ML19331A749
| ML19331A749 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1973 |
| From: | Vogel H MAPLETON INTERVENORS, VOGEL, H.J. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007210755 | |
| Download: ML19331A749 (7) | |
Text
/
(*
1*
UNITED.JTATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AtID LICENSING APPEALS EJARD In the matter of
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPAdY
)
Dockcts Nos. 50-320
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
EXCEPTIOf!S OF MAPLETON INTERVENORS 70 INITIAL DECISION OF T!!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD On December 14, 1972 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its Initial Decision in the above captioned matte'.
The r
residents of Mapleton which have intervened in this matter and participated throughout hereby register exceptions to that Initial Decision as more fully set forth belon.
~. _ -
RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH AND SAFETY 1.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereinafter called Board) has failed to consider the " standard features of the plant" notwithstanding the fact that this is the first commercial nuclear power plant to be proposed for construction in a populated area.
(Initial Decision til).
2.
The Board found that the " residential.opulation within the [ low population] zone is well within acceptable limits."
(Initial Jecision 116). This finding is made by the Boara without any reference to the criteria applied by the Board to determine what Itmits are acceptable nor with any reference to the justification for the devolop-ment and application of these criteria.
^
/
10 ff C
3.
The Board found that data as to the site meteorology was incomp'.ete (Initial Decision't:3). This finding is s aperted by che testimony of Mapletcn's wl:nees:..
(Tr.
l-r-
~,
Maplet n intervenors t'ahe a:ccar t.r.1 to the 2:ald';.:; - -. ;; t a :' tha' a construction permit may issue pricr to tne ; rplet.
of tha meteorlogical data ano ina h m s re;uired ';
, Jtaff.
' Ini ;1al.
c Decid LOn ' $ 23).
E:1ERGE:!CY CORE COOLING SYSTEM 4.
E:cception is taken to the Board's fallare to
.n s n'.e r the validity of the Interin Acceptance Criteria which are now being 4
litigated in the national ECCS. caring (Docket Sc. ki-l '- l >.
(Initial
~ Decision 541).
The Board notes that Applicant wil' oe "tound to ccmply
~ '
with any changes in criteria which may be acopted as a r4sult of the
- national hearing."
(Initial Decision 142).
Until such time as the national hearing has been completed and changes in criteria have ueen applied to the proposed plant herein, no conclusion can be made as to whether or not such changes will be feasible and sufficient for protection of environmental health and safety in the vicinity of tne plant.
Therefore, no construction license should issue until such
- time as the national hearing has been completed.
i ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 5.
Exception is taken to the Board's interpretation of the
- Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as required pursuant td the National Environ-mental Policy Act of 1969.
The Board finds that the judgment has been.
=
made that " atomic energy must be used for produ::iin of electricity and thtre is notnino in t.e National Environment H, s i c 3.c t anic:.
- i. ar?
I cverricce :h:t J J % :": n t'.
? !na t: a i Dec1.i.on '
- he Tcar/ fnis :s :3.6 in:c c r.:ideracia; th t-r % u. r u.: Of :ne National Envirar;;.er. ai Pclici Act cf 1963 142 :.S.C.
.ectaca 4321 e.
seq.' ti.a t '.11 pci :le2 and reyu.nions id:pte "u m. 2.9 :
the
.Atomi< Energy Act cf '954 '42 c.
.C.
Secti n 20'i
.s t se !. ; r.u s t "to the fullest extent possible" be interpreted and 9dm:n13:erei in accordance with the policies set forth in the National Environmental
?clicy Act.
(Maple cn's Proposed Cerclusicas a.
tad 2;.
6.
Exceptior is takan :- the Board's rinding tha-the " re.;u;re-ments of Section 102 (2) fC) and (0) of the ' ational En"ir;rment-al Policy Act and Appendix B of 19 CFR 50 ha"e been corplied wit n in this
~
proceeding;" (Initial Decision !81).
Mor. specifically. exception is taken to all findings on Environmental Issues (Initial Decision st43-
- 79) as not being in.fulfillmen.t of those duties required by the Board and the Atomic Energy Commission in its planning and decision-making process in connection with the proposed Midl...ad. Plant, i: nits 1 and 2.
These duties are set forth in Mapleton's proposed conclusions of law TQ2 through 4.
To-wit:
2.
The purpose of the Atomic Energ, Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
Sections 2011 et seq.)
a.
The development,.use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to mak the maximum contribution to the general welfare...
a.3 all policies and regulations adopted pursuant to this Act must "to the fullest extent possible" be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in National Environtrenta.'.
Policy Act.
The planning and decision-making of the Atomic Energy Commission in connection with the proposed Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, have an. impact on man's environment within the contemplation of Section 132 of NEPA, therefore to insure that the policies - f :: EPA are carried out the'followinc s:eps. inst Le performed:
a.
An interdisciplinary anal'; sis 2f the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, proposal s.ich includes the resources and analytical methods of the (1) natural sciences, (2) social sciences.and (3) enviro-mental design orts aust ce employed.
b.
The cost-bclefit formula used by the Atomic Energy Commission in its planning and decis.on-making process on the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, proposal must (1) include criteria which permit quantification of environmental amenities and values hitherto unquantified, for inclusion in this cost-benefit formula, and (2) to tno extent that unquantified environmental valuec and amenities cannot be quantified consider; tion must be given to the abandonm.ent of the cost-benefit formula, with substitution of a formula /
approach which does adequately provide for the appropriate consideration of the environmental values and amenities here involved.
3.
The unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of environmental values, amenities and resources involved in the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, proposal require the study, development and description af appropriate alternatives to the basic course of action including the alternative of total abandonment of the project.
4.
The Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, proposal constitutes
" major Federal action" within the contemplation of Section 102 (c) of NEPA.
Therefore in addition to those matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs a detailed statement by a responsible official must be made which includes the following additional analysis:
a.
The Environmental impact of the proposed acticn.
b.
Any adverse environmental effects which cannot-be avoided should the proposal be implamented.
c.
Alternatives to the proposed action.
d.
The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and e.
Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
i
_4_
Prior to making the foregoing statement the responsible official is required ta consult and obtain connents of Federal, State, and
_ _ local age.ncies as well as members of tae general public, and suca comments rust the proposal througn the aserey accompan*,
review process.
7.
Exception is taken tc the Board's conclusion that the
" appropriate action to be taken" under Append 1; D,
10 CF.; 50 is te authorize issuance of the constraition permit.
(Initial Decision-T81.(2)).
The-Initial Decision is devoid of any finding which indicates that the proposed construction will have a long-tero social benefit that outweighs long-term environmental cost as deternined oy the analytical procedure required under the National Environmental Pclicy
'Act and the Atomic Energy Act as interpreted pursuan_t to *.he Na:ianal Environmental Policy Act.
The Initial Decision ad. nits an?._assunes inat there are long-term genetic effects and cumulative ef fect.s that can he-expected as a result of the relea'e of radioactivity in the " normal" s
operation and from the " possibility of accidents" of the :lidland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
(Initial Decision 573).
To the extent that it might be assumed the Board performed a balancing of long-term environmental costs against long-term benefits (Initial Decision !!73 and 74).
no criteria other than a " reasonable scale" was used for tht-evaluation of low level radiation' effects.
No justification exists within the Initial Decision of.the Board for the development of the " reasonable scale" criteria, nor is there any definiti n of that criteria, nor is there any justification for the application of this criteria to the proposed Midland Plant.
By contrast, the testimony of Mapleton's witnesses (Tr. 8248-8291, 8360-8487)/that knowledge must be de ; eloped indicates on the ef f 7ct of lcw-level. radiation to dcternine tne.rpact of this proposed.iant upon the er.vironmental health anc welt tra of
- c. a :trea surrounding the proposal site.
8.
Exception 19 taken tc Cie Board's failure t.
ccr.. ;u.:r ::
propriet2 of the uses to be nade of the electric-f w.:: - ma" Se aenerated by the prope:ed plan *.
'!niti:1 a ri s icn 4 3 r
^ t? f: 'uro 1,
ir violation of the :Jational Environmental Policy Act c emnuider trA impact of this operation in te;ms of ita effect ugor t a:- allaca: ten of all natural resources and the uses to which thcac rascurce.= ar designatec.
Specifically, no constructial permit may issue unti-snen time a.:.ar analysis of the alternatives is performed which incl'{ des tota: aba ndcnr.;ent '
of the project, use of uraniun resources for other purccses,. ;c ne ra '. i c n of electrical power throuch other means, reductiun fos s il fael con- -
ts..iinan ts, and reduction of pollution ena;.c. ting from the Dow cpcEation.4
~
in the Midland area.
9.
Exception is taken to the finding of the 30ard that snergisn does not represent a1 environmental threat in this matter.
Testimony of Mapleton's wo.nesses (Tr. 8243-8291, 8360-3487, 8437-8517) indicates that insufficient analysis has been made of this grcblem.
Fu ther exception on'the subject of synergism is taken to the Board'r failure to give any evidenciary weight to the testimony submitted by Dr. Charles W.
!!Lver and the Board's refusal to hear additional evidence from Mapleton's scientific experts on this subject.,
k_
1n.
a Xw e-4 e n.
.i s..*,a... o. u.. a.
- t..a.i e. n.c
,:. u. a.
- nnv -..A
. u. a.
r..w
-a..
v.
- s... u.,,.. n:
.c,,;,
, -,2
,,,, t....; ; a.-
- u,.... :....... e, ; a.,,
,r.
. a_
2,a.
a
.u..
- . ai-
. ~~
g.,,
. u.. g. z.....,e
.a.
- a.,:.z
..u.,.
a:c=-.;
..a
..2..
a.
g a,aa-r...
- ...m.
- m. e a...
w....g.
..=..a.
. u.
_m..,..
. c.. =.....a..,.,.,. ~-
. ~...
z
,..a....
.... w. ~.
- =,,.
.a
..,.c..=
~... u. g
.n....,.
-, a.
v.,,
..a
..._ ~..
.a.
- a....
.o ex e-. ion.is *.aken..#.-.-
..'.a..o a. d ' s
.#.=.; i..- a.
~y ~.
e..
Mac. leton's.cro osed conclusiens of law 1-5.
y
SUMMARY
."e abo".e ex c^*i'.~.
a.e
- .i.' e c "a.*_".o ".*
.-a,u c.a.
.-'..2.
2 i
-.-.4.^..-
e v
e c ".. e....' -f c
.e.nce
"-:".Ma
.'e.w^.. I.. a r. e..o s.'....".e-U..i.o.' _=e.=.a.a-d e
s C.- " - ~
.'o.-..". e a s.e. *. 7 D.i s...i c ~. o.#.v..i c.h.i a n,.".^-.-. '.e.-. 3 ".. :- ;....,..."..' _
e A- *. i o..". "_-b e.- 3 2 0 2.4.. whi-5.he.v = y 1 e *.c.. '...e -. e.... s a '.' a.. e
. ~ =.... a.
w entire proceeding is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Ace.
.co.
.ea;lu,.,e.o e.e. n rm d.a. ; e s. e n.a.,. e. u..ame-
.u.a ac.
..., <.,-. a.a.-.
s y
e
-_e of plaintiffs therein is herewith incorporated bv. reference as a further bas.is
.'o exceptio..
- .n
- b. e.i s.e. " a. ~ e ^ #.
m= m e.. 3..- - *. 4 +.
e.-....'. 4.. ". e v.
above captioned matter.
No election of renedies is made nor inplied by virtue of Mapleton Intervenors filing of these exceptions.
All corres-
- e.,. d e.. e. e.ee l a ~. 4.m.n s.u.e s e e X e y- +..; u n s u
AA-a se
.e 11.4..:-.
os.o we avu.esee-.o
.u.a.
m m
ev ou KNITTLE & VOGEL - Lawv.ers, 914.rlour Exchanc.e Su idinc., M : nr.ea co ll s,
..innesota - 33*.A3.
y
.,e s e c. s.,1 1,. u..u 4
.e-,
a r
-~~...
A.g...~.
..OG L q$
N n..
~
e,,.3 /f 73 w
acwdre J. voge'
/
n.. n..,.e.. s
- c. o.e
.T a.
e v n.. e.e ye.~n s
s c.1,e
.r.i m... rxe,~..e-a,
^
. A.4.,.g
.v..i a..e = ":c.'.4.e,
.M.i -.e s v-a.. c.,' ' 3
.u Telephone:
612-333-3*51