j, s-(.'Q #{

• %.Q4(

je g : G%. ~.,.., u :

~. ; g3 q%g%n,

.n

x..

.g.a.

c

/wm fM eng;

- The briefs of Applicant and AEC Staff attempt to convey a totallyg agge i

m. a.,.-m_;Q.QJp l:

^

erroneous idea of NEPA s provisions and' basic purpose.. They have { $.". M Q l

g v.o v.w. %

~

.py a r ~.m r -

portrayed NEPA as' a." disclosure" or'public information". type of statute, O. a#w c

~

m, w

s.

c

. yL. M %W,

+

V

. : >Jr y

. ~

n t

designed solely to satisfy public curiousity and to supply facts.to' tho f,. ky, _.

j

,a w s

.s.

w..

c %.g a n l :.

environmental centrol agencies. They suggest that issuing the so-callad TQ. m1i-p 2.5:.q.g%w f

Environmental Statement.is sufficient compliance with NEPA. - Such ai C:;' % MMf f

a

. e -. -.y

-~

,, :;?i' } *[.)

,4,

3-

% i limitedLinterpretation of the Act is not warranted by its language, itsj gg legislative history,' or its interpretations by the Executiv5 or Judiciar[c & m%m

. R'C 1

-,mu3 a

, mm.m.g%

i s,

7 branches.

N

N M1'

~ v -

.Amagh&

e

~,s;,_U

"].,,

' ' t.;

?[

f',

. On the contrary,'NEPA has given all~ federal N

M "I" 4

m<

C, 3

'c.? W

]

7. n -;

cant substantive and}rocedural[y

~~

i g

. 3 v. w m i & yar.jJer w

' 1 7 3.

~,

g

? 7 V^f; W: f ' y W ' ff

. ' j.; y rj.,? 9 ;'.L - 7f ju ag.

&L y'd*

h "h L? f [ w..

i p..,..mg4 3

Q q q f p; w e n _ Q g n wr.gw%fge+p

.,z

~.

gg5

- @.uM mi A-a+-

R L

?:,..

a &=Mb 7

.y n.4. a v %4g;g..wmyg, us.m g/

+

4, 1

c-s

-r.-

p-

. ;,. 3 p} :'. m; u,

gg. 4 k

9 '.

, ** n.

'n

,2 7W

.: s s ee -

1, n

t -

3 2 g%* a

..~t f

.c.,

3 %'-".' g : y,- fg%,

d

N Re.

~.sw

.s s x

+ ;mm

r the Natienal Emiremental Policy Act of 1969,1 Eir. 50035 at sco36-7, Qig,g

' Ny;w 4 i

The substantive duty (ignored in the Davis-Desse proceedings thus far) [

l-N.[.{'[dh

pg is to :onsicer e.v.-ircrmatal fat rs-before r.ahing a decisica invclving.

M3,g;A

Ypp

tcjcr federal action. Sedions 101 (b),102 (1), and 102 (2h t. - DMF,

+

m. m

/4 tl

. 4 @ y Nno n.

"Sec,,102, The Ccngress enztherizes and directo that to the fullest sient possible (1)'the

~ h. "#. ' ' ((3M$

5

-policies, regulationsJ and public 1swa of the'

. 'm" gg United States chall-,

' f, y $ %

(A) utilire a systematic, interdisciplinary

' " b%,5r m.g y/dh, i

approach which will in:ure the integrated uce cf the natural and social sciences and the

. WL emirormental design arts in planr.ing and in

.QEfE

.J. Mw C uM M

decisienna. king which may have an impact on v.an's i

envirornent; ggy (3) identify and develop nathods and pro-MMX -

cedures, in consultatien with the Council en Eny-C9h/M ircraental Quality sstablished bv title II cf thi:

Tja;ff 1

Act, which will insare that presently unquantified Sqp

}

environmental smenicies and values maf be g1mn

y Q{e accropriate canciceration in decisier.m

!dg a2crg rm MN@

wit,h e.:cactic and tc0hnical consitarctions;

~

K'jj;#Qp in explaining this duty [ S. Rep. 296, 91st Cccgress/lst Ses% 1959 l2N d'

on p-lh stated O ' g%e4 petri

[gk.f~.}

%u x

M.

"S,,1075 as repertad by the ccenittee would previde.

~ T MWAA:

~

' SMNA all agencies and federal officials with a legislative randate to consider the consequences of their actio_ns.

. M. M.. m'$MN-x cn the environmenc This wc3d be true of the 11cansing

, [V&D7' functicns of independent agencies as will as the cagoing actirities cf the regular federal agencies?

' W:M

-, o o

.. t--fp%~$ n..e ie t

- l

t J

. v.

.a dM'D Snite: llanry Jackson sPenscr of IFPA and chair =r.n of the Scnate - ',. ',, -.

o

- g:.4 1.n m,

f,A,-@r%.Yf Cc=.ittee on Interier and Icaular Affairs which held hearingc en the; s

ngMr 2

bill, stated at the time cf Senata passage of the conference report ~ '

2MD th a t IC"A:

<, - t a, m. _,.

=

eg 1 J-0.ihiA

r..

y%pjtc "provides a atatutory foundaticn to which a&:inistraters MD,n

~

iN nay refer to it (sic) fcr guidance in makgi dociaions i(W@M

~C which find enviromental values in conflict with other-M valu es.,

yrn2.p

.vh 4 -

e

~

y Q '??,Y pfq Taken together, the provisions of sectica 102 dirests

1. fMg/@A4 7

McQ.

any Federal ~ Agency which takes action that it must take into acccunt emiron.antal r.anagensnt cnd envirort-1W@

e.., m. s@,,-

mental quality considerations."

~

J; g t c..

Mh 115 Congress ~ Rec. 17h51~. j j,%n$[M

{

~

,-r. ( -

(daily ed. Deci 23 IC69) h f

( Q m wM.4 g.lu f

e f.+g 4

, v.c. o

• 9

';f

,L, ' 3 '.. ~.,

n, j ;g 3 g'.r';+ p & g g j ;-a'4 4

n

^s-v%

.,.;'i..".

, f. k ' 4~ ~.

-c.ql >f. f * ;; y

r<rl..,z f'Q mn R.'w.l;p;is }% %

l

.p

,m; r b..,

m

+w.;%. < b %,s 7.g; 7;g~'

~-

icm

,y g-gy r

~

., -, +.,. nae. -

g

..w x

3 c;

'p=

y ;;7rsg s

~ l lL '-

{' 4Qgk:qj}_

3 r;

~.3 %,j s eh

~

w e

7M*.i)

In siittinn to the substintive duty, NEPA imposes pro.

V-ggg cedural duttas in sedions 102 (P.) (C) uni (D) including the Perforence ' Q;fi%; jl n#M prepsrstion of a detsiled environmental state ent.

M. W i

y%m m or these procedur-s is not a substitute fo'r cosplignee'with..

m.as @,

m

' : T. 6.a.'s s

1 p -

^

. iQ W the subst2ntive duty.

3 i

m g, wg MM D

.e 2.:;. c. 3 -

y y '. 4 4

N i

"It is lucortant to note that Congress -

{

desicmed the "setion-forcing" procedures M.k%'

M

-X'~;QC to force federal ofeicials ani atenoies to 19plevnt the national environments 1

?

.,,,.,[j ~ $

roller, not to enshle them to evada 11clementation.

Thus, the proceduras do A " t.gsf%g f W%pj6 not limit the substsntive duty of fed-ral p.r f"

orricisls and agencies to 11rlement the colicy.

,,f; gg

. :%7 Otherwise an agency could defeat Congrese n$@

stonal intent by complying with all the pro-g$yvjk O

cedures, but ignoring the environmental policy when it m,de decisions.

For example.

. Chr %

m

?

A Contrass clasriv did not intand thtt.

nrenaration of a detailed ststement under M 7 M 7 C # ;g %

Section 102 (2) (C) would exhaust sn meeney's TJ*4.9 y

duty under NEPA.

If adverse environmental

~~j ! :t.?:

.y gw a

a@d[hk effects are noted in the statement.-the 9

. Ter 'Q~ MMM l

ngency must do more before it can take,

I

^

'N action."

Peterson,1. ELR 50035 at 5540

. @W.,a,rw

. - w;g c

s.

w Unfortunately, this is exactly what has hapoened in the' O'@ hE'

~

., r. g :$m s

~

l uresent cases the AEC has evaded implementation of the..

d.cp.,7

~

e y

t substantive duty (to consider' environmental consequences N S. n '.

> n in making a decision on whetrher to issue the construction

" W"%

..e E

. : g,w permit) by issuing a purported detailed environmental MOpN s.e ygam

~

b' atstemant--available to the' tublic and to other agencies

- ene h:s

=

but not sub. Net to ana17 sis, discussion. 'or use in the kh decisionmaking. process.

[

,l Judicini interpretdions of NEPA as well as statutory M E,M "

l

, j ' w.y.gg e

a l

l language and history show that the Aet' requires 333, not sfByb fwpr,eu

+

To.thecases'.c.itedd[lN=E lI mere coun11stlon. of environmental datae.

j ygM. s i M

>%s q _3 y

..s P

ey T

5

^?

c_

5

,,.,,,n.~n;.,, ye sg u m,u a.; ;.myg gg. gggg_.

...ar m-m A.

A_

.r...

^

~

x

. x g.wmg

~

y-s :.'

~%R

~i e

y

i. i

>; g

. >~

c'

"; y w J;+

M M

i

\\. Q f. x.~ ; r s - : + s.n e'w

. ~

t e

e v/

1

..s ;

, /',

l- ?y.

- l.,

x ".

,5

.4,

.~

m ;au c

....w k'

e on pp. 6-7 of our earlier brief we could add the recent case ".~3Nm l

i I

4 - d$dI3 of Envirorruental Defense Fund Ine, y U.S. Army Corts of

$;fif '

wg; Enrineers. (D,.D.C. 79n.15.1971)_ in which tihe_ court issued.

J %.? h %

..g, ;u%Q :

u; A preliminary injunction to hsit construction of the Cross-

Em gJ x%

Florida Barge Canal (a"efoject authorized in 1942 snct for.

j l

w. ~

14,._;c.;M%

which construction began in 19 %).

All of these cases ~"_

c6g,.

- c a

TS-invslidated agency action for failure to comply with NEPA.

. 3 lQ[.

t ' ~ DM..y f

They did not hapean to involve agency action based on the wwp a

record of a public haaring, but the osses clearly establish" P W t

R

..1 W.R5j the nrinciele that an agency nust include environmental factors

.ew 4 -

in whatever decisionssking process that agency hapoens to ~ 2;Ng g%.

i i

follow.

. U, N;[

Y s p.,N Ih?

t i

" Total failure to consider an important sideration of such an issue should be

.. / g,4'*%g ~' E

i es environmental issue or inadequate can-sufficient grounds to find noncompliance'

• WN#if with NEPA. because had the issue been~ 1 k@if5g i

l adequately considered, the decision might ggf!gf g

l 5 be different.

In legs 1 terminology. if a

-,4% v federal adninistrator fsils to consider ~

' WQ4yd4*S adequately the environvental impact of 5WM nrorosed sction, the decision to take

'7%QT-$

1MA such setton would be arbitrary and

.A ceericious. hacause of t5m 1 set or sub-JMMM

' 'W4 y

ntw tini evidence that adverse environ-nantal effects would not occur or could

1. 'iM G

~V j

not be vrevanted."

Peterson.1 EM 50035 at 50038-9Mrs

?

-' ' x%ig4 Mince the Courts will enforce NEPA, the absurt result - pg.g

+. ~ - ey.

of the position taken by AEC and Aeplicant is that new

)

hearings on environmentalllasues will be ordered by a court. ;;,gg Because the AEC refuses to permit the sufficiency of a detailedy;g; e.

-g environments 1 statement to be exsmined at these hearina;a. its [i l

suff141ency will have lo be tested in Court. as was done in ~$ $ g g$

CM

~

Wilderness Societr v Hickell'1 Enytr. Rptr.1335 (D.D.C.1970).;bP 1

~. r u.ws The artificiality of excluding non-radiological environmental DY' factorsfromthese,hearingsisrevealedby;thefactthatthe'd.Q

,'i

. / t,. fp 4g

~ ; 9 mn. P j Apn11ctnt itself.~on page:10 ot its brief refers toLa jecument p,;y Y

~ OU W YObYY$Y$kbYhh?h.

l_l f ~

_ _,i m

...t.

,.m e m, a "3

~

O

_ f.Q c...

9 ;79pp' Tmtsq' pgrcptvre ww *. y,

'Q :;.s :. ',NZ

._, 5- -

a v.y V

l

(.

4.[

[.

hT/j

/

' ' *M@.g@!;

l which is part of the detailed statement (a' document which t

.a m i

this Bosrd car.not consult or consider in its deliberations

, dddf n

since it is not on the record!).

[.$. 3M

~

gam;p;;

.~

- ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~

m.

In the AEC, a decision on the issusnce of a construction 45h %

• parmit is made on the basis._of a record developed at a publio..MW

,: cy

,2.m g y Q

a hearing.

Since this is the means by which the agency tecision k:.wK9f[

~

Omy is ssde, environmental fsets 32816,2g nn the raeord and ugg

'NM.

aw

'.G.Q ;p4p f

i to discussion or challence at the hearine.

Otherwise the..

1. w% C

~

'G :.;,-

w.-

'r,

-e.

agency decision ankers (like.those in the Davis-Besse case)s'f.Pn-f y.Qgd yg Y

1. e.n x con not take environmental consequences into' accounts and' E W* '

-mw,

y, y

the rermit, if issued, will be invalid.

.'s Y 3 @. Ai NEPA requires the detailed statement to accompsny proposet h

action throuch' existing agency review tirocesses.

Section h

bN

~

V @G Ki

=

i f.a.

gN 102 (2)(C).

NEPA did.not specifically.name each review i

process, because every agency has its own version decisioni tw<

E.

+

- r

. i

=Z."%

4 u,

making procedures.

If a public hearing 1s.part of the rev.iew $ f j f wah l

a s

process, however, the ' detailed statement must be part of that.MFditM

~

~..spU t

?.% M hearing.

This was clearly the intent of NEPA as is indicated 8 h' in a consent by Council on Environmental Quality Chairman ; B 5 f

Russell Train in a letter to Congressman Dingell, dated N e

19,

[ ~ ' Mj$,I"y M W

7 1

1970 (the text of which is published in'1 ELR 10008.)

m Seeaking of the time relationship between nublic' availability: % p.gm,,0.+%

i 9

i 1

w;,%

i snd criticism of.a detailed environn3ntal sta.tement ani the y@Q

~

,23ly99

' ' [,7 7 4 i agency's decision ani action Chairman Train saids

. ; hh:

i j

...(1)it is clasr that cowlation of the 7;n $h v

final detailed ststement must precede the

% W Ws

' 3. $@ ! Q

.i ~

ultimste dacision and sotton and (2) the x

i li 4

final detailed statement should 'secomoany.

the prooosal throuah the agency review proo' esses. M

- It 'should.he borne in mind that the great _.t-N 4 %@g g l

J q

Nority of environmental statements deal' with w QMg d

.I '

gg 'g withresnoottowhichfullpublichearings,.q.;jy eetiviti-a, appropriations, or legislation 1 y.

K

., >.,,3.4 y, Q, @. jp_t ny w

w v

a.

27.s 3. %n_.c

. q,.s. - s. y e l

%, ;' e,,l.f Q 'g.:

, q

3. ;, -

7

~-

3 y

^

.Q O xW4; p; EPA dgA

.e,. e,. w m a } c. c m % s. m, a y, p g J'? 4 ;

~

4

+

_ n m.% -

g.

a.

W

+- - - % _, p _. -...e...

a

..._ ~...

w _.,

trw ~~; o

~

w y,

x:

g, L.: w ",'; w

. 7q Ry}

T

~

mc

-t

.n s

,so,m-

<'h:ng#n,a nyq a.

., u:

p gfg(;X.lrww e, >

-t

,e

- gr:g: ph n-

4.. u J

y

= -

n

, p;d 3 in eivmMee of deciQg ars already D

stctutory, or administrative procedure."

- ] [~ Mbj,g) required presently by either Congressional,

'~ '

", Q Q-A.

M

,...arq.,,

.m n

ApVlicant notes that "detalled stattaent" replaced mbQQ;AdQ M;q the word "rin-ling" in the final version of Section 102 (2)(c).:W W:#lp

'CQ fM '

Cbviously it would have been premature, to require a " find g

.,, A x.

?

Vi. 4 ge**.e$

I on environmental impact at the atm6e when "croconsig for g;,

V q?:Te

{

1egislation and othei inajor federal actions" YNEj' are being

...y "%Mce ud e.

Congress properly changsd the word "fini196 because. py 5

?M8 the environment 11 study was intended to D:*ecede discussion

~M,,.:M.. n id of all factors (including environment), findings on all

~ [hk h

.,$5ts9,%

i 5

,M$sce.

such fsetors, and decision by the agency.

As Senator

= w.e. 3 q.; e Muskie ststed, the language,

- ; Q,QQ.

f... m.2 W.

"crovides that environmental l'epact '

NN

?

W.h W i %y k he discussed as cart of... an$ decision

-l

• M h

to co w nce a ms.ior activity."

115 Cong. Beo. S.12111 (daily ed.,

. ;A",. W October R. 1969)

$?MWe

c.

? 'b : QdQQ,

. g, The same part of NEPA contains oth=r significant wordsj%W, N

]wpchyp@

inlicatina: the 1erortsnee of the detailed statement g,, < ? mt6 q.R evidence to be weighed along with all other evidente before jdQ(

5 an agency decision is reached.

~

,i

.c q ~ w.g4.:c I,

'*The analytical chsracter of the detailed

^ Nr

.r t

statement is emphasited by the NEPA re.

Q}Ni y...

t quirement that the statemeqt be prepared K

y JgLj$

/ ;M pQny' by a ' responsible official.' Throughout M

the Act, other responsibilities ar=

n

' delegated to the ' Federal government' or "Qg?

to ' Federal agencies.'.The requirement that.

- p';yv5 l

j a ' responsible official' prepare the detailed '

%^

w i

statement emphasizes the role differentiation

, $;g betwwn vrecarstion of the statessent and M Kt$

t makine the decision--the former is the'

. YYNI?

A G@E%Tj responsibility of an identifiable person.,

Md j

while the latter is the responsibility of. ~

6

' the agency as a wholn."

v 1

- i MT%x g.

Peternr>n.1 ELR 50035 at 50043.

B

. u u.

. m}~

l

\\\\

Ql g

}

y

..w :s.m#.em.s w.gw d.su %m n y

,. m ~ u

~> w.u:v a m ps yy:

w

-w

.. m

.,n

.. - ~

a m

1

~

u e

-_,f :p p 4

...r,, F~X*K..%.m w p. &.

-l

,e-

~

%f

m

, ~

c c u g.

u :*.

.g Ga = a.,.

g.,7 m ]. q : gj p[ g-)g.g l

.g.

, f

, (y. 7..

3

'm.m e

-M;W:?A1

si.

On nan:ss 15-16 of its brief Applicant assin misinterprets 1NQMj?

$l$q$$@1 NEPA by saying that the purpose.of the detailed ststement is,f j;S: q.. ;.

g

'to inform the environmental control s m ies and cisce them 1

in a oosition to take any action which thsv may deem necessary."y qMa.

pggj;g&.

y e

q; This analysis is obviously incorreet since the statute' calls *MM%

-.v%,;ggg for consultation with and comments from environmental contro19@.%g,'

-<v A;x 9 agencies *erior to making any detailed statement *t Section.' D.i R I v.wwg n a,CC@

102 (2)(C).

The comments are then 6athered together in m., kp.y

- ~

w the detailed statement which is aesnt to help the.BE*RSY.

' TWIN em.t.

i m

.gJMA

?

make a wise decision from an environmental standpoint.

6 - GMu i

It is important to remember that NEPA is addressed 'to YldE W M @ih f7.

T l

environmental-1 coact agencies, like the ABC,. It places

... ;q;W f

i snecific respons1h111 ties on those agencies.

The duty of_ M y

);

m 4

the enytronmental control agencies is, to. supervise - the g,gl

,, ^ig i

r g

s.

~

compliance.

This.does not mean that the environmental,, ;f.ng%y; i.

g y,~,M...,

, s

. n-innset agencies ' san ignore the' law any more "than an individual $;g,~v l

~

w m.

e m, y.

citizen is justified in stealing property on the theory;thatL, A.Eg.*

The legislative ],T %.d..,a 3,

it is the duty of" the police to_ catch hial

.. d.%.a8W UdVi%

history emphasizes this distinction.

);%%g&.W

. ~lM v "Many existing agencien such'as the National W

Park Service. (others listed) already have impcrtant responsibilities in the area of "et%w environmental enntrol.

The V $..

I Section 102 (as well as 103) provision of~

are not designed,

3 Ng b -

to result in any chance in the msnner in which Wi?.9

-t L,

they osrry out their environs-nts1 protection n : Ouyidt

. ' dM/MC authority.

This provision is, however.

l clearly desiened to assure consideration of.

N Jyp environmental satters by all agencies in

';: W their plsnning and decision-making--especially.

p /g y, l bg'r those as:encies who now have little or no

legisistive authority to take anvironnettal 1@. W.Inv%

3J-

, 'j

' considerations into soooutn."

J

1. AM 115 cons. Reo. s.17453 (daily ed. Dec.120,1969) WT$f" l

-[; p;w; m w

? +p(g%g l

.y F

..!c j

, 9 w..

9 Q

a ~. w+. g _ ; m,lk z.: ;

~.

m.

2 h..

ldI,

.,. f.,

.F c, ] 9 eg 4 a

,a y

p, w~)~a.r, m*r % w,c m

i

~

i',4

, L,

+

A, x m..;w-..wm

,~

4 7 2

- u.,

7 -c -

n w

a.;;.e:

n r.,

gv-.g;u,g ws

, L,r,; 9 <, g ;, g g.w g; s si y: ;,q:.

~-

u---mmm..m _o% pggj

t. r -

y., -

j;q.gg a m q..g f w.

y

..g.

94 w

- w.=

'"~-s

._....[

' ^~

d 7-(.y ; 3 ' M I

[*[

b$

.., k Jp i..

?

.?

c-- g.n...

,z '. jf; yy.ggfQ es

--5..: f},

2 / c 7 M. g } W wgpgfw _;

t=~

_0

. 9,s. -

~.

sf i,,

.n

-y

-3

., w

., a.0 3 4

(% y '. s! *y94 & l

, " gpg A colloquy between Senators Boggs and Muskie, a portion 'of g; which Apelicant quotes on page 15 of its brier, also s MMM

'. CAL.

emphasizes the distinction betwean the duty of the environments 1gg,

m

'CylfL isnset acency and thtt of the environmental control agency., y. b gf, r

., w. g It is up to the environmental ispect agency-after' consul +tati5mi[

' @-2 JUpM.W

~

.. :. n -

4 j

and full consid-ration--to make ' decisions thst are compatible]QA:

3

. A.,.e ab with nstional environsantal policy.

Of course, the environmental!W

f:5Qh;

/

control agencies will be continually checking (what Munk1*

' A% ' '

~

eslls "policine")'to ensure thtt no environmental desageMEM_ G$$fj@

CN

. m %. -

a.

is sctually done.

115 C.ing. Rec. S. 17M 0 (daily ed.

'. Q..,,n u f$N?il A

M$ N.

.r g$g#

Dec. 20. 1969).

A e

9 n :;%4t; -

a f %%.sX::

fh Li%.

Since NEPA mandates consideration,of environmental gg M $[p[I 1

~

7y, a qpe n a factors in the decisionssking-vrocess and since nucleari 2N @h facility construction permits are tranted on'the basis

- n.1y

,..., %dy@2f JNnk i

+-

the record of a public hesringdthe AEC is violatins NEP. F Y

(%&h t.

':'. L until it eersits consideration of environmental factors

.7%

• W. g&W!

a at such a hearing.

Postoonersent of comp 1tence. was. not

~... sspm; y4: m -

u l

authorized by the language of the Act, or envisioned in the j{:#((Q.

d l

- q-i leeislative history.

It diraetly contradicts the' Nay 12 1 970 M N 1MNk:h

. p

.~

Counell on Environmental Quality. Interim Guidelines and the h d;pL

~

~

.w March 5.1970 Executive order 11514 (which had "specifie -

M Q)ce.dfr I

foundation in Cona:ressional actton", unlike the Executive.], [g a ny[,

n&Q:9 Order in the Manhattan-Bronx Postal Union cese cited by. -. nA Q

. ygt Applicant on p. 8 of their brierJ Administrative Jpi, ',%Q the j[w w@w

<.r convenience certainly cannot Justify the delay when such exoensive' ani irrevocable'long-term commitments as nuolear, & u q ff4L.

gg;w.

ne-

,,t.f e: s s,,,

q.t power plants.are involved..

• ^

v

,g[.yQfgy

'f

,..'q x-

[1 The postponement of full coupliance anti the interin j g g;7:rrngyp.

l l

!.s, V y e I.: i % ; N D:R.h hi:[

._, _ "i OiQ 7dWdySk[14M6%n$ &@$$Sie s

AM

%Wh i

&h w_,

~

" "d --

x

---

,n=

%w r y

O O

g;a -

g;w;u SBTit

~

7

.r e n,y n

[e: - -ll;y-f[ ff; g.

_l

' '~

u

. c

>mm mu

' M :jid a

uW operation under proposed A;;pendiz D clearly violated NEPA.-

yM

m@

NEPA is "d2soretionary" only in the sense that'it does not

..e q?r:l require implementation 2f(and only to the extent th*at)

, Mff

~ Nif'E ses.t?fNU anugency is precluded from doing no by another statute.

-77 p

l

-Q-Q; ' g

• L

'}

The questton of dincretbn was specifion11y' answered iri the%7 y

'MW final report on the lagisistion at the time of Senate NP:)&

Mi 3

mssue of the Conference Bevorts 1; ir:N'*L$

~

-W

"(l)ach agency...shall' comply..."

- ve #

hkh 3

~

,h7 unless the exiding law spelicable to such agency's operations does

. ', A:;nw not make compliance possible.'

115 Cong. Rec. S,17453 (daily Ed. Dec. 20, 1969) R E.

W spS

,WC cu.4 See also.115 cong. Hec. 57815 (daily ed. July lo,1969): _ j: ngf

-A n,.

115 cono;_ Rec. s.12142-43 (daily ed. oct. 8.1969) t 115,Y.

h

p p p cong. Hec. H 12634-3 5 (daily' ed. Dec. 17,~1969).,gg g [fM

-?

_ 1

- ' Je.WU w

Velde, cited on eage 10 of Applicant's brief, coiicorned 3MQy4 s'. m f m.n p the Safe Streets Act which absolutely requires the Tiat jbiMsMs vnmWu.

Enforcement Administration Agency to seke' grtnts to states' 4 k

2

n. M ]y' g: e f.

'j that meet very speelfic requirements.

The L.E.A.A. has no daseretion to deny a grant if the requirements are performed."y(w*

~.

<.m

.c

• e;2

.Q,y

~

The Court resdred a conflict between that Act sind NEPA' b

- i.MQ c.,

l by holding that Safe.Sureets Act erevailed because~ it f ]

J (the " existing law applicable to ([.E. A.A3 operations") ' Kgd.

~ _

$m%

3 did not make como11ance with NEPA possible.

In the present:

1~

e

~

^ R *;y '*

casehowever,theAECisnotcomeellad.by'anystatutetoC.c.TT.f.

- g Ty

3 grant'a construction permit.

TheAtonioEnergyActgives.a.31M-g

+

it discrettorr to grant.one if full review reveals that thei 4;g/

w 4, g uronosed ulant will be' beneficial arut not inlaical to"-

f-Mk a. #cx-c.

~-

y MQg nublic health and safety.

There is no conflict between. k?y$s g g

~

.s

.y this discrettordry authority and the 'NEPA duty

y:q y@:w 3c s

'_ n environmental consequences before making an deoistor @ "i[ g'f @W sN

_.gg, w 7.;r_..g, e g gsy g g

.g

., wr,

p.

--. 7 y

3-7

c

-.y w m.. g ;

., 7 9 "~ $_ 3 p f. p=.:: n s y

3_

u p.

I v

1l

. i-m s

g;9 s

,,. ;h;w;7,y.y, r. wwmp x;

~sp 1%

A 7.':

.)

.l s,;,s

~..

.s.

s.

.r vin m%'l'.

'A

+

., a.

y,,

,- y

.,y o.

y mu i.

-10

~n ac

. muo.y;;g vg

-n

• 1v..W[igbhh

^

qM.wa

' ? C MT;;@p j

lygg e

l The fore 6oing discussion demonstrates the inadequacy.

'Oih f%c as

. $ Mis of attempts by AEC staff and Ey Applicant to justify the M.w(5$t l a

'N,ky refusal. to consider environmental' consequences in tho '

n o M.a.&a %;A Statutory language M %g;%

.,c.

-a

, w c.

e.

t l

Davis-Besse construction, permit hearings.

y G69 legislative hi' story, judicial and -executive interpretations JM?f4 i

a p p % $$

i of NEPA all show that reference to the environment has been i.g jj) l.

m 4m~ Fyp pg

~

n I

illegally prohibited.

There is no erouse for it in this ~

t

1. v...,ac ;q case whers hearings began almost'a full year after NEPA a qu;;

g ^.w I

went into effect.

For the reasons stated in bo'th of our-

%@;g

. -., v* >s ir

.t briers, therefore, we urge this Board to conclude that

- i j,gg l

-a N. m,

postoonement of full implementation of NEPA under Appendiz D. Wl79

~

~,m &.,

m violated the.Statuter that'the interim'procedurcs of' proposes'Q 1..

Append 1x' D were an unreasonable exercise of discretion,and;nm%

;;k.-9 yy c...

m

c

.yf N

v4[% YA j

w

=..<._h.e, g

that there is no proof that the interim procedures were

'g.

c.

r w%

w f., @.1 e actually complied with in the present ease,

-.., : N* 7 vyn

.. ~.

- mgl$m]y l

~

,,e

,. ga. gMr w e.

% $g n,' W. Q, >-

Bespectfully submitted.

, VQpip; e'

~

mxup}en.

i

, q.

'c

.7,,

vn-f;) ;

v r a.%

a '..

, - f? %

t MQq Beatrice K. Bleicher

^

~ h Qm

? ;w Attorney for LIFE Cobourn. Smith, Rohrbacher and. 1 $g. W-o u

01beon m # win 7th Floor Toledo Thist Bldg.

Toledo, Ohio. 43604 C [ ? p *:

CM

. M. t...

/

m lbN?$;VM s

+

~

• a, r _

, m(q.--y:p

ji', f. V

~

l T

+

• l'$;84NMM s

1.

~

.?r y

a w w;"

'~

K'

}

?

.2

^

.g h

.b

' l;l'., %..O k,c;ff

,s

, i M

?,

v G#

rs

' ny,nif f t m-%f

% y n

,k.

Y'

~.

s mr..pp..

3

... o :

. * '. ~,, <

J.

?.. ;.',u ' '-,' v. a <* '.,, *;;

\\

.f[

^,.

• N".

's?

Q, k ~.* + *

. f Q{

.p(.'9 M*f

• -~

1,N.::; ll.f,+f p.,{.gh,fg

' ' ~.. : 1 ; *.' t 6...

('.

S.

? '

,,4

.y. t yJ

. Q f.,f Q ' <,,,j,f.j;?;. ::y;;f ;t',,, ' gfSl},.,. U i s

qwe>; cam 4y pm:g.;m mpghs Q y

=w n-mw_ _. _ m n,. ;c -

- mm,- .4 - c -- ' g.3- _ NntcgG.pq?;f v-h ,'/ is - n:,',.,,,. &'.,.. g y . [-, s, + qsg, v yc-gpygg.g'. D rrW '. L sg-;;g,3,i 2v, Md.M CEFTIFICu9 G' SERVICF q.4.x a. .a-w +. s?p@ g j I hereby certify that I have this 25th day of February,.1971, ' cQ, 4, - 2 forwarded copies of -he foregoing te Gerald Charnoff, C.sq., Attorney ~ 9pij Ww 3..m 4 -e for Applicant, at Shaw, Pitman, Potta, Trewbridge, Madden, 91017th . jg;Q:y A s treet, N. W., Washington, D. C., 20006, to Thomas S.Englehydt of. y ' ,asy U % s % k { the AEC Reguistory Staff, Washington D, C., 205hs, to Walter Ti" MM; p.s@p +- . -;; MM:, ~ a., Skallernp, Jr., Chairnan, Ataic Safety and Licensing Board, Wash-

• 4 V G +:fl J cJ"waq ing ton D. C.,.to Dr. Charles Winters, Atomic Safety and Licens _r.g K'jli QC5 N.rp,lg S

~ Board, Washingtoa, D.. C, and to Mr. St anley Robinson, Jr., 'Chht Public Pecceeding Eranch, Atonich.ergy Co:rtission, Washington, %gg, NQ ," ~ y ,x xg yy D C., by hand delivery to Wilecu Garder, Ean, Attorney for To.'.cdo ..ht .n.. <.S m

c. p..,.

" disco Ccmam, Fuller, Sency, Horr,r & Hedge, 800 Owens-Illinois -Q Qgm*pu ,4 A. ~ ~.~ ixilding, Toledo, Ohio; and nailed copice to Russell Baron, Esq., C M,4 Attercey for the Coni" tion for Safe Nue;. ear Pour at Drannon,' Ticktin,7!%g* y@ + - 9 :g. .a L.

. %....g w gr

-y- ~ Baron, and Manzinii Cleveland, 0tiio3 to Glenn Laa, RRs1, Box 186,. fi,$..

7

jpc

-.u n ^ 7.:. ~ . ~ ~, Oak Hnbor, Ohio, and to Dr,Valter Jorddy.,' Oak Ridr,e Na tional 2, &-k.3. _ y..c -7 m 7 dE2*%.y. e$ kbora torf, P. O, Pox I, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 37830. s .~ ;

73*i$> :.?

. :dlfy,-hygg,,a yff

• t

(

'~ ? f&:-

. / _ ungw:, t 5 S =.E k:,..xf.,h..l

• p M

I, 4, i.' ,,3 , ~.p%. eh. - ~ -+ - .... W i n' - ? i ++,4. s, i-7 +3Q;} .,,, ; L. '.g%.4 a ~: n ~&~ h "t 9 a. .AE b M.r - gg ,Q7 m w:.,& _._}3[* .e. , m, ?.' L ^} e 4 C ?,Q =,,. j, q 86y3 y+- uv, ? ,1' ~ 4 g**' s?. ',ie> &w F.'. y [ "!hM M i. . ~g .) tg. @s 4 s t ~ . a-5., s 1.h.4% ,a 4 --,{ (* [ A7 fw

h w

m p s n. _g. M.. =. '. +,7}h+.k .3 n a -. s 0 h '. '9e - -+- .^_'- ..T - - , .= . c y,y ~ ..- s t .N.. i. ,,r d',, '%5 ge,. m -;..< g?-

1. ah

• ?

y L.*G. kJ y,m- ;) u c c,s. } - 3 '. i. .r,. ~ E%i Q ,1 k m:.qj %. y n -o Y _4-t,* };. . _ l, m. 4 } f. q . 2m. m_n e. a A y.. -

a. _r W,%,,,,m.

n o--

..y "y-p sy w u. g +, s w y..,M m; ~ Q s n v,.ro _, -}}