ML19330A245

Contentions Re Des,Stating That Costs of Proposed Federal Action Must Be co-extensive W/Benefits Analysis & That All Possible Alternatives Must Be Considered Per NEPA

ML19330A245
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	02/04/1972
From:	Roisman A ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007151031
Download: ML19330A245 (5)

Text

.- _ __ _ __.

e p , ~)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 4a .,

In the Matter of -

, ) 5LL'I s^ '

Docket Nos. '50-329)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY l --

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS WITH RESPECT TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT The_ Environmental Defense Fund, as indicated in its letter of December 10, 1971, is at this time concerned with two impor-tant legal principles in this proceeding, both of which relate to the proper scope of the Staff's Detailed Environmental Statement.

The two principles are:

1) ,The breadth and depth of analysis of the costs of the proposed federal action must be co-extensive with the breadth and depth of analysis of the benefits of the proposed federal action.

2) The obligation to examine alternatives contained in Section 102(2)(c) and (D) of NEPA requires a federal agency to consider all possible alternatives and is not limited by the agencies lack of direct 4ontrol over particular alternative proposals.

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUAUTY PAGES 8007161 g 7 0

(g , , _

c 9 .

In applying the first principle to the draf t environmental statement, it is clear that the draf t is in conflict with the stated principle. First, the staff presents a limited discussion of the issues geared toward demonstrating the wisdom of their decision. But the depth of review required by law obligates the Staff to reveal all re' levant data related to the matters discussed whether the data supports or opposes the Staff position. Thus, the final statement must include copies of all reports, studies and other documents consulted by the Staff in its analysis.

Every fact, every item of evidence uncovered by the Staff must be revealed by it as an essential part of its presentation.

The draf t is also deficient in its failure to include a co- ,

extensive breadth of review of costs and benefits. Off-site benefits such as generation of electricity are included but offsite costs.such as reprocessing plant radiation discharges and solid waste burial problems are not. Fuel supply problems associated with fossil plant alternatives are considered but fuel supply problems associated witn nuclear plants are not. Analysis of the

~

problems of fue1 supply requires comparisons of economic cost and availability of fuel as well as a comparison of the environmental and other costs associated with mining or producing and manu-facturing of the fuel. For instance, the Staff passingly refers to' plutonium fuel without discussing the environmental or health '

costs of sucn fuel. (p. 122) Availability of uranium is assumed without regard to the projected growth of demand for that fuel.

(p. 122) e - . em o so .

]  ;

With respect to the second legal principle, the Staff's analysis of alte'enatives is grossly deficient. The alternative of reducing demand is,not analyzed. Nor is there an analysis of the harm or benefit which will occur if the alleged need for electricity is not met. The Staff assumes that because money will be.made and jobs ~ created by the operation of the plant, this is a benefit which requires no further analysis. The same benefits would flow from operation of any industry. The real benefits depend upon the particular industry and the benefits flowing from the products produced by that industry. Moreover, the Staff does not analyze the alternative methods of operation l i

of the plant such as sharing electric output with electric coop- '

eratives or municipals who would then not need to create new generating sources and new transmission facilities.

We believe that these kgal principles and their application to this, plant are well-established by recent Court decisions -1/

and that this Board without the need for guidance from the Com-mission cai resolve them in the context of this proceeding If the Board shoul'd decide to pursue that course of action and assuming any party disagrees with our position, we will be glad to brief these matters on a reasonable time schedule which takes 1/- Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. AEC, 449 F 2d 1109

.(CADc, 19/1); tm DU v. Morton F 2d (CADC No. 71-2031 , decided January 14, 1972); Greene County Planning Board v. FPC, F 2d (CA 2nd, No. 71-1991, decided January l( 1972); Izaak Malton League v. Schlesinger, F.

Supp. (DCDC, Nos. 2207-2208-71 decided December 17, 1971).

e

1. w +=w iw +

• • m S suse m e w,e ge $mm e ,e _m -

4-

, q q account of the substantial time commitment of virtually all counsel as the result of the two AEC National Hearings. If, instead, the Board chooses to refer these matters to the Appeals Board with a recommendation that they be referred to the Commis-sion, we have no objection to resolution of these matters in that form. In order to further assist the Board and th( -arties, there follows a specific statement of our contentions with respect to draft environmental statement:

1) The Staff analysis of the environmental impact of the Midland Nuclear Power Plant must include an analysis of the environmental and ether impact of the mining and processing of fuel for this plant, reprocessing of fuel for this plant and transportation and ultimate disposal of the~ radioactive wastes from this plant (ncluding disposal of the plant and site) for the full forty years projected life of the plant.

Et The Staff analysis of the alternatives to the Midland Nuclear Power Plant must include a full analysis of ways to reduce electric demand, of the benefits or costs

~

of not meeting the electric demand, of the development of new alternate methods for meeting electric demand, of alternate methods of sharing the electric output from this plant to reduce the need for other electric generating facilities, and of alternate methods for the distribution gemes e+4p,=- .

g

• eg we =a w_ _ - --mm,**e> > ' ** howe m

C) .

. 0 r of electric power including improved interties, greater use of interruptible loads, rate structures which discourage wasteful electric consumption, etc.

Respectfully submitted, Anthony Z. Roisman Counsel for Environmental Defense Fund t

February 4,.1972 e

"@D e- e owe

-mm.

..