ML19331B214

Notice of Appeal from Aslab 720719 Order Denying AEC Certification of ASLB 720310 Order & Affirming ASLB 720310 Order.Aec Should Subordinate Promotional Role to Regulatory Responsibility.Certification of Svc Encl

ML19331B214
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	08/09/1972
From:	Ginster W, Like I MAPLETON INTERVENORS, REILLY & LIKE
To:
References
NUDOCS 8007280803
Download: ML19331B214 (5)

Text

'

I NUMBER 2800. & UTIL. FAO, N 3 Al[#

1 Y THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION POOR QUAUTY PAGES

__________________________________________x In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos.-

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) 50-329 50-330

---

x NOTICE OF APPEAL OF MAPLETON INTERVENORS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD DATED JULY 19, 1972 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Mapleton Intervenors here-by appeals from the order of the Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board dated July 19, 1972

'g'~ g 1) denying certification to the Commission of the 0

4 order of the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 80CKETE8 k # , dated March 10, 1972; O AUG11197 m __

U 8'f'ti w me smevr

'2

2) af51rming the order of the Atomic Safety &

reue me.,og, men C) Licensing Board dated March 10, 1972.

Cn I.

. . The Commission's involvement'in each step of the nuclear fuel cycle, to wit, the successive processes of mining, milling, refining, enrichment, conversion fabri-soonso PP 3 g

' ' ~

2.

. cation, irradiation and reprocessing - constitutes r major federal action significantly. affecting the quality of the Sec.

human environment (National Environmental Policy Act, 102(2)(c), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)~ ) '. .

The Appeal Board's decision is based on the premise that the environmental impact of some aspects of the fuel cycle need not be investigated and that evidence concerning such impact is too remote, general, and unrelated to a re-actor licensing project, and.need not be received.

The decision alleges:, .

"There is no way in which one can now even

- tentatively identify over the prospective

' life of the proposed installation spanning -

perhaps four decades, the specific mines, mills, refining and conversion plants, and fabrication facilities which will from time to time be involved in furnishing the fuel s

for these reactors." (12) .

It is difficult t'o assign any credibility to this

• l ,

I i

' pessimistic undervaluation of the AEC Staff's capability of making predictive judgments - particularly when the i

Staff does, in its environmental impact statements and testi-

- many, predict l

l a) what the economic and environmental cost of decommissioning the nuclear reactor will be 30

• years from now; i

l

-,- ,-m,--, - , --, g .-, - , . -

, , ,, n a,,,-- w ,e

3.

b) what the comparative prices of nuclear and fossil fuels will be over the next quarter century.

• The latter predictions also involve present and future operations of more than one industry, " including complex and perhaps unidentifiable operations performed by unidentifiable persons at unidentifiable locations under unidentifiable conditions." (12)

Why, for example, does Staff choose to investi-gate and offer evidence on Ehe comparative future cost of fuels, but not the cost of high level storage of wastes. The contradiction in the conception of Staff's duty could be resolved by the explanation that evidence which seemingly favors nuclear power plants in'the cost- 8 benefit balance is eagerly sought,out, but discrediting evidence is suppressed as too remote.

II.

The decision of the Appeals Board leaves one with the firm impression that the Commission, despite protes-

,tations to .the contrary, may still not be ready to subor-e G

9

4. -

dinate its promotional role to its regulatory responsi-bility. .

It should be reversed. .

Dated: August 9, 1972. Respect ully submitted WILLIAM J. GINSTER, ESQ.

IRVING LIKE, ESQ.

by:

- Irving Like Attorneys for Mapleton Intervenors e

I 0

e e

n .

4 4

e 6

0

,_ , ,_ _ , _ _ m,_ _

00Cr .0MBER .

PROD. & UTIL. EAC.

CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of the foregoing docum'ent was mailed August 9,, 1972, postage p, repaid and properly addressed, to the members of the Atomic Safety and Licen-sing Board, the Secretary of the Commission, and all counsel of record.

Irving Like -

Attorney for Mapleton Intervenors e B 9

I 9

9 9

L e

.t O e e

e

,, a, ,a -

- - - - - , . - -