Cluster 341744

Id. at 531-32 ; Aeschliman v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 547 F.2d 622, 625 (D.C.

Aeschliman, 547 F.2d at 629-30.

Once the challenger had drawn the NRC's attention to an alternative, Judge Bazelon held, the NRC had a duty to investigate that alternative and explain why it did not deserve further consideration, id. at 628.

Once the challenger had drawn the NRC’s attention to an alternative, Judge Bazelon held, the NRC had a duty to investigate that alternative and explain why it did not deserve further consideration, id. at 628.

They cite Aeschliman v. NRC, 547 F.2d 622, 628 (CADC 1976), in which the court said that where an intervenors' comments on a draft EIS raises a colorable alternative not considered already, the Commission must undertake its own preliminary investigation of the proffered alternative to determine whether it is worthy of detailed consideration in the EIS, and the Commission must explain the basis for each conclusion that further consideration of a suggested alternative is unwar…

They cite Aeschliman v. NRC, 547 F.2d 622, 628 (CADC 1976), in which the court said that where an intervenors’ comments on a draft EIS raises a colorable alternative not considered already, the Commission must undertake its own preliminary investigation of the proffered alternative to determine whether it is worthy of detailed consideration in the EIS, and the Commission must explain the basis for each conclusion that further consideration of a suggested alternative is unwar…

D.C. 325, 330, 547 F.2d 622, 627 (1976), cert. granted sub nom.

The court of appeals for this circuit has recently reaffirmed that an agency “must explain the basis for each conclusion that further consideration of a suggested alternative is unwarranted.” Aeschliman v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 178 U.S.App.D.C. 325 , 547 F.2d 622, 628 (1976).

See CAB Order 83-10-32, at 6 n. 13, J.A. at 40 n. 13 13 The Electronics Shippers cite for this proposition Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. United States AEC, 449 F.2d 1109 , 1118-19 (D.C.Cir.1971), which in turn was followed in Aeschliman v. United States NRC, 547 F.2d 622 , 627 (D.C.Cir.1976), one of the cases overturned by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 , 98 S.Ct. 1197 , 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978).

See Aeschliman, 547 F.2d. at 627-28.

Aeschliman, in ALAB's words, had held that, 14 "if an intervenor's comments on the draft environmental statement raise a 'colorable alternative not presently considered therein' in a manner which brings 'sufficient attention to the issue to stimulate the Commission's consideration of it', the Commission must 'undertake its own preliminary investigation of the proffered alternative sufficient to reach a rational judgment whether it is worthy of detailed consideration in the' …

See id.

See id.

See Aeschliman v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 178 U.S.App.D.C. 325 , 547 F.2d 622 (1976).

See Aeschliman v. United States Nuclear Reg. Comm'n., 178 U.S. App. D.C. 325 , 547 F. 2d 622 , 627 (D.C.

See also Aeschliman v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 547 F.2d 622, 629 (D.C.Cir.1976). [N]o major federal project should be undertaken without intense consideration of other more ecologically sound courses of action, including shelving the whole project, or of accomplishing the same result by entirely different means. * * * [T]he congressional mandate to develop alternatives would be thwarted by ending the search for other possibilities at the first proposal w…