ML19241B020

Brief by Intervenor D Marrack in Support of Marrack Contentions 2-4 & 6.Alternative Sites Not Adequately Discussed & Secondary Impacts of Plant Not Examined. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19241B020
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/24/1979
From:	Marrack D MARRACK, D.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7907110558
Download: ML19241B020 (8)

Text

, - W QE 'O

. u

!, CLEAR DESUL,i M U, b 3M J g g>

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A'!D LICENSIt!G 00ARD to g"> Tg c 3

@NN In the !atter of '

O

/Q

)

HOUST0tl LIGHTIf;G & P0h'ER COMPAliY ) Docket tlo. 50-466

)

May 24,1979 (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating ,) (7 pages)

Brief in Support of Intervenor's Contentions D. Marrack (Intervenor) submits the following in support of his contentions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6.

2. Contention: That neither the original FES nor the Final Supplement addre 4 the r ect of the power lines (b) on the human, wildlife and biological systems and (c) on migratory water 10wl.

Discussion: In the FES and Final Supplement, substantial detail exists concerning the site's environment. However, no reference to the impact of the transmission lines upon biological communities can be found. Additionally, no discussion (inventory) of waterfowl usage across the proposed corridor routes can be found. In particular, sections S.4.1.4. and S.S.l.2 dis cus r. the route of trsnsmission lines only with respect to land use impacts. No mention is made of the fact that Route 2C (the preferred alternative) crosses a major waterfowl wintering area. Acreage estimates of production lost do not begin to describe the impact of a linear land use directly across a high usage waterfowl corridor nor is any discussion offered concerning the impacts of low level non-iodizing radiation on farm workers or wil 1 e.

Of the two, however, the omission of informa tion concerning migratory waterfowl is the most flagrant and the most noticeable. First, no data is offered concerning the waterfowl usage of the prairie area s east of the Brazos River roughly ru .ning fi cm Brookshire to Fulsheer to (iodine to Katy. This aren experiences substantial usage by miEratory ducks and geese in winter and is a critical migratory wildfcwl wintering rescurce, yet no mention of this critical fact appears in either documen,t.

790" WE IV '

. ~

One cannot choose ruas inble alternative routes without such information.

Secon_d , as indicated in the recent case of Public Service Co. of N.H. v. NRC. 12 ERC 1561 (1st Circuit, 1978) the JRC has asserted that transmission lines are clearly within their jurisdiction and that the impact of transmission lines are substantial enough for the NRC to assume jurisdiction over these land uses from the state PUC (New Hamp-shire) and to order route chtuEes to miticate environmental impact.

That transmission lines have an impact upon migratory waterfowl is clear

~

(See Avery,1978, Fish and Wildlife Service; Scott et al, 1972; Anderson, S.H., 1979; Andersen,W.L. ,1978f Wilson Eulletin,1971; Stout and Cornwell, 1976). However, the essence of this contention is that neither the original EIS nor the Supplemental EIS contain sufficient inforulation to identify this impac L and there is certainl; no consideration to alterna-tives to mitigate this impact. Given the NRC's own position in Public Service Co. of U.H., I contend that this position violates the NRC 's own mitigation policy, not to mention Sections 102 (2)(c)(II)(llI) of the National Environmental Policy Act. jI / p

3. Contention: Secondary impacts of the Allen Creek Power Plant have not been presented.

Discussion: Secondary impacts relate to the chenged investment patterns and subsecuent land use changes occasioned by larEe scale infrastructure items (See CEQ, 1976). There secondary impacts are well known ac a generic impact type, substantially different from direct and consec.uential impacts ensuing from the land use being analyzed. Current CEQ guidelines for EIS preparation emphasize secondary environmental effects and they have been the basis for the Department of Transportation being ordered to reroute portions of Interstate 10 through :'ilssissippi

_3_

1976). The extent tc which environmental effects of secondary impects m o ;, be avoided dopends upon the cxtent to v.hich olternstives generate secondary impacts spa tially different than those ensuing from the pro-posed action (i.e. with respect to arricultural productivity, flooding and draineFe and water supply). However, in both the EIS and Supplement, no considera tion is given to these imoscts at all. This violates the full disclosure mandate of UEPA and should be addressed in a procedurally correct EIS.

4. Contention: Alternative sites have not been adecuately addressed.

Discussion: One of the most important espects of the I!ational Envir-onmental Policy Act was the requirement that alternatives be entlyzed in respect to environmental impact (Section 102(2)(C)(iii)). Further amplification of this requirement is found in bection 102 (2)(D) which expands upon the general requirements of Section 102 (2)(C)(iii).

The considera tion of alterna tives to the proposed site of the Allens Creek Power Plant aopears auite sparse and [ightly conclusionary.

.-[. Initially, it is important to note that in the supplemental discussion of the South Texas Project (STP) alternative, no mention is mede of the impact of transmission lines upon migrotory waterfowl. Because the STP line is in olace at this time, the impact upon mi tra tory wa terfowl has already occurred. Secondly, the power line route through the STP line's most sensitive areas,in terms of wildfowl ecology,(Perry Ranch) lies within forests, thereby offering a contextual break for waterfowl.

However, since no impact ny. migratory waterfowl was noted initially, (See Contention 2) it is impossible for this factor to have been included in the Supplement's discussion. Thirdly, alternative grid connections frcm the STP site to the H.L.& P. gric were not considered at all.

312 019

_s _

Fourth, the construction impact associated with the Allena Creek plant 1

could be absent in the STP site heceuse this impact and subsequent land use chanFe has already occurred.

)) , the Trinity River Besin site should be treated in the same, if not greater, detail than that accorded to the STP site in the Supple-mental EIS. As admitted in the EIS (p. 9.3), *his site was rejected on the basis of current rather than future power networks and loads, and the water supply issue appears on its face inadequate. More importantly, the statement on p. 9-2 stating the applicant did not consider a Trinity River site, yet indicating an acceptable populetion density for a nuclear power plant begs the issue of the Trinity Basin as e potential site.

The statement appears on p. 9-5 (Section 9.1.2.1.4) asserting that only two reasonable alternatives exist to the Allens Creek plant and the Trinity River site is not among the two. How this conclusion was derived is unclear and appears to utilize questionable logic. This flawed reasoning was not corrected in the Supplement and should be addressed in detail prior to a final decision being made, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was aware of this deficiency a, a result of the Public Hearing of March 1975.

O Third, alternative transmission line routes that avoid the imonet upon waterfowl should be considered as alternatives vithin the proposed Allens Creek plant. It has long been known that various levels of al te rna tive s exist to any proposed action. The possibility exists that transmission line impact upon migratory waterfowl could be minimized (mitigated) by following the Brazos River to the South of site, then turning East and then North to the O'Brien substation. Of course, due to the absence of impact data (See Contention 2), and full disclosure, no need for such an alternative was identified. However, given the NRC's position with respect to power line routes and their mitigation pot (ntial

-S-(See PUC of N.H. v. NEC, sunra), and the impact of the current alterna-tive upon the migratory wa terfowl using the prairie, HL&P should be required to present data and alterna tive routes to minimize the impact of the Allens Creek transmission line upon migratory waterfowl.

Fourth, additional data on alternatives was required of HL&P by the NRC ln order to meet the requirements of various court and administ-rative decisions. Until this data is included within an EIS and distri-buted, it is impossible to understand how UEPA ccmoliance can be asserted.

(

6. Contention: Discrepancies and inconsistencies exist between the FEIS and Supplement and these documents should be developed into a single EIS to be distributed and commented upon prior to a hearing being undertaken on the license application. This situation is further exacer-bated by the NRC staff's questions of February 5,1979, and the new procosal and data in the anplicant's letter of May 17th (AC4HL-AE- 302)

"Allens Creek Nuclear Genera tion Station Reactor Pressure Vessel Off-Loading Facility" with impacts on the San Bernard R4.ver. This additional NRC-requested information, the Applicant's letter and statement of May 17,1979, the Supplement and the original " Final" EIS must all be combined into a single cogent document to satisfy the full-disclosure requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

312, 021 Discussion: The procedure followed to date in the preparation and dissemination of NEPA-required information makes a mockery of the Nation-al Environmental Policy Act. UEPA requires an " action-forcing" document containing cogent and readable information to inform a lay person of the impacts cf n pronoced action upon the environment. At this time, the impact statement of the Allens Creek Power Plant consists of several

- *e * -e --t ow o +n n . - , or t r 11 (See Contention 2),

cortnin alterna tives in some detail yet cor. parable al ternatives in limited detail (See Contention 4 ) and other alternati ves in Ereat detail wi shout this documenta tion ever being publicly distcibuted (NRC Staff questions).

Ylhat has been prepared is not an Environmental Impact Statement required by UEPA. The assorted documents are a blatant attempt to avoid environmental full-disclosure and to deny the public a coEent description of the impact of the facility and reasonable alternatives upon the .

environment.

The e:.sence of this con *.ention is that these proceciings circumvent NEPA and its procedural requirements. Furth'r, the applican' ' ta t ed thic situation by their actions and the proceedings can come into NEPA comoliance only by a compilation in a single statement of the assorted documents that are currently being distributed, prepared and acted upon.

Only in this way can the legal recuirement of the U.S. Courts be met in this matter.

g , w" . _ a ,

D. Marrack, Intervenor Z 4$ '/~/ay ?? /-

j u a. A/'

ff./(^a.'veu7 7' 4c' / ~

312 022

EEFERENCES

1. Avery,M.L.. 1978. " Impacts of Transmission Lines on Birds in Flight." FWS/ OES-78/48. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Dept.

of Interior, Washington,D.C.

2i Scott,R.E. et al,1972 " Bird Deaths from PowerLfnesat Dungeness." British Birds, 63, No.7, July, p.273.

3. Anderson, S.H.,1979. " Changes in Forest Bird Species Composition caused by Transmission Lines Corridor Cuts. American Birds,33, No.1, Ja , p.3.

4. Anderson, W.L. , 1978. " Waterfowl Collisions with Power Lines at a Coal-Fired Power Plant." Wildlife Soc. Bull.,6, No.2, p.77.

5. Cornwall, G., Hochbaum, H.A., 1971. " Collisions with Wires - A Source of Anatid "ortality. The Wilson Bull.,83, No .3, Sep t. ,

p. 305.

6. Stout, J., Cornwall, G.W., 1776. "Non-Hunting Mortality of Fledged North American Waterfowl." J. Wildl. Manage., 46, No.4, p.681.

312 023

4 J. S. t.'

.'C-CCC.'~ 'I O.' ? ' -

C .

CC.

...-.l C:. e .e . .'ics Pestm rk 0 a _[!S7 cca a . L_

w -

a3 Spe:.a. u.. .:

312 024

Copies of the document "Satef in Suppo*t of In ce *venor 's Contentions,"

D. Ma--ack (Inte-venor) 24 May,79 have been sent to the following pe-sons:

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.

I Dr. E. Leona*d Chea tum i,[f Mr. Gustave A. Linenbergea '

Mr. L. Newman g@ey$

Chase R. Stephens (f.,

Richard Lowerte, Esq.  ; %Ng y A:

-3 Steve Sohinki, Esq. -

Dgg( 7a w#$ >

Robert S. Framson @ g, de +" ' '

Ca*vo Hinderstein Kath-yn Hooker ti 3*enda McCorkle co Wayne E. Pentf-o -

, j, c-

~

James Scott, Je. , .a 9