ML20147F062

Table of Authorities & Pages 12 & 14 of NRC Staff Brief in Support of Commission Reversal of LBP-96-25

ML20147F062
Person / Time
Site:	Claiborne
Issue date:	03/18/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20147F060	List: ML20147F056 ML20147F062
References
LBP-96-25, ML, NUDOCS 9703200012
Download: ML20147F062 (6)

Text

_._ _

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES P,gge LCOURT CASES Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 93 8 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir.1991)................................

8,12,13 NRDC v. Morton, 4 5 8 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir.1972)........................................

12 FarmlandPreservation Assoc. v. Goldschmidt, 611 F.2d 23 3 (8th Cir.1979).........................................

13 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citisens Council, 4 90 U.S. 3 3 2 (19 8 9)............................................

12, 14 c

Robinson v. Knebel, 5 5 0 F.2d 422 (8th Cir.1977)........................................

7, 8 Sierra Club v. Adams, 578 F.2d 3 89 (D.C. Cir.1978).....................................

12,14 Tongass Conservation Society v. Cheney, 924 F.2d 113 7 (D.C. Cir.1991)....................................

12,14 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS Commission:

Louisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CLI-97-3, 44 NRC (February 13, 1 9 9 7)............................................ passim Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CL1-97-2,44 NRC (January 29,1997).............. 2 Louisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CLI-96-8,44 NRC 107 (1996)........................ 2 l

Curators of the University ofMissouri, CLI-95-1, 9

41 NRC 71 (1995) i I

l.

I 9703200012 970318 PDR ADOCK 07003070 C

PDR

-iii-TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Pate Petitionfor Emergency & Remedial Action, CLI-7 8-6, 7 NRC 400 (1978).........................................

9 Appeal:

Commonwealth Edison Co. (Carroll County Site),

ALAB-601,12 NRC 18 (1980).......................................

16 Long IslandLighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-900, 28 NR C 275..............................

20 Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly

- Generating Station, Nuclear-1), ALAB-619, 12 NRC 5 5 8 (19 80)...............................................

16 Public Service Company ofNew Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 sul 2), ALAB-471, 7 NRC 477 (1978) 8 i

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

(Vermont Yankee Station), ALAB-179, 7 AEC 15 9 ( 1974)..................................... 8 Licensing:

Louisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichrnent Center), LBP-96-7, 43 NRC 14 2 (1996)...............................................

2 Louisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), LBP-91-41, 34 NRC 3 3 2 (1991)...............................................

16 Duke Power Co. (Catawba Units 1 and 2), LBP-74-22, 7 AEC 659 (1974) 14 j

l STATUTES i

The Solar, Wind, Waste, and Geothermal Power Production Incentives Act of 1990, Pub. L. No.

1 101-575 (104 Stat. 2834) (1990) 42 U.S.C. { 2014v....................

4,10

l l

- IV -

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES P_afe 42 U.s.C. 6 2232(a) 5 42 U.S.C. 6 2243 5

REGULATIONS 16 10 C.F.R. Q 30.33 10 C.F.R. l 40.32 16 10 C.F.R. Q 40.32(e) and 70.23(a)(7).................................

11,14 l

10 C.F.R. 6 50.33(f) 19 10 C.F.R. 50.40(b).........................................

20,21 10 C.F.R. Q 50.81 16 l

10 C.F.R. Q 70.22 17,18 l

10 C.F.R. Q 70.23(a)(5) 3,17,18,20 10 C.F.R. Q 70.23 (a)(7)........................................

11,14,17 10 C.F.R. Q 70.23(e)...............................................

21 l

2 10 C.F.R. Pan 40

............................................ passim i

pas.stm l

10 C.F.R. Pan 50 i

10 C.F.R. Pan 70

....................'........................ passim l

?

MISCELLANEOUS 21 Fed. Reg. 7 64 ( 19 5 6).............................................

18 31 Fed. Reg. 14,881 (1966).........................................

18 32 Fed. Reg. 4 0 5 5 (19 6 7)...........................................

18 56 Fed. Reg. 23,310 (1991)........................................

5, 16

=

l 8

-v-i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES f.agg 57 Fed. Reg. 18 2 8 8 (1992)...........................................

10 57 Fed. Reg. 18,3 9 8 (1992)............................................

5 Reg. Guide 4.2

.............................................6,9 Reg. Guide 4.9 6,9,11 9

Reg. Guide 4.18 Licensing and Regulation of Nuclear Reactors Hearings before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Part I, 90th 1st. Sess. 347-350, Appendix 12 ( 1967)...................................

21 i

i 1

I 9

I l

1

! l i

to adequately address the numerous impacts avoided in the no-action alternative, such as those j

. to surface and ground water and air quality, and the elimination of depleted uranium tails, a

l LBP-96-25, slip op. at 96-101. Although the Board finds no fault with the FEIS's discussion of these matters as negative impacts of licensing the CEC, the Board would have the FEIS l

separately list and discuss these sarae matters as impacts avoided in not licensing the CEC (the j

f ncHetion alternative) rather than stating that the impact is avoided and referring to the detailed discussion of the impact in another part of the FEIS. Upon reaching this conclusion, the Board i

l suggested that the Staff consider filing a supplement to the FEIS to reanalyze the no-action alternative. Id. at 106.

The purpose of the FEIS, as the Board correctly notes, is to have the agency take a hard 4

1 look at the environmental consequences of the action. Id. et 16, citing Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989) and NRDC v.' Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 838 (D.C. Cir.1972). Further, the FEIS must be read as a whole and information may be available in other sections of the FEIS for consideration in a particular section. See Osizem Agalmt i

Burlington, 938 F.2d. at 194 n.7; Tongass Conserwntion Society v. Geney, 924 F.2d 1137, 1

i 1143 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Sierra Club v. Adams, 578 F.2d 389, 3% (D.C. Cir. 1978).

P The Board takes the Staff to task for not mentioning in the FEIS, much less addressing, the avoided environmental impacts to, among other things, surface and ground water and air quality from not building the facility, and the avoided impact of not generating depleted uranium tails. LBP-9625, slip op at 99. Notwithstanding this observation, the Board acknowledges that the first matter addressed in the FEIS discussion of the no action alternative is that "the no action alternative is the denial of the NRC license so that the impacts, both positive and negative, discussed in the previous 76 pages of chapter 4 of the FEIS regarding the various environmental

- -. - -_~

j i

14 -

Station construedon permit proceeding reached the same conclusion in considering the extent to which the "no new plant" alternative was considered in the final environmental statement. 'Ihe Board found that the "[d]irect environmental benefits of not building are, of course, the absence i

of the direct environmental costs of building and operating the plant." Duke Four Co.

j (Catawba Units 1 and 2), LBP-74-22,7 AEC 659,672 (1974). The Board in this proceeding i

i 1

abandons this logic. See I.RP-96-25, slip op at 102 n.10. In any event, the FEIS must be read i

l as a whole in determining if it is adequate. Tongass Conserwuion Society v. Owney, 924 F.2d 4

l j

i 1137,1143 (D.C. Cir.1991); Sierra Club v. Adams,578 F.2d 389,3% (D.C. Cir.1978).

i l

In summary, the purpose of the FEIS is met when the agency takes a hard look at the I

environmental consequences of its decision. Robertson v. Methow Valley Otizens Council,

\\

490 U.S. at 350. The CEC FEIS discussion of the no-action alternative meets this applicable legal standard and the Staff's treatment of the alternative in the FEIS, therefore, is adequate.

l The requirements set by the Board for discussing the no-action alternative go well beyond what is required by the cases interpreting the requirements of NEPA, and should be reversed.

l l

4 9

e