ML20053B173
| ML20053B173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1982 |
| From: | Halligan T CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205280140 | |
| Download: ML20053B173 (3) | |
Text
.-
May 21, 1922 UNITED STATES" OF AIERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORT~ COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOANh U d -M
~
\\.
8 IN THE MATTER OF "C: _
PENNSYLVANIA POER & LIGHT CO.
EERh' ICE ATOMIC POEE PIANT-AND SUSQUEHANNA' UNITS 1 & 2 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.
DOCKET NOS. 50-387 & 50-388 CITIZENS ~ AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE ASIE INITIAL DECISION A's was indicated in the exceptions previously filed by TANDT--
dated April 21,198k the ASLB bas-failed to comply"with the Nation'al Enviro'nmental Protection Act (NEPA) in its decision makin6, and there-fore the Initial Decision 1s-flawed.
The hSLB erred by not evaluating the environmental assessments or considerin6 the alternatives, as required ~by NEPA.
The ASLB should have elicited this information at the public bearin6s because the Final Environmental Statement (FES~) prepared by t
k'g.
Y_h.
the NRC' staff. was. based on inaccurate, outdated, incomplete and -
?.
misleadin6 environmental data, or161nally subsh.tted by the Appli$ ants,.gn.
I which the NRC', in turn, and obiously the A
, also accepted at
.,,,g.a j
force value.
This is contrary to the intent and purposes of NEPA',
.ygg.
.n as amended, end relevant federal court' rulings.
The Applicants did
- 7. M
. ;yy -
j not submit any viable alternatives for inclusion in the FES', Nor did the NRC' staff, as required by law, recommend any alternatives in any
.'.0,{
I section or chapter of the FES'.
The ASLB~ bas the authority to order full compliance with NEPA, but arbitrarily choose not to exercise that authority, as evidenced by this 6 aring omission in the Initial Decision' 1
DM 8205280!40d_
The title. is-bereby corrected to read: " Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers Exceptions-To The ASLB Initial Decision."
To be deleted are the words: "And Respone To Applicants Opposition To Emergency Evacuation Planning."
2 Specifically, the ASUB> was in error when it neglected to include
{
in its Conclusions of Law and Order (paSes 117 and 118 of the Initial Decision) an additional condition, to wit:
"The licenses will be subject to a finding by the Director of Nuclear Re5ulation, in consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, that all provisions of the National Environmental Protection Act have been fully implemented prior to insuance of the operatin6 licenses." The Initial Decision should, '
tborefore, be amended to include this license condition, in compliance with NEPA.
The NRC staff had not properly considered all the onvironmental impacts on human and natural resources in this license case.
The ASIS) in cooperation with the EPA [ abould outline the basic information that the NRC and the Applicants' must cover in an updated '
, Y.
cupplemental environmental impact statement.
The NRC must assess not only the adm1[ted co tentions but'wei6b the impact against the asserted
6174.'l benefits of the overall operation of the Berwick reactors.
c_
It would appearr from the conduct of the public bearings and the
?
.A.
refusal on the part of some Sovernment agencies to comply with tb5; Jshkk[
.R
.ns?
,d_i s cove rv. interrogatories of the interveners-that the NRC' and the DE ?
7, J
~
~
. a..
may have both played major ro1es-in concealing facts about the natural.
..i.
=hr rosources that the public is entitled to know under federal laws.pf pfds
'4.
It would also appear that aSencies FFomoting nuclear power
~.F~
?b
.g;
~~ -
Sene ration, such as the NRC and the state Bureau of Radiation, may have withbeld crucial data about the environmental impacts of the B.erwick reactors.
During the course of these proceedin6s the a6encies probably ignored pertinent information received from environmental and wildlife t
aEencies (sueb as the Pa. Fish Commission), and officials presumably kept from public view detailed studies on squatic life, etc., carried out by their own consultants, that would have proven damaging to
~
3 the Applicants case.
In addition, some of the presentations in the ES appear to bave manipulated the environmental data in a misleading fashicn. In the opinion of CAND, it bas been demonstrated beyond any cuestion that there bon been a failure on the part of the NRC and.the DER to comply with tboir leSal disclosure obligations.
The NRC and the DIR' were obli6ated.
.- under HEPA to publicly disclose this information.
They did not do so.
Instead they apparently acquiesced in the ur61n6s of the. promoters of Borwick to' witbbold certain information.
Such action was-discrimatory towards the public interest interveners.
It also prevented the ASIS
~
e access to this vital information, and, because it was not suhaitted 1,t was not evaluated.
This means that the ASLB Findings ofi Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order contained in the Initial Decision, Dated April 12,1982, is based on incomplete and inconclusive evidence.
Respectfully submitted i
F-T
_M Dated:
May 21, 1982 Correspondegtt g
s
=
~.5 CERTTFICATE OF SERVICEjl3
. ' S_: - :hQt((: ;.'l' &.>..-
~
~
. i I bereby certify that copies 'of citizens Against Nuclear Dangers Brief In Support Of Exceptions To The ASLB Initial Decision bave been served an all parties to this proceeding by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class; this 21st day of May,1982.
i a
. i
/"
y, e
_ _. _ _ _