ML20114F714
| ML20114F714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1971 |
| From: | Mccool W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210130271 | |
| Download: ML20114F714 (1) | |
Text
.. _.. _ _
k@ Y
/
O B3 i
10656 I
cm o r2 Bl' 7?@,2-i L
t 7 i< 9 GT Files y
UNITED r *TES (f.I ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WA!JHINGTON ass 48 I
?
Date March 10. 1971 NOTE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS r
Re connol u nt.,a m q nn en o n,-
)
of New York, Inc.
(Tndian vagn+ 9 )-
Docket No 50-247
)
The attached filing is for your information. The matter is presently before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
i t
i I
l V. B.-McCool l
Secretary of the Ccannission Attachment l
1 4
9210130271 920520 PDR ORG NRCHIST PDR
O~\\ \\r'N 4
s s
s L%Ea BEFORE Tile UNITED STATES MARI 31971 > T
'O
~
cuai t::re t:nw ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION D
- d,5f'#
G b
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPA!N
)
Docket No. 50-247 OF NEW YOR}<, INC.
)
(Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2) )
ANSWER OF APPLICANT TO MOTIONS OF EtWIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. AND OF HUDSON RIVER FIS!!ERMEN'S ASSOCIATION FLR DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Applicant, consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (" Con Edison") opposes the grant of the motions for determination of environmental issues filed by Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. ("EDF") and by Hudson River Fishermen's Association ("11RFA") dated February 26, 1971 and March 2, 1971 respectively, for the following reasons:
1.
The Board lacks the power to supplement the issues stated by the Commission in the Notice of 11 earing for this proceeding published November 17, 1970 to include the issues ascerted by EDF and IIRFA.
2.
If the Board possessed the power to pass upon the validity of the applicable Commission regulations, 1
p l
[,,
l l ' (
(?
. -7 ) i /(
i 4
2 and did so, the Board would find that the limited exemption established by the commission complies with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), especially as applied to this proceeding.
1 3.
With respect to the fourth paragraph of EDF's motion, Applicant understands from discussions with EDF's counsel that EDF has determined, since submitting 2
l its motion, that EDF will not raise radiological issues 4
if ' hk 'ostC decides that it will not consider non-4 rak oln: Alar sik rconmental issues in this proceeding.
The portion of that paragraph dealing with additional legal iss aos which EDF intends to 'raict related to complitace by Applicant with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D, comes as a surprise to Applicant.
If EDF wished to raise additional legal issues derived from NEPA, it has had adequate oppor-tunity to do so and has not done so, and the Board should not at this advanced stage permit any delay in the proceeding I
for the formulation or pursuit of those issues.
It was Applicant's understanding that EDF's motion and supporting memorandum. dated-February 26 was to include all the points i
f r
t
it wished to raise concerning the legality of commission action in the light of NEPA.
Under the circumstances EDP's request to have thirty days or more after determination on i
its other points for the formulation of these issues is not l
reasonable.
To grant the requested delay would undermine 1
the efforts of counsel and the Board to assure a business-like, expeditious proceeding.
Applicant believes that these efforts have made it possibic, as suggested by the i
Board in its Notice of Conference 'Iype of Hearing dated -
I March 2, 1971, to designate the date when a continuous 1
session of hearings can convene to consider all the evidence a.
proposed to be offered by the parties.
j There is no reason for additional delay related to NEPA issues and no reason why EDF should not have stated its entire position as to these issues in the motion 1
here in question and in the supporting memorandum'theret..
1 4
Applicant opposes any delay in relation to such enlargement of NEPA issues and will oppose any request for any intro-duction of new NEPA legal issues at this late stage, whether or not further delay is involved.
2 4
k l'
, =
t A memorandum in support of points 1 and 2 above is attached.
Respectfully submitted, CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPAIN OF ND4 YORK. INC.
r
,9,e By ArvinE.Upton[
f C
i Leonard M. Trosten Attorneys for Applicant Dated:
March 10, 1971
1 4
4 1
BEFORE Tile UNITED STATES i
i-ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION i
1 i
j In the Matter of
)-
I
)
J CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-247 OF NEW YORK, INC.
)
(
(Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2) )
3 l
}i MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ANSWER OF APPLICANT TO MOTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.
AND !!UDSON RIVER FISl!ERMEN 'S ASSOCIATION FOR i
j DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The motions filed by EDF and llRFA urge the Board to supplement the issues stated in the Notice of !! caring to include d
]
nonradiological environmental issues even though the Commission f
in Appendix D of 10 CPR Part 50 published in the Federal Register on December 4, 1970 has expressly canied to the Board the authority to adjudicate those issues.
s j
j I.
THE BOARD -IACKS TIIE POWER TO SUPPLEMENT THE ISSUES STATED BY THE COMMISSION IN T!!E NOTICE
}
OF !! EARING FOR THIS PROCEEDING PUBLISHED j
NOVEMBER 17, 1970 TO INCLUDE Tile ISSUES ASSERTED DY EDF ' AND 11RFA i
This Board has only those powers which the Commission has delegated to it.
These powers do not include supplementing 4
the issues stated in the Notice of Hearing.so as to encompass i'
issues which the Commis m n has specifically declared beyond the scope of the Board.
~8~
4 This Board is in icgal effect a replacement of the i
~
presiding officer identified in the Administrative Procedure a
W Act ("the APA").
Accordingly, determination of the powers i
M of the Board must be made by examining both the APA and the W
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("the Atomic Energy Act").
In enacting the APA Congress recognized that it was not feasibic for the " agency" itself, i.e., the " members of the body" comprising the agency to preside at most' hearings W and, therefore, made. provisj on for other presiding officers.
Their powers encompassed the direction and conduct 'of a hearing and the initial result but were to be exercised " subject to W
the published rules of the agency and within its powers.... "
Undoubtedly the intention of congress was to permit l
these presiding officers to exercise broad procedural powers
~
1/ Administrative Procedure. Act 57 (a), 5 U.S.C.
5556 (b)
(Supp. V, 1970).
2] 5 U.S.C. 55551-559, 701-706 (Supp. V, 1970).
i, y 42 U.S.C. SS2011-2296 (1964), as amended, (Supp.
V, 1970),
g Administrative Procedure Act $7 (a ), 5 U.S.C.
5556 (b)
(Supp. V, 1970).
y Jd. S7 (b), 5 U.S.C.
S556(c).
I i
u
. ma.
.. ~
e,
in order that they might function effectively.
To this end a presiding officer may take "other action authorizef,by h/
agency rule consistent with" the APA.
The commission implementation of section 556(c) of the APA does not suggest that the presiding officer is authorized to supplement the issues beyond those permitted by the commission regulations.
In 1962 congress amended the Atomic Energy Act to reads (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 7(a) and 8(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, the commission is authorized to establish one or more atomic safety and licensing boards.
to conduct such hearings as the commission may direct and make such intermediate or final decisions as the commission i
may authorize with respect to the granting, suspending, revoking or amending of any license or authorization under the provisions of this chapter, any other pro-vision of law, or any regulation of the commission issued thereunder.
The commission may deleante to i
a board such other regulatory functio s as the Commission deems appropriato I
This amendment authorized the commission to establish 4
boards and to utilize them in a broad range of regulatory functions.
"As an example the Board could be used in an i
i-f/ Id. 5556(c) (9).
7/ Atomic Energy Act 9191, 42 U.S.c. S2241 (1964), as amended.
Pub.
L. No.91-560, 510 (Dec. 19, 1970).
l I
.,y c--,--..
- ,..q.,,,,
y,,y,,,,-wm,,
,,.ry,p.y,,,,g,--,.,-,,7,,,s,p..-.
p %.y, y-[.y
,r.
.g
.%,v-
..w...g,,-g.,_$,+wp,wpy.--#,.,.,-,.+,.--4
,,+yvm....,7,,-,.
i
-4~
W advisory capacity in connection with rulemaking."
The powers of a board, however, are not inherent in that body, but rather 9/
flow from the specific delegation by the commission.
In other words, the powers of a board, potentially as broad as the powers of the commission, are no broader than the powers deleaated to it by the commission.
The question presented here is not whether this Board could have the power to supplement the issues posed in the Notice of Hearing but rather whether the commission has delegated this power to this Board.
The regulations declare that a board has the duties 10/
and powers of a presiding officer.
The active duties-of a
.l_1/
board run from the time of the Notice of Hearing
'to the N
issuance of the initial decision.
From this it will be seen that the primary function of a board is to conduct the hearing in which the. issues noticed are to be determined.
In this, a 8/ S. Reo. No. 1677, 87th:Cong., 2d Sess 6 (1962).
M I d_-
10/ 10 C.F.R.
$2. 721 (d) (1970),
11/ Id. 52.716.
12/ Id. 52.764.
.. - _ _ _ _.. =, _ _..
l' board has broad discretion wit! n ne framework of the issues set by the Commission.
But as-to the issues themselves the Commission's mandate is clear and emphatic:
"The issues to be 13/
i considered at the hearing will be the following:
j The commission has not delegated to the Board the duty of f-formulating the issues.
L f
In a contested hearing a board must make findings on those issues set forth in a notice of hearing.
A board is left procedural latitude.
"The scope accorded to Boards, i
however, must be exercised within limits defined by our (AEC) 14/
t regulations."
As was stated by another Federal agency i
subject to the Administrative Procedure Act,
[T]he 1
scope of a [ civil Aeronautics) Board proceeding can be determined j
by the Board only and cannot be enlarged or contracted by' 15/
the Examiner."
In any event the actions taken by-this Board must be 15/
consistent with the regulations.
j i
l 13/ Notice of Hearing on an Operating License, In re Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian Point Unit No. 2), 35 Fed. Reg. 17,679 2
(1970).
This specification of issues follows the language of_10 C.F.R.
550.57 (1970),
14/ Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles, 3 A. E.C. 179, 187 (1967).
Ig/ Pacific Northwest Local-Service case, 29 C.A.B.
780, 789 -(1959).
'16/ 10 C.F.R.
S2. 718 Q)' (1970),
i
.u.,
=
Appendix D of Part 50 explicitly states that nonradio-logical issues cannot be raised in proceedings for which the Notice of Hearing is published before March 4, 1971.
Insertion of this issue in the Indian Point " proceeding, at the instance of the Board, would be flagrantly inconsistent with the relationship between agency and hearing officer and would violate the regulations of the Commission.
The discretion of the Board simply "does not extend to embarking on a course of procedure which would, in effect, nullify,-circumvent or violate an Ell expressed policy or rule of the Commission."
From the above discussion it is seen that this Board has those duties which the commission has delegated to it.
Further, the Board has all the powers consistent with the regulations necessary to accomplish those duties.
The Memorandum 18./
of the Commission in the Calvert Cliffs case has been I
erroneously cited for the proposition that the Board may consider i
the validity of any Commission regulation.
There the Commission stated:
4 12/ Topps chewing oum, Inc., 12 Ad.
b.
2d eas, 887 (r.T.C., 1962).
JFh/ Baltimore Gas. & Electric Co., 2 CCH Atom.
En.-L.
Reo.
511,578.02 (memorandum issued Aug.
8, 1969).
I 1
~7-The foregoing does not, however, foreclose a licensing proceeding challenge to the validity of a Commission regulation, on limited grounds, if the contested regulation relates to an issue in the proceeding.
(Emphasis added).
In calvert Cliffs the Bonrd was authorized to make findings on particular issues set forth by the commission.
The Board had to make those findings in accordance with th '
standards established for reactor construction permit deter-minations.
If the Board believed that the standards governing its decision were invalid it would not be able to make its ultimate finding on the issues specified by the commission.
In this proceeding, on the contrary, the contentions as to'the invalidity of regulations do not relate to issues in the proceeding but only to matters which EDF and HRFA would wish to have included as issues.
A more fundamental difficulty exists-with the contentions of the Movants.
The core of the Federal administrative process is to vest in the heads of agencies control over the particular process involved.
This foundation would be undermined, especially in its rulemaking aspects, if a hearing officer or a hearing board were left free to disregard the instructions given by the heads of the agency.
A hearing L-
0~
board is an agent, not a " master," as a reviewing court is, and the attempt to equato its functions to those of an appellate court are more disingenuous than ingenious.
)
l I
f i
1
's 1
i
)
f 1
)
i I
I a
1 I
t l
1 i
h i
s f
4 s
(
i.
t 1
i
-v,,,.w
,r
.c-m---
4n-c.-
w
,-r-y e,
,w<
,-,,e.-pw.e-,
e,,
,,-,wea,---
,, e w-m e n, -o.r gm e -e g v,,r u p ene-w y ws, o,v -ep w q,
1 g
j I
II.
IF Ti!E BOARD POSSESSED Tile POWER TO PASS l:
UPON Tile VALIDITY OF Tile APPLICABLE COMMISSION REGULATIONS, AND DID SO, TIIE 1
BOARD WOULD FIND T!!AT Ti!E LIMITED EXEMPTION ESTABLISilED BY Tile COMMISSION COMPLIES WITH l
j TIIE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ElWIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 ("HEPA"), ESPECIALLY AS APPLIED TO THIS PROCEEDING.
1 j
EDF and liRFA appear to believe that a new licensing
{
1 process, reflecting the vague and generalized policies of 1
i NEPA, 9 should' spring up overnight even in an. agency which. had a
j required man;r years to develop the expert--staff and the detailed 4
{
regulations, guidelines and criteria for its pre-existing
}
subjects of regulation; even in an agency previously concerned 4
with narrow, novel Lnd highly technical radiological consider-
^
ations and not with broad standards of "public interest" and i
"public convenience and necessity" which define the regulatory J
scope of many other Federal' administrative agencies.
Specifically, the Movants attempt to argue that 9102 of NEPA required the 1,'
i Commission to demonstrate full consideration of all' environmental.
i values in every licensing decision made af ter January 1,1970, i
l the day NEPA became law.
i In contrast, we submit that the. provisions of NEPA i
and its legislative history authorized th'e Commission to if b ational Environmental Policy Act of 1969; gg2-207, 42~ U.S.C..
l N
gg4321-4347 (Supp. V, 1970) [hereinaf ter cited as NEPA).
1 s
('
4
..c.,_m,,
-e*
"e'*
+ ~ * * * ' ' " ' ~ * * ~ " -
i p
- 10 j
operate under its pre-NEPA procedures until such time as the l
Commission reasonably determined the impact of NEPA on its i
I l
licensing activities and made appropriate modification in
[
its procedures and staff capabilities to recognize this impact.
t 1
j In other wo.ds, NEPA allowed the Commission to act in a quasi-i legislative capacity and to adopt new rules to be prospectively applied in' exercising its quasi-judicial responsibilitics, f
Movants' contentions arise out of their failure to i
i appreciate the significance of a number of changes in the 4
r j
language of S.
1075 prior to enactment as NEPA.
S.
- 1075, i
- l as reported by the Senate Interior Committee and passed by the Senate in July 1969, included in $102 three provisions j
I which related to the responsibility of an agency to broaden 1
L its consideration of environmentti values in its=decisionmaking.
i i
i One of these provisions was modified by the phrase "to the
}
fullest extent possible."
The other tLo were not so con-ditioned, and one of these other provision = would have required Federal agencies _to find, with regard to any proposed
(
" major Federal' action" which would "significantly affect the environment," that:
1 t
See S. Rep. No.91-296, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 1-4 (1969).
b Section 102 (a) involved the utilization of an "interdisci-plinary approach" in decisionmaking "which will insure the.
integrated use" of various disciplines.
Id_. at 2.
L e,,----
r -,. -
....,-..,__m.,-.,,,_,m-v.,.,.,,...,_
,,m,,-
.._..,,_._~,.._,..mv
-..m,,,._,.m.,,,,,.-,
_ 1 1.
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action has been studied and considered (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided by following reasonable alternatives 1
are justified by other stated-considerations of
}
national policy; (iii) local short-term uses of man's environment are consistent with maintaining and enhancing long-term productivity; and that j
(iv) any irreversible and irretri ments of resources are warranted g pble commit-1 The bill which emerged from conference was not the i
same bill which had passed the Senate five months earlier.
I l
The requirement that agencies make " findings" en " major l
Federal actions" was eliminated entirely 23/and the phrase i
4 "to the fullest extent possible" was made to modify all the S102 directives (not merely the first one).
The arguments j
advtnced by EDF and HRFA may correctly reflect the original version-of S. 1075 but they do not reflect the statute-itself.
l Although $102 of NEPA includes two-directives which i
i expressly relate-to the factors which must be considered by 22[d. 5102 (c ).. Section 102 (b) directed agencies to " identify and develop methods and procedurer which will insure that j
presently unquantified environmental amenities and values 1
may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking.
i Id. slo 2 (b).
l EEhhe neutral requirement - that environmental effects be_ dis-cussed in " detailed statements"1was substituted for the i
" findings" requirement.
NEPA $102 (2 ) (C), 42 U.S.C.
$4332-(supp.-V, 1970).
For the legislative history on this.
change see, e.g., 115 cono. Rec. S12,111 (daily ed. Oct.
8, i
1969) (remarks of Senator Muskie).
i
an agency in decisionmaking,E /NEPA does not distinguish between operational agency functions (e.g.,
the civil works projects of the Corps of Engineers) and quasi-judicial functions, that is, the grant of permission to private parties to engage in specified activities through the issuance of licenses or permits.EE! The major obstacle to complete and immediato execution of these directives in the former sphere of activity would be a -possible lack of expertise.
A mnre difficult problem is presented in applying NEPA to the quasi-judicial functions of agencies.
In that area, the enabling legislation or che agency, the complementing regu-lations and the APA delineate the powers and procedures of the agency to make rules and grant or deny a license.
For agencies with a narrow pre-existing mandate such as the com-mission, a substantive revision in the agency's-regulations, ESdEPA g$102 (2) (A), (B), 42 U.S.C. $$4332 (2) (A), (B)- (Supp. V, 1970).
These subsections are slightly. modified versions of sections 102 (A) and (B) of S. 1075 as passed by the Senate in July.
In addition to having the phrase to the
" fullest extent possible" modify section 102 (2) (B), the provision was changed to provide that the procedures are to be developed af ter consultation. with the Council on Environmental Quality.
2Edenator Jackson indicated -in the hearings on S. 1075 that such a distinction would-be appropriate but, unfortunately, this-observation was-not acted-upon.
See Hearings on S.
1075, S. 237, and-S. 1752 Before the Senate comm.
on Interior and Insular Affairs, 91s t Cong., let Sess. 117, 121 (1969).
an expansion of staff capabilities and possibly additional legislation could be expected to be necessar / before such an agency could execute fully the NEPA directives.
This is the case because HEPA did not " amend" existing law (which
'ncludes administrative regulations), but rather because it imposed additional responsibilities on Federal agencies
]
to the extent that the exercise of such responsibilities would-
]
be "possible" and consistent with the goals of 5101(b).
According to the Statement of the Senate Conferees, the phrase i
"to the fullest extent ~ possible" which modifies all the S102 directives was intended "to make it clear that each agency of the Federal Government shall comply with the I
directives
. unless the existing law [which, as noted l
above, includes existing regulations) applicable.to such 4
agency's operations does not make compliance possible.
If this is found to be the case, then compliance'with'the 26dEPA5105, 42 U.S.C. S4335 (Supp. V, 1970)-provides:
"The policies and goals set forth in this-Act are supplementary to those set forth in existing-authorizations of Federal agencies."
This section was included "te give recognition-to the fact that the bill is 'in addition to, but does not modify or receal existina law."
115 Cono.-Rec. S17,453 l
(daily ed. _ D6c. - 2 0, 1969) (empha sis. added).
See also S.
Rep. No.91-296, supra note 20, at 21..
f i
- 14 Q
particular dire'tive is not_recuired but the provirions of e
Section 103 would nooly. b Section 103 of NEPA was directed at agencies which "have little or no authority to consider environmental values."1EI The Atomic Energy Commission was specifically cited as an example of an agency which would be required to follow the procedures of $103.EE! At the time NEPA was passed, the Atomic Energy Act limited the Commission's licensing jurisdiction "to scrutiny of and protection against hazards from radiation."EE!
Accordingly, the Commission's re alations did not include con-sideration of non-radiological environmental mattere either by the Commission staff in its review of an application or-by atomic safety and licensing boards in adjudicatory proceedings.
Moreover, the commission's expertise was-limited to questions involving radiological hazards.
And it was required _under EEIl5Cona. Rec., supra note 26, at S17,453 (emphasis added).
ESfd.
See also id, at S17,458 (remarks of Senator Muskie).
EE[ee, e.g.,
115 Cong.-Rec., suora note 26, at S17,460.
EEdewHampshirev.AEC, 406 F.2d. 170, 175' (1s t Cir. 1969).
4,
k the Atomic Energy Act and its regulations to issue a cr a-i struction permit or operating license for a fac'iaty subject to lienreing upon demonstration by an applicant that the activity in question could be conducted without adverse-radiological effects and upon satisfying certain other non-
{
i environmental requirements.
It was.therefore !mpossible, U
at the time NEPA became law, for the Commission to demonstrate consideration of all environmental values in granting or denying a license.
Thus, compliance with-those directives of
$102 which relarn to an agency's responsibility to broaden its consideration of environmental values in decisionmaking was not required of the Commission at the moment NEPA became law.
Rather, the requirements of. $103 applied. LUnder_S103 agencies are given until July 1, -1971 to review their admin-l istrative and statutory authority and, to,the extent-that
!=
i
{
deficiencies in their administrative authority "are beyond.
i
{-
_the authority of the particular agency to revise"E1! o t
t i
propose new legislation to the President.
7hus, an agency h
cannot demonstrate compliance with $102 of NEPA until' the -
t 15-cona.-Rec., suora note 26,_ at ' 317,4 55.
L g
p
~ _ _ _ _ _ _
T
- e l
)
barriers to such compliance are removed either by agency 1
i i
i action through rulemaking with regard to deficiencies in i
regulations or policies or by Congressional action through i
j the enactment of new legislation with regard to deficiencies in its legislative authorizations.
(
1-4 i
The Commission was, of course, required to comply 1
1 l
with HEPA to the extent such compliance was possible.
The v
j first version of Appendix D reflects this response and the June version is a refinement of that initial response.
1 i
Both these policy statements fell short of actually expanding i
)'
the scope of the Commission's licensing review because such i
action had to await completion of the $103 review.
Congress I
recognized that it might take considerable time for an agency to carry out its responsibilities under'$103 and gave l
kheJuneversion, for example, set forth tho'information' j
applicants would have to supply the Director of Regulation to facilitate the preparation of. " detailed statements. "
The June Appendix D also recognized the fact that, by 4
virtue.of Section 104 of NEPA, a recent amendment to the l
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. A. Sll71(b)
(1970) (originally enacted as Water-Quality Improvement '
[
Act of - April 3, 1970, S103, 84 Stat. 108)) had superseded pro tanto NEPA with regard to water quality matters governed'-
I 4
by.those amendments.
For the legislative history underlying
[
-this conclusion see 115 Cong. Rec., suora note 26 at S17,455; 115 conq. Rec.,
suora note 23, at-S12,110-17..
kee S. Ren. No.91-296,- supra not'e 20, at 21..
5 i
o
~ ~.
17 --
agencies over a year and one half to carry out these responsibilities.
The Commission had completed its statutory review by October but was still considering reguintory
- hanges.2S! The present version of Appendix D was published in the Federal _ Register in December and became effectivt January 4, 1971 and prospectively expanded the scope of the Commission's licensing review.
It could not be found that there was an unreasc.1able delay from the time the Commission concluded in October that the Atomic Energy Act did not pro'nibit full compliance with NEPA until the time in-December when the present Appendix D was issue 6.
This conclusion is supported by the language of S102 (2) (B) which required the Commission to consult with the Council on Environmental Quality prior to the establishment of regulations requiring consideration of "previously unqua.iti-fled environmental amenities."
Having shown that the Commission's response te NEPA has been timely and not 12 months overdue as EDP and HRFA contend. th( Board, if it had the power to - consider this question' on the merits, would-have to conclude that it was 34feoLetterfromChairmanSeaborg-toRussellE.
Train, Chairman of the Council on Environmental 0 tality, Oct. 13, 1970.
t u n-
18 ~
e not an abuse of discretio
'or the cor. mission to refuse to apply the hearing requilen, of the new Appendix D to hearings initiated prior to adoption of that appendix.
The Notice of Hearing in this proceeding was issued prior to the issuance of the December Appendix D and specified the issues to b-considered by the Board and, in accordance with the regulations then in effect, limited the scope of the Board's inquiry to those subjects properly cognizable under those regulations.
If the requirements of paragraph 11 of the December Appendix D authorizing parties to raise NEPA issues in hearings had been applied to this hearing, for example, the Commission would have had to re-notice the hearing in order to enable the Board to consider issues beyond those originally noticed.
The membership of the Board might have had to be changed because of a lack of expertise regarding the new issues.
The staff review, which concluded prior to the Notice of Hearing, might have been inadequate to support findings on new issues and the staff might have been required to review once more the entire application in order to take a position on issues not previously considered and to determine whether it should raise questions about those new issues.
Con Edison might have been required to prepare a case to support findings
- 4 not required at the time the hearing wss noticed.
Such action would undoubtedly have disrupted completely this hearing, would have considerably delayed the possible issuance of the license involved and would have imposed a serious additional burden on the staff and the Board in the exercise of their functions.
It was reasonable for the Commission to distinguish between those proceedings in which the staff review had been concluded and a Hotice of Hearing issued.and those proceedings under staff review at the time-the Commission expanded the scope of its licensing review.
Failing to give effect to this distinction would involve, in a very real sense, a retroactive application of the.new requirements.
While it-is not contended that, as a matter of law, the Commission could not have a'pplied these new requirements to hearings in progress, there is a well-established rule that regulations should be applied to events which occur later.35/ Thus, it was not-an abuse-of discretion to limit the. application of Appendix D to notices of hearings issued af ter its adoption.
EE[ee, e.g.,
Greene v. United States, 376 U.S.
14 9, 1960 (1964);
Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
- v. United States, 426 P.2d 322, 327-28 (Ct. C1. 1970).
, e '
1 The Commission's refusal to apply the requirements of Paragraph 11 to hearings pending at the time of adoption F
of Appendix D was particularly appropriate with regard to the hearings on operating licenses.
-i The Commission could not, in impicmenting regulations pursuant to NEPA, create a situation which would frustrate i'
the very goal NEPA was 60signated to achieve.
Therefore, in exercising its rulemaking functions under NEPA, the Commission j
was required to balance competing values to assure that its a
regulations would on the whole be compatible with the goal of environmental quality as that term is broadly defined by i
NE PA.
NEPA does not, of course, distinguish betwee. rulemaking and adjudication in its use of the word "decisionmaking."
a The environmental values cognizable under NEPA embrace "the total environmental needs of man--ethical, esthetic, physical, and intellectual as well as economic.
05!
The need for electric power is one of these values.
Any j
Eb[15cona.
Rec., suora note 23, at S12,131.
_See also Hearinas on S.
1075, S.___2 3 7, and S.
1752, supra note 25, at 118 where Senator Jackson states:
"A public-policy for-the environment basically is not-a public policy for those things out there [the " natural" environment).
It is a-policy-for oecole."
(emphasis added).
5 J
~...,.,.. -
.~
21'-
decisi 7 by an agency which wou'id jeopardiza meeting this need could have serious environnental consequences to man and thould, if it is to be rejected, be clearly outweighed by other environmental considerationc.
As the FPC stated in a recent case:
It is beyond' dispute that electrical.nergy is the :1 feline of the city.
Without it, no water could be pumped in many of its multi-storied buildings, subways-and elevators could not operate, its refrigeration and food'stornge facilities would collapse, its streets would become dark-and dangerous, its commerce stagnant, and the very health, safety and welfare of its occupants untenable.
The Northeast blackout in November 1965--affecting about_30 million persons in six states.and in Canada--
was a spectacular reminder of how-vital an uninterrupted flow of electric power la to j
their safety, defense, health and convenience.
The-Commission decided not to apply the require-ments of Paragraph 11 to operating license hearings initiated prior to adoption of Appendix D.in c. ^
to-avoid delaying "the operation of nuclear power plants urgently _ needed to meet the national requirements for electric power."38/ In EdonsolidatedEdisonCo., 44 F.P.C. No. 584 (Aug. 19, 1970).
EISFed. Reg. 18,470 (1970).
l
~4
.-,.ys...
,-w
,m,-
~,...,,,,....y
,w.
..v..r,nm,-
.ye.~r-.,.,
,,.. +
i considering the reasonableness of this decision, we wish l
to call attention to certain factors present in this
}
proceeding:
l 1.
. The facility involved was largely completed at the time the December Appendix D was published and will-be able to produce a la go quantit electric power.
l 2.
The application for t acility license was filed over four years before NEPA became law and. the Commission had-issued a permit authorizing the. construction-of this f acility 4
i i
over three years prior to the passage of NEPA.
3.
This hearing was initiated af ter a long and-extensive review by the regulatory staff cxf the'radiologicai t-effects of operation.
The Pinal Safety Analysis Report was i
filed in October, 1968.
The ACR$' letter was issued in l
F
.*ptember, -1970.
i 4.
Before this facility can be operated, the radiological consequences of operation will-be thorouhhly explored in this hearing and, whatever the need for electric
- power,-this-plant will not be allowed to operate if operation i.
would create radiation hazards.
Moreover, the water quality
- aspects of the discharges from' this facility will'be. controlled.
by. the provisions of 921(b) of the Federal Water Pollution 4
i i
A
+e
,,'p--e.,
,4 y, - -...,,.
-gvv-r's"*V-'-
V 7*tv*="*
i- - * " " -
74
W"
" r F # '* *
'+-W--"
-23'-
Control Act, as amended,39/-'which establishesoprocedures requiring Federal licensees to, comply with applicable water quality. standards.
Finally, a license condition will i
require compliance with state-and Federal standards or-requirements for the protection of the environment.
EDF and HRFA do. not seriously contend that-the J
{
Commission was in error in deter aining that the facilities that-are involved in hearings ir.itiated prior to adoption of the Detember appendix (which includes -the facility involved in this hea' ring) are urgently needed to meet the power require-ments of the nation.
Nor do-they contend that the Commission I
should ignore this' fact in exercising =its responsibilities-under NEPA.
Nor do they deny that expanding-the-issues in I
this hearing would delay the issuance of the licenses i
involved and thereby delay - the time by which thece facilities could produce power to meet the demand.
And yet, they reject-l the authority of the Commission to consider =the environmental l
1 consequences of such delay in determining the content of regu-lations established pursuant to NEPA.
i I3. U. S.C. A. -'Sll'71 (b) (1970).
i
4
- 24
- e The Commission, in developing-Appendix D, had to balance the potential _ benefits accruing-to the public
_i
.by allowing new-issues to be litigated in these operating-i license hearings against the consequences. to the public of delay: in operation occasioned thereby.
The Commission determined that, on balance, the regulations would be more.
{_
compatible with environmental quality considerations if delay 4
i j
was minimized.-
Delay would cause adverse environmental 1
i effects and expanding the issues in this proceeding would not j
necessarily lead to greater environmental protection for i
j the people living in the New York City metropolitan area.
l We submit that this Board would find, as the-4 i:
Commission has found more generally, that a-decision not to j
4 l
delay and complicate this proceeding by non-radiological 1
1 l
environmental considerations.is reasonable and not at all I
i inconsistent with the policies of NEPA' which not only = anti-j cipated but required in the-case of the AEC a reasonably phased program of compliance.
l 3
s a
E 6
i
1:.,
o.
l BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
- ATOMIC ENERGY - COI@lISSION In the Matter of
)
't
)
Consolidated Edison Company-
)
Docket No. 50-247 1
j of New York, Inc.
)-
(Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2) }
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE s
I hereby certify that I have served aEdocument entitled "Answe'r of Applicant to Motions of Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. and of Hudson-River-Fishermen's Association s
for Determination of Environmental Issues", including the supporting memorandum attached thereto, by mailing copies-1 y
-thereof first class and postage prepaid, to each of the following persons this -loth day of March, 1971:
l.
Samuel W. Jensch, Esq.
Mr.-R. B. Briggs l
Chairman Molten Salt Reactor. Program Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board Oak Ridge National Laboratory l
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission P.O. Box Y j
Washington, D.C..
20545 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830' Dr. John C. Geyer Anthony =Z. Roisman, Esq.
I.
Chairman, Department of Geography Berlin, Roisman & Kessler and Environmental Engineering 1910 N Street, N.W.
~
l The Johns Hopkins University Washington, D.
C.
20036-513 Ames Hall Baltimore, Maryland 21218 a
4 1
T s
--~ ~" ~"'~~~"~'-
~l
s o
r y
-2 i
J.
Bruce MacDonald, Esq.
Myron Karman, Erg.
New York State Atomic Counsel, Regulatory Staff Energy Council U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 112 State Street Washington, D.'C.. 20545 Albany, New York 12207 i'
Honorable Louis J. Lefkowitz Angus Macbeth, Esq.
j Attorney General of the State Natural Resources of New York Defense Council, Inc.
80 Centre Street
' 36 West 44th Street New York, New York 10013 New York, New York 10036 4
0 f'
.r'I /
J *' //... /'f
- [2k,(f,/ $
/', % p q x Lex K. Larson i
LeBoeuf,' Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Attorneys for Applicant i
e i
t f
I k'
s e
A I
I k
I i
,,_..-. - ~
'atural Resources Defense Council Inc a-30 WEST 44TH STREET N E W YOR K. N.Y.100.9 0
- ns 9S 6.S p o 1%hmglonO$h June 25, 1971 isoo Twtumn sum.w.
WAS Hlh C*!ON, D.C. 2 000p son 3S -26)5 4
.......,. n. 1 v e n...e C 3, r.e a m
- 4. C 3. r. r. a.r..
OO3,3 i
._.e,......
a.m.a rm.n.
. C4
..4r.1on 4
.u
-~n.
v
+
4
. = >
l 4
C v n a* C.I. _4 *4.w.5 *"wew E. 4 4.e. Ca. C O,, a.e.q,
9 r
d o
T n 2'e e.
a
.. y.
1 a
o.r +]e..y v o v.r., T.e.n.. 1 _.n.a. _ e..
4 m.
Point I;o. 2) Lochet ::o.
50-247 j
-'c ar I.:r Chairman:
a e I en uriting in regard to two orc:ers -
_ m., e c b.,.
.w4e Auv e 4_ c s.,.c e
e..,y.,n L.4 ene,.4._.,o m.a s
u.
og m
3w.4,
- - e.
- o. e. s 4."..~:., o n.. ".ay 2o3 10,7,.' 3
- e. '.n. a.'_...,w d
y.
o.
...'li C.h.
d e.".4 e d 4."4 D E"~.
c'.7 d "v. *.*."..* C 4 7 ",n e'.
m d
m p
the "'.OtiO".S Of the ~Lnter'.*SnorS h*M'A and ~DF c.,, d.4..e n.
.. a. v..,
nd wne ~OCm.a
- v. a O.
.,+ 4 c h c.<.v. n,. e d e
. e 4
g o
.c.
,.. 4 e --
e e e n.,n.,v O.
.3C
- a
+.
nn v.,s U O..
4 4 r n a
-c n 7 d c,,,. 9 n.. <,_r"., d P.~,, a.
m, n. :..., a.
r "i T.*v^r.4.m1
..d y.
.a.--.36 g
w.g,.w.w.e..e o.e
- h.. w.3.,e., 4 + 4 e.
- e..,.
ie-o.
.n,.1 a.1 7 3
. n.,_a. ;
-.n4n
,,,,,a
. n.n_ n,.
., 4
_4
...,n.r...... ')
w w.
- = r ny.i..
- m. 3_
4 o m Y.
_i n t,-.,
..o v.,.
qQ e n.d a
4 ~*
v
. m w
.~
v.
7.g, a
n,.,..,3.
.. 2
,. C...e....
w~ w.
C..,,.,.4
, u,.
4.
s.. '
.. + 4, a. 2.
.. _. _n, n.
-3 C s.
- onC, e
-v_.
3
..u.
y.
e o e,,
.w
...y
~
..- - e n. a.s.. -i.
n.
.y I,'
f
"."%. 4..=.. g a. i.. T w a a. n. 4...n. d c.e...
7.k. n.
.O e n wn,Lc w.,
.4
.-k.o,
~m.
4
- a. 4 v.e.
.n. g e.
.. q.#
g.
.is V.. 4..,,,
MS..
m n
w
.3
- e..- n
. L..
w v.
.s
.a
.e s..- 'e. 7
.a e. 4 T.ia..m. e..- 4..sg.,
,.- v. 4 t*
.b.
- 1. s w-.. 4 n a
.A
. w p.
$.%.-4 e.
. %. n
.c. n. a.. L. n 3,,, p.
1..
n 1e.
. s,.,,, n. w. s. n.
_a e....
... v m.
O.... f I.e a *w n.w
...-.J*.*
- e 1..,.n.. O c.
,3 a,
.,J o
m., w
- r. a.
...f w.
...g
. m.,. o C.
'. n.
4.n vs ci v.i. e J..'. -.. ' ' ' '
w***en
.-.-,*...a '. *. a-.o..=
... m. g v 4
- w. v w..i _i e..
., sa n e.
S W.
_ O 3, 1. t,,. o..p
'4.,.
.w e.
e r.*. 4.e n.
.v a a n. v 4
- n. '. b. o.
w.
- ^ *;. #
- u.., A,r
.. m n. a. n A a,. _
.3 ~ a. n g... g n v u, w
, m e c,,
y.
w e,., 1
..., 4..
j
.. ' J n. 'n 3
J J..e r.. m a
..w....
, w.. L.
1 n..
- O Y.
)*
..\\
"v"'..,**
O.
p.
.% f f. D Q Y...-
'. c. o..n..m*
+ b. 4.e 4.e =., *. e. C..g. a, ~e f =. 4
.e. 4 %..a., n.
. m. n
. 4
%....o.
n..
1 4
t
- l. I ! I I. o. [ /,}-y b'g,,Y f^ [
w C;m
- /
sV e
s
,,r--
j 4
Le vs' t
4 4
,,v-,
a e.~.
e
.~e...e m -
--n.,
,-c
~
~., -.,,.
~ ~ ~ - -... - - - - - - --
I 4
G 4
a s.e n. O. *".
C., a' 7
- ig
- h.,; n.
i
...e
+..i s E
u
..a.1
- ?
- .e*
w s C..
- a..
.r m p
ee
.n e A
4 4
a i
i 1
- f. m
.#n v + b.a
.e. &
.v.
mw4 Jw
-,,. a., 4.,
- n..e.) 0.$
-..A w..
w.
u 4....
w.
v.
=
w n,,.v... J w, n *
- vs 1
..3e
. O ve
.# J 9. 34 nn 4.2 i
.w.
w..
.w-w w
v p.
7
- 9. h, 's'.I.
- '" % g
.T..m. +. g w.,
a I"I 1 7 '
- s..... v... " *
- 6. s. e ~
e
~y
+ J 4
.e e.4
.4 b 3 e.c.
m
,, a. >.n w%.'
.e. 4
.m..=$
4.
n.
T v.%...
a
,.w Me..
w4
..S
'.Ju',.. c.. % w m.e
- m
- o..m. o. V w,.
4 e.4. m n. l.c.-
4.
a.
e e. J w.e4
.g..
.w w.
ay w
w 6.
I.r 6
..' - Ji.,4
-, at
.m... J.w p. n..
a.w <4 r.4 w
a./
e. %.
M.
J
.h.e.
dw W
..o.
..A. M. k..
.. w.. e C g.
J J
g.g m
s.
.g g
.g ay.
9 e.
,e s
,,. w
.o...,g,.w.
. e~
.e 3.. e, a.v n.
- 6
. e,.,
m v 4.n. 7
..n y 4,.m. 4 4.
...p4....e.1
..*.3 eg #
/
/
w w.. e.
m.
g s,.
.w w
w uw.
r's v g a. w.$ *.P
+ vg.m.e4
- J m.e.e.
9 A p.J e *1 Q**.
- We
.s. A g M **' *
- t 4
+...+
.w w
w.
w.
w v.w y
w-
) 8 w.h.
. w. 4 6 -
g.
g4 4
.g.h
...g., y. -
M g p.y.g
.h
& gg g
. Qg (b
- e. p, w
w v w.
ww
.y.w v...
.e
- a.. e. a
.s..e, a..'.%....
.e - v p r...., e.1.,
e h,
e.y,,
n
.ww ew
. t;'
w.
w.
w v v e U..
w w w e... G. 4 s w.,N.
s..wC..ww..
w.
4 w
...w w
w f
w c. e.n 9.J 9 C.
p L.
C.
- a. pe.p4 Om O.#
...w..
4
'n e.i. 4 p # r% w d **
a.
..w w-
.w
.w.
.wa
- s A 99 4.* g M },fE + y. p a.. s. J
- J.g
... J
.f w'
4 7.i.4 e
.' 4.e..*g
.vn
.4 w.
w.
.w....e w
w P.4 v w.. T..p. {.J.4 v.9 3.
.Q g,q gg
..a g.g g
(...5
.% p #
f.%.T.
f.
f.g g g 9'La C.6
.'. u y y w.
wVw.ww...
v. w w.6w
.w.i.
..w..
%..e.
yC.v
- 4. w.. - 4
.,.w gg 3 4.. g.l o
.4. c., n,...,
w m o,,v..e...J. 7OC
-w
.c.
w a
p C
.%., w e. J.'
y4o-
... we w.4.l. w...;,,.
, O.c C,. U w..
.,0.,. C.
.., e w.wc w.n.
_ w. 4-w 6
w..w w,.
T.
o whe
.O. c e wa t 3 o v d a.r,
.i t
.3.we ~e - n S e a yw.
.w w
w
. s
,..,e.
D8 e c o r..
2,
.a n. w
- b.n _ C v+
4.e o.4C n
.%..e pvO
,,m n Q 4
y e
4 5
. w a
..u.
w
.v. w w w... w w..
j Q
O
.g
....f.U
- 0. E O..O. O U O.,.E..8..
N Ml.j g W
4 ww w
w w ww..
.h. 9 9 T9 p'.g p $.
.* N4. g,. g g
. 8% %.
M O.Y
<% 8 8%
- . p.h y
.> agg og 9g
.y
,. my.
w.
w
-w w.
w.
j
. =... m. n.
- %. a w"5 wJ Jm
.b. 3.e
., w e,,, a., m p 4,, e..g. W 4.
J.J
... _ w.e. - w.e.
. w
.ww 3.,
r., 4,,...
. ' g a,,
,,,,n. =, a, w.4. g *1 n,.'
- ,g
..g g.4. n. 4,
b, a,
., n 4,v., 4,, 2,,,e a
e
..,S,.,..
m m
r yy y,,,
.g e..g p., C
,..t..- e.. e
. im.e. t=
m 3. r,..
..G.
w w
w
- t. 4. a..a
. U w w,. 4.a 4.
- m..s..
w U.. p n o.v.:.
,, y o.
w.
w.
w,,,
w g 99
..F...g 9.,.)
T. i. P%.%*M.*w>M.*.
..M p (l
.. #14
- im g
e w.
ww'
. e
. w w
==.4.,.
.9.
s
, 4 = c *' *.%.i w -
43 =.5 w p
w w w w.
4 vg og..4. p.%4
- .h..'.*
t g
,.g p.
....wJ-=.
n....
w
-w w
w.
w 3,..[.J..,4 C'
w 4 a.. *..
- w. e. a 4
- Jw - 5,a m..
.. e.~e
.v a.
- 4 v. m A.
4w a
w w.
e 4
J
-w
. -,,, n o e. 3 a e
., c,.. n n
...a
... 4.
- 3.. *-.m.. 4,,. a.
,..ww e...-
.. w. w
. w.. w..
w....
4 0 31.J
.g.,
..n..
.g
. w w,
,..,,.: Wg J w n.7. g g v.. c =.
v3. % a.
. 3 ww ww
..n
}
n
=-w C.
.%e
. w. n
- 7...' r w e w.
3 i
4
.W
=
J e O.,
wW...,.
w ww ww. w.
w 4
... %.. w 4.
"-9
. b.. e.
3.3. w.4 e.n.* **.c...J,.*,
w 6.w "y
7, V 3 w C.w,
w.
,s.1. 4. e g.,, n. -.w w a -
- a. e. 4 3,$'
4
.e. a. v n 4..
g w
- a..e.
4..w.i o.,
a.,
..+
-o
.a.
.y wg w
3.n.
e O' - J m,. 4. 4.. h, C.,....i n m.p.
T.n. 4 4 a.e.
- g. b.4,.
? t,. 4..
'.. =
..w v...
w
,w
-. +...
w.
J
.o
,. -., 3..,. a 2.
-.e 4 "... O ".#. *. 4 ^w n C.#
- ".. a
. w
...w
- v. e n
- a J
w
..e..=.
w a.*.s. r= n. e..I.
b
.e, a 4. w.
.# a pig,
4 e.=v.a.
9.,,,,.n,..W.-
..W
.w V
-=V
.J..,
~.,.
N
.sg g.g 3..p a
% 4,
_M..
A 8'
.>m......g
.e g.p w $
.'.9. ". ".
- P M.
e*. r.1. ' e. f. fg
-. pg y.
P e.
g/
1 w
g
%...i
.4.
b eQh iP a
d 4
I I
4, W
..t
?
i k.
1=
\\
t=
.\\
T
-. -. ~
~-.
.~-.,,n
m
_m
~_
o-
+
.sce +,hree June
,..ca, AW:
r.
r--
w w... C.1 "e s s.. C.w. p e.
- u..
e c
0., '
C. v. C' n.,.,.'!.... w 4 A 4 e.n..
r"%.. e C
4 S w. 4. O n *n P..e.,
O n 4 1. 0,0
..w
. +..
e n n.. i. 4 m.... a. n.,v e...a/l..
..4,.
v.,
4,.e 1
n..
- 0 e n..,
.n s..
t v
w..
gse a*.... v w3..; 4 n.
a
.2
,,1. n. On 4
4
.n.,,. v
.3
.w 4
a
.w w
4 w,.
,,.w-
,n o n. n. O.,,..
..,4n s.
...s-s..
_.a n, w.,,,a,
....4.. e w o.
w e..e 6.; -
s
...ne s.e.
1....-., n n v.4...,
.e. e.. n u
3
.e.. e n.e
.e...n
.e 1 O. w a.. C...
.a. o u.n. a n..e_:,.,. o w
es.
,c
. s.. e..s,. C 4. r., w -. p
_ 4..~
- 4. m m.
_ T n on
._s.
4
- v......
_a 9 ~-.
.. 3
..r,,
.e..m s eI O.o
..e c B r a,w. n m..C,g.
omwn.
- 1. t C O.,,.o u 4
-w ow.
.w.
4 3
.,S.C e B n.i s..e Q n
4, -. n,., o. _4 1. 3
.r.n 3_ e.,4...em a.
.u s
.... a
.y s
a
%.. 4
.O.
.n -.S. e.. 3.,.
- a.. c x.
,.s w a.1 M4 3.
4
..w. C do.an, no
_4 ee. n.,:.
4, w ae v. w 3 -
N
- n. e..g, 4.,.v...-
w.......
w
.v....
. n O.e
.w..o./ r.n m.m w
a.m.n... -.e. c e. s.ww m
nn o,.. n n a -....
..6.
v3 v
.w 3.3 C c.....d *
- e a,. ".t e.n. d..d. "...~.,
TCCS revd.a.n a".d *Olt-u".a
. _ww
. w w...
_v.
v.
,, L.4 y C. 4
.s 1n O-m o D. u., 4 e 4.e
...e 0.nw.w.C
,u.,n e
n.n t...
.._4 1 _1
'n o 6 n.i e...ey a
.4.e.,1.'l.d n e n w 1 v.. 0.f
+ h; e_ ve3 wo. e w.iP.n e p
e e
m w
y v.
n,,.I u n w e.,. C..,_...., 4,.
4
. n i.< o,,,.. un 3,, 4 a m,_4.,4 g.o.
s..
w
..,..w...
a...
A;.sC e 01..e aa.e e.v a.c.a n a. C O..e O.1 4 a.e.c c r d.< s on e n
e s
a w
-O.
o
.m.. d.4. _, n. O _4.. "u _4 +
e
-.e nne me + n e o.1 e m..,.
e u
m w
v.
...* 4 n, n'. O,J.1. A,
,, e & a..'Ln f a A 4.m. - _1 4 m o.n. e i n...,.,,
<o w 1 e w. ~.
J v
.. n v
r o.
o C.". e '.".. On 's', "..
-.. ' ' ' y" " * "e s".'D _ 's'
- ** e *,. *... O n'.'.b..'.,'.
I'^.'.*".."..'^."
'?. e o.i,
- n
- ~,3
.1 0-'.1.
, ii
- ? n c. k a.n. - e.n.
- .s c.
- t. t. e e a n e a w..v,,4..a n
.,.*. c.,y
~
.i 3.. w w 4 4.
vv
.vs.
3 wf
,nay 433 4i_.
On u.*.a.
103 10*1
- k. a 2.
3 4 C 7.". c..".~";
9 s._3 w v..
_4 e.e 4. O.
n.1. e,..,. e A -
a.,..,..m.....,,
a,s.
n n.
a
- n. a,,, "...,,4,..,
.a
. v.,
u,, _n _a n.,r w.. m... e.r...
.m... e..4..
- 2. e., e..') _- u., C
(,.,.. _a y, a.
e
..w
-..n.
n...-... _. w w. a.
yv..,3_..
,,, e. g.n.. a. -
u,
n--
. ~,
m.
.c e
w 3
jw w 4v
..w.
..E.,.-.3_.,...,.
,., n., e :..
w
..w 4
.,..s
. x. 3.
, n,,
.' n 3 v4.... = c n......,. 'a. s. =.
- a..v
..r.'
=
.a. n g. ** n..e.. 4a
.w. g
.v s. m..w,
?
w a
w w.. 4... ". o... :' g.. n.
.s.. n e..., g.,. O.".' 3 _ ~,,. ' ".
s,..
- o. n en v.
. w
.. w.,,.......
- n.e.
1 n 6.
w, m.-
.4.,
... e e
y,
....c..e_,,.,.
v.
..,v.,
. _,. _ ww
- u.. a
.- m. a...n 1 1,,,.; ;s, e m
,n.;.
c.. :
.w w3 ae.....r.
.. s.
~.
s.
w w....._ e. 4.,
.e
, n.. e,...
c.,. a.
.e-.n n,., v. 3t 2
. n n.
w
,,.m
%, 4 4 4 4_ C..
-;4-
.s,. 4 n..., s.,.4,
- 2.,
,, 3
..i.
.w
..w..
.n
. e. s.c. -.i...,3.
OC n n,A.
O he _1E.
w..,,*,,..e
_1.e w
e
..y 3
9 w
. ' O J =.4. w= c..
7.m..
...e..
w m,. i.,*.
% 3 fs w...,m...,4 w w **,,m,,
m..
o
..w.,..
w.
% - n f..,*! g O.*'"'.'."**
~.**-".~""=~.~'w"e"4
~
,, w w.. -.
=,
.-..h 6 w
.......1. 6...o..n..
.?*'"..~'.*..
4 m....w 4 -
v,. % e,.,. v e A
?
+.
y.. e 3 a. w.'.4. w. g
., w
.Le v,
t.
.4..
www
.r - - c..c-u" J una. - 2 p~, 1_0't'1
-c
.e. u a _t
.. u c....,., n, _.-,.
~ _a m. o n w<-
...~-,. n a. 4..
. 4,.1
.* ok, ably, -. b e dalw." fed e
a
,.<,.a<<,,,,,,.
e
,4 o.
4....n,,
.w. C.,.c
.o w,. 1.. w m. C.
- e. o.
- m. g
,._n,.
.3
..f w,. _4,..,, - _.4-4.""a e ". e ". '...* o*
^ ". 0 -.
e
.,......4.,
,, s,.,,.o 4 4 n..
- 4..,.- C
- o..A.,,,.
.w.
.....~. e.....
- j...
t e.
, 2,. 4
- e. O,.,, O,,. %a.,
s.e
.,. a a. n..., 3
.4.
... s s.
L.
s,...
,. e., o~.<. 4v _,n.
n e.4..e
, eta o4 s.,
v..
v.
-... n.v..e....
.- a -.e c w.. n11
%.. a n
w.
. n m.. e
.. n.s.
...,.3
...., a 3 e,.
,. e 3..~
s.
w
, -..w. a.
C e.v.
4 2 m~.,. a Cc
.w e
w a2 e
v os.
. o,.. e
.. a.s..4..e..a,.,n o. e..a.
.n.,
- 3. 4 3,
.~. e s
w%
w
- e..a c.;
C.c
- h e n.,.c,,..,
J J
..n...,u.i r ugw
.e.4, n..,. t.s e
e o
o u.
J,
..w < a.w....n c,1 1.,.. g a
...n.
3
- c..
+w w
" c d
- v*..*o
..e a 3 _.; ".3",
s..
u
......n...
.o_4....
..s.
1.
It is now evident that the Co 4.e.e.4o..
.0% g 4,.
o,
e
.u, 4,.e w
f aC*.,'aa1-.m."_4.
.# ^ "
..~ a' e *m e .'. d.". - w "".'. ****
- ~
4 a p.e.v4ca o., cr ce..
o...., e.
a necessary be:,cre the. u,.m..-i+ s g
s e.44_onal nv_4ron-v mental Policy Act t'as implemented in-C o m io o.a.~,n
..,~ e e..> e, o.
ne s
2
- r. n n. C C~. ~. <.,..e 4 o,.,4,.n C.. n Te V4.. O.#
4 n..
^",.^.~"+,_'d.*.e'*,
e "... a. p' * '.'. 'g'
.".y.,wc'"..'.,'
- S.
v -
4 e...,L,4. v.,,a e.e, w... _..w4.
,,.o,Ce.s_4 J
n u
v..
w i, -
..nA a.w.
w..n,.
3 a e.,..'. :...
.. e C,., 4 4.3 o
w.
",,,o.*..y* ' e 'w e " ".."c
~ ".". "...* ". ~. '. o r4 " n.." d ^ #'
'.". 4 ^ h -
a cg n
_\\ g.= J *. J e. m,. c.i..
.e.i 4
- 4. w
.m.d
,a.
w,. o..
a ww t-.
g.
e n. w e,..,.
- m.,
.m,,.
n.e.. *
- v. a v.
n.w. e.e.i. _a c.
- 4,. 3.,.., n.
4 n. w 4.e. -
,.s
, m e e a e., -
p 11 T
n.vu. e.,. o v.. e n, m.,~n.m. a -wn
+w... n.e. e...,....v
.4c w.
- w..u.
4.,..,.
e.,.,,
e -
n.,.m,.a.....,,,
..,w
- u. n,.3 D.,,.; E.e,.
-.e..
u..,., Q
..... ~
s....
., n.n..
1.w e 4...
m.,.
...J_.
4
.nn
,3,.,,,.
w S....
w w
oa
.w a "
..n...m...
.g
- .e.c..% e.,, n,
e
. 4
.m g.
.e. n -.w,
, n.
s w...--.
... t,3.
, w ew.
.44 a
,J n e.,. w.a t" w..._4.e.e.4 J* w.
,,.o.a.i. g
- v.
n 3.,.,,3.,.1.,3 g
..e i
..v
%. n.
. w,1 4 e.r.
s.e.
4 m.,
.v p,. c \\
s,..i a n.e a a.
4
.7 a.
4 w w m C n 6 4 e.u=.
4 p.3
- e. 4... J... n.
.T e.*. n.v.*. n e.. a.w.
enw., en.e. en p
,n r
...e..
- S**
..n.,'.-....1***-*..
. a n. n.. '
- h.. 4 v.
- *=. d
.n.
.a..,
w
. 'a n..,==.n...v.,
~
v
...,4,.
.e
.... ae,,7,,,.__e
. _3
...,,e,.,..,._,.
a m
O n. a. ." "..~. r";.Ns,.' d '!' _'
w'-"."
a...,
.s.,..
'..'."_da.
-.. u,.. e e i
I 8
,,.,..,.m
~.l.;+m.n.,
g,,,,
m,-
w.,
A-
, ~..., -
m r
s
~. r.: e ' fi te June 25, -1971
./
w C n...n,. w..,...r. a - e
.c.-
4 L
,4 i
1 F ~..
a
+
Pd S 6. a
",r - C. n. d
.-..Vve tha 4,
$?.S.T a ". 6
.'. O, ~'.'. 9 6"..".".a
^
..ww.
c w
a.
w a3 wo u'ne
- - ". d O C O.* w '. '+ ' - ". O." a. - ".O
.'. e...e
+
...' 3 I.
- e...~..:,
~ -
w aw--u nw.1 s4 4 0. h e
.... ~.
4,
-m a.w
., t.: a w C,
,e e
m -
w m e.
,., a 4... -..., 4.. w een
,y e
e,,.
n.0 T
e4
- .. e.
.;,.COe...
3 n..e, - d.J.4 e o e..w - - Onw e. 4 e v.w w.. - w./
ww 6
a"6 w ".. 4 ". *. '.4
- h. *s.* ? "' + bO.".",,
T
%. 3..g, kee7
- ^*
.w. w..
m.
4
..e*.**.*t"$.'.'.'.'.*
7...*.*d.'.'*".*.n".*w*1 e,.
-4.
~.... e j
.,,a e.
~. u. 4 e
- ~.
w a.
O
- 4...m,
... a
- e.. e.
e,.
i
.. w
........n.,.<.L p a c. e.".C e N '.'.'.'.
.wd..".,
- .. u'F.'.' '; s on
.w lt:wwer.
- 3. 4.,.c.,. ; 4.e w.e....e n i h* a s c o., 4 n,- 4,.. n
.a n.
- w. 4 s n-
.uw.
e ee o
1 1
1 Youve.a n.a e.v a.k,
J 4
Angur Mac'oeth
,a A
o....,,
_o,,uA son ww....
River Fisher =en's
-Association
.. y/
w
..,w I
00:
Dre ohn C. Geyer
~
u s,4 -
.c.,
- e..
-.-me. -
r.. n. n.n., u+- u t - s..
.... ~. 4 un-r u n. e.
a y.
r.
3. e,.
- r.,.,,
a
..v.
o e..m.=.C v. 4.b. 7.e
- m!.4 _*:.7 4.e.
-'.,,,.'.n e
v.
v.
.%y.e is e n e +7 *;,.
34
. s. e
~~y n
c., 4
\\.; O.e. Cm w -'. u ~ ~ u,.n..,
a, 2
y..
9.4,e y C n... w =...
.n. 9 ~ '
4
,a L
~ s.
.r's w s 1 e.,,.,
.T
.O.,<- w 4.
,. C m,, u
.e e
h.9, -
99
.~*f9
.f fl f
.w
.y Le..
ge 6
3 4
4 h
s' I
.S
\\
t s ak I
t.
@g
\\..
g el 4.),
'3 a.
.a
. * ** *I
.. *}*
1'
}
A a
re.-
w
,nr-y
..e,,
-.nn,:,,,vm+.,,.-.e
,w,m_,e.,n,,,.4, m..,
c.,-w.,,
e - g,o
,e.,,
ny-
-