ML19329F253

Memorandum in Support of Motion of Environ Defense Fund Inc & Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group for Determination of Environ Issues.Motion Should Be Granted to Enable ASLB to Resolve Nonradiological Environ Issues

ML19329F253
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	03/03/1971
From:	Cherry M, Roisman A BERLIN, ROISMAN, KESSLER & CASHDAN, CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, Saginaw Intervenor, Sierra Club
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19329F248	List: ML19329F247 ML19329F253
References
NUDOCS 8006230771
Download: ML19329F253 (10)

Text

.

6 ,v.

-> =

lit:F o l: : Tiit:

UNITED STATUS OF ABIERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the matter of )

)

CONSUML'RS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-330

)

)

) -

MEMORANDU:1 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.

AND SAGINAW VALLEY NUCLEAR STUDY GROUP, ET AL.

_ FOR DETERMINATION OF ENVIRON:1 ENTAL ISSUES The motion now before the Board seeks a decision by the Board that the environmental inpact of this plant may be fully explored in this proceeding as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

At issue is the legal validity of those portions of Appendix D of 10 CFR, Part 50 which exclude environmental issues from this hearing and even if such isnucs were before the Board, exclude examination of certain facts and evidence relevant to those issues.

The questiom for decision by this Board are:

1) Does the Board ha've the authority to revein the valid.i ty of Appendix D of 10 CFR, Part 50?*

2) If so, what parts if any of Appendix D are invalid?

l The answer to the first question depends upon the meaning of the AEC's l l

Memorandum in the !!atter of Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (Calvert l Clif fs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) (hereinaf ter Calvert Cliffs Incorporated herein by reference ir. pagcc 2-5 of certain Inter-venorn' Iice:orandun in Support of their Decenbcr 1, 1970 lictions and in Oppos.i tion to Briefs Filed Dy Applicant and Intervenor Dow Chen:3 '

' Upany on December 15, 1970 (Filed January ll, 1971).

8006'230 7 7 /

.i ,i 2

S'enor,ndun. a enoy of which is attachcJ) where the Commiscion not forth the scopo of ravie .' of an ABC regulation by an Atomic Safety and I. icon ;ing ~1oard. The ann"cr to the second question depends upon an analvnin of thn requirementn of the National Environmental Policy

?.ct an n'aplied to the AEC. The rolovant arqunontn have been pro-scuted in the brief for Petitionern in thc: caso of Galvert Cliffn Coor<linatinn Committoo v. 1EC (CA D.C. Mo. 24, f:71) now pending before t'io Unite' States Court of ?pocals ;for the District of Columbia 1/ .

C3.rcui t . ~ Pather than roitoretc those argunents here a copy of that brief in attacho1 to thic nemor'.nduc and incorporated boroin by reference.

Turn.ing then to tha. First 08:0Ghion and the Calvert Cliffs "onorandr it arneart: nui!.c c3 car th..t the Board has the pouer to reviott At'uond3:c D on the crounds raised here. The Calvott Cliffs "emorandia arone as the renuit of a statenant contained in the Initial no<:Ision for 3::nuanca of a constrtiction pernit. In that statement the i

Board rt::mrho4 that "hnre evidenco is produced at a hearing which draw::

into 'Tuo3 tion the valility of Part 70, the board "might not be able to rnly tr>nn [that Part] an entatalichinn the outer linit of ac cotabln rink."

1/

~ The nondency of that caw should not inhibit thin Board's do inion. ho decininn of the Court of Apocain will of course control th3 n, an wall an a31 other AEC procccMings concluded on ne a f ter Janinry .1, 197rl (when the National Environnental Policy .

Act bec ima of fe-t 3 vre) . . nut this ' oar 7. can avoid the delay in-herant in waiH!m "m that decinion by reaching its own judgnent and allowinej tho wi r';im horn to orncoed to act on tha,t judnnent.

~

J

' .\

. o 1

'ihe Co r.tir ;l.en re:t winde.' hv indientinq t.hnt the Part 20

<:tandnr@. ~ ar' ne'noral rulon an:'. not :m's ject to n icndnont on a enno 5,v caro ':n :in 'm.r,qd irv n the. nyide nco pro .'ucot' .

n*. n hearing.

(Calve h t'11 *Cn "*.c armu'*ri, n. 3} In chort, the 30ard enn not freo

• o nubt:',itute itn Judene".t for that of' the N'C on the factuni cuentio" n' the a ?n,ttncy nC Pnrh 2/

2 5 ~ Cet.! ntendnr?n.~ -

Hoinver, tho' .Y'c m.>9ei rical.ly acknoifioc rred that the Board.

inesn have '.he authnr3 Sy te challonqo the val.idity of a com ninnion re's:ulation on (Calvert. Cli f fe "cr.oranr'un, p. 3) : i linited groun1n, 1" the centento.! rogulation relaton to an innue in t'ta rrnecc'ine.r. By limited grounda 'ro nean,

'ahother the r qt'intion inn .rithin the Corninsion's authority;

'-thother it un, nro:ulnnte.-' in ac crdance with applic.,bic procedural re n.i$ r .;' ntn ; and , no ronnects the Com.115:ninn 's radioinnient ';afe'- ' rh?nt'arIn, whc%her the ntandar?n er.tnb-linho:' a :c n "canonable e::orcice of the brone' lincretion given to the Conrtinnion by the Atomic 7'ncrny T ct for inplcpentation -

o f tho shntuto' radiol.ogical safety objectivra."

Thin standar1 of revin:r clonrly inc3nien the challengo to Apponfi:e D nou hofora the P. carl. 'Thr. ce,nrenco of that~ challenne in that the

'intional "nvintn'urtn) Prlie'r Act 3) requiron tho ?r.C to inclu'o ,

4*

- nn nidera tio:t o f 0;-"t rer.n n *:' ? itnuen in n.11 of ite hocringa where the i:,i t.i n t

o ri sion (i.e. tha mnier foe'orni ection) doen not occur unti?

2/ '

TSc orc i eir.n ncn o of ; hi,: 31rii>:c. tion in not at innuo here but 3 t - rott .d anne t - t o a.:? no1 7.e ?rro th :: wh.'ro , nr.: o gcu'rni matter, s't'vt tanC '.a.1 cv i 'r.a .'". ' enq not eml et 10 nuttein the Part 20 ntandar ht th a ' ho Po trd riny not anife tho,.o sta vlar 'r. and apply nore nti!.r.cjant n' m 'ar?:.

4 8

1. a.h. P*h=u- e 4

. after.Tanutry 1, 1979, a'r'  ?) rcc;uiren the AMC to nonalt evid.cnc'.*

to be intrnduced at t'ione hoarinon on all cocniblo adverse environ-nontal of fectn of thn p.lont rarrardlenn of that ctato, recional or fe 1cral crviren-icntal ntendar19 nro ret by the nlant. In short the AEC tia.n 'tithout attthor.! Sy to reg' tire it' Annandin D that connidoratinn ei environ'cital icnucc not c,ccur et any hearing noticed beforo

" arch *, '

971 and that c"o!' n Fter t' arch i, 1971, an Tstonic Safety an! Licencinc Donre: in nr9:ibito 1 fror rocciving evidence on any ativorno env.tronmental innnet if the a-1verne inpact relatcc to an innnet of the nJant thich han heen cortified as coming within any ennlicable stato, rretional. or federal environ- ental standard or requiro*cnt.

The concout tbnt the Board can hold invalid a Comraisnian ,

regulation which or.cocon tc Corainnion 'n authority (an exprosnod in the Calvart Clifin "oaarandu1) in co".parob]c to the ucuni standarf of r^vi ew air:li c ' by the Cour'.s in <'.eternininc ..'hether federal acency action in v? tid. '

Oc? for inntanca Sectionc 10(c) (2) (F) and (C) .

of the 7. '.nitt ! ntra tive Prococ'ure 7 0t ( 9 ;7..t . C . Sectionn 706(?) (A) an1 (C)) '.thich re nitra a rnviewinn court. to hold uninwful and set

., nile nac u:' nction Co ine' to Sc:

. (7.) at:bi.trarv, c 9r cf.cnn, an abur:n of iiscretion, 8

or n' her vic^ no' ir accordance wi th im*;

• 1.- 0 1 O

4 4

.o

, o (r'} i t. r " e** n-

. : d ;,1 * ' t ' i - * *: . ; *- I, * ; .l i e: f . *,r" . , n*26 ' 10 * ***, ." t*/ ,

ry3-  ! * . 4- i r ;. :, r.. a l gr).r *- n' e '.cs ? s,t : n;," r r . * ? h t. , .

., 3

.J./

% . e.v.1v ,. ... ..

.. M n! Q myf y y in .m ,snn: {r.r thn ynn c tnr.&o: ' ,

.r . n ca. :- + .. * , . . . . , . . . r ,. i . t,

• o e t . <, : r* q o ,* ( .' ti f 7 )

. .. . . f 4. !. c...

(*0 tP. ~ '.. o b c. D *.- .'O. .**

.. :,,3 {. .e' t1 c. r ~ 1. . . ., , -

• r $ e. l .m. 9 e ,q rg, x4 , . r. ;y.o r;,1',-} r.c h +.o r- n:: t d n f n 5 , p.t-n ,

., , g

. s r,

.e. t.2, .

.).-, ..- ., .. , . . .- . , . ..~ , .. .o. .* r.'i.g e' .l..*~.'..'. t.* ' t$ r.i r. '>' ". .' 1 ". '-. '. i n. . ." n -

3 - * . c, ",,. .

. > . . 4. ,.,,. 4..j c.., .

.. .. . . . _ . ..s..... . . . .,..p.. v. .., ..s. .... ,...,. _ 1. _y_....s..., 4 4. n. .. _., . .r;

_ e.._ ..,.

3. e r . , .

e ,7 .  ?- t o .9 , i n; . e r. n s * , J o .e ) .

pir,;.~ >

-) ,r?-

'r. C__n_n.n. -' M . 2"

$ 1, l / j > .* - (ep .

n j .) . ' r- Src,

". . 'Ir) ' r '._<, ..; ..' . . . ' r . , . 2 fi o ".

,~)d

- ;- ( ,. , .y

. ,i,ts. .

,3 , ,. ., .

.,,..

.. . . c. . , ,. c .. :. c . , , . .. ... ..

.. . ... 3. 3

. . n ,. 7,, .. y,, r j...,;,..) '.

. ,,.4 rg.'- *' *

• r,., . ' e j * -

,.1 6. 1., . - . . i.it'.n. r. " + -4 r...1'. .v. . ( *2' ". '.) T. ' .

1 o tn. .,t. .. g .

f.

. e. , .

,,/ . . t ,. . ..

.... 4. 3*. iy g , , ,,, . , {r e. jg ag . ,, p,

..iti. ,

.3- ,. ....f* .. .

e. e i. , . . c..,. . . ... ..r. . s. ..',.r.,.,,....

s .

- -

3; . . , . . g . ,., , . : . . . . . m in-

. . . '. i. 4 . * --

i . . , . .. ,

i ,3 y . ,* .,

vs ,i - , , . . ,p* . e.- , ;. ...,n.4.. ., .,,,..j,,, 4. :) ,., p ..

• ri M *

,.,,... ., - .- ..e .,,,* ... 4-

., s, ,

-.7 u t , ,. . . ,. , . ., g , , . , . . , , , , . g. ,

, ,a- .v *s- *

,.7 , *

• p. .<. . ..g, . ; ..

. . . . . . . ......i..t,

, . r . ., g . . 4 . .

,'r

• j y., *

- . J.  ; "p}J,..

• g , #.

g a. ,s; p . .e . { ,. g.

s. .

s *'. .- '- j *

.,,{ g. ,.g .. ,; j .

, 3, . r.,, . f . ., ) . 1 s

, , .,,.3J4,

, g (,j.*,

,.  ;. 3 ;, . s . ** ,, .,: . ...s.4,. ....,...t-rp- n. * . u ' . 4. 1' c. 1. .i <. ... , . , * , '

• ' 't- * * *

.t *

) .

e

'es - .- * * * { . 5 . - * * ' ;p 8. I ,)i- 8 ' r. r e. 4- *t'.'

c. '

.**;1 . * *

. ,;.. .,.e s *.. s .* . .. ; , : , , , .r, f*.q.e-

. ., ' r. r .-8.... .i.. n. .

I/' ' (/ $ C) .

L- m._W

c 6

narrow the statutorily mandated broad inquiry into environmental issues. That challenge falls squarely within the scope of permissible review of AEC regulations by this Board as promulgated in the Calvert Cliffs Memorandum.

This proceeding presents special problems with respect to AEC compliance with NEPA.

Here the AEC published a notice of hearing and set a date for hearings to begir e;;n t.'ough the AEC had not completed the preparation of the Draft Environmental Statement much less the Detailed Environmental Statement. As of March 1 the Detailed Environ-mental Statement had not been filed. Nonetheless the applicant con-tinuen to push for early discovery with respect to environmental issues and the beginning of hearings. Attempting to proceed on either of these matters before roccipt of the Detailed Environmental State-ment and its thorough analysis is equivalent to proceeding with dis-covery and hearings on the scfety issues prior to preparation and distribution of the PSAR and the Staff Safety Evaluation. Hearings are intended to begin when the Staff has conpleted its review and is satisfied with the plant. This review has not been completed and we assume the Staff cannot be satisfied uith the plent with respect to environnent al problems. Indeed the staff has not had an opportunity to extmine the yet to be prepared. Detailed Environmental Statement 4/ Appendix D could also be challenged by this Board under the standcrd that it is not a " reasonable exercise of the broad dis-cretion givon to the Comission" because any regulation which violaten a statute (here the National Environmental Policy Act) is unreanonable and an abuse of discteLion. See for instance Moss v.

CnH, F. 26 (C.A. D.C., 1970); Citizens Committee for

'OIe Hudnon Va]]cy 7. Volnc, 425 F. 2d 97 (C.A. 2nd, 19 7ioT;~ enacr-npsn Soci)t.y v-i Jic!cl,'- .i F. Supp. _ _ (D. D.C., 1970); ~fn~/ilon-raental Defenne Fun 6 v. Finc_, h 428 P. 2d 1083.

7

.to determines/ if changes are required in the Staff Safety Evaluation or the PSAR.

The AEC in recent action related to th0 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant (Vernon) has ruled that hearings on environmental issues must be postponed until a reasonable time after preparation and distri-

~

bution of the Detailed Environmental Statement to enable the parties ,

apparently by pre hearing discovery based upon the Detailed Statement, to prepare for the hearing.

(A copy of this letter ruling is attached.)

Thus if the Board only grants the first request in our motion thus ,

placing this case in the same status with respect to revicw of environ-mental issues as the Vernon Plant, it must allow a reasonable time after the prelsaration and distribution of the Deta' led Environmental Statement for pre-hearing discovery.

-~

~/

5 It isthe difficult and PSAR,to understand how the Staff Safety Evaluation by the results.of the Detailed Environmental Statement,which can now how a notice of hearing could be properly filed by the AE where the Staff Safety Evaluation and the PSAR are incomplete.

In this proceeding-the Staff Safety Evaluation and the PSAR are on their face invalid becauce they have been prepared without regard to Detailed Environmental Statement, a document whose relevance'to dispute. See theUdall PSAR

v. and Staff' Safety Evaluation are beyond (1967). Federal Power Commission, 387 U.S. .428 l

1 i

1 l

t 8

Should the Doord deny all parts of this Motion two important environmental issucs will remain both of which must await receipt of the Detailed Environmental Statement for their resolution. First, th's Board will have to decide whether the Staff has complied with Section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA by preparing a sufficiently thorough and scientifically and technically adequate Detailed Environmental State-mont. If this Motion is not granted the Board will not be able to resolve substantive non-radiological environmental issues. But it will and must be able to decide whether these non-radiological environ-mental issues have been adequately examined by the Staff or whether instead the Detailed Environmental Statement is a cursory and conslu-sory document which fails to fully investigate all environmental issues and thus is an inndequate justification for the decisions made by the Staff with respect to environmental protection.

Thin inquiry into the legality of the Detailed Environmental Statomont is similar to the inquiry permitted under the Calvert Cliffs Memorandum related to AEC regulations. If the Detailed Environmental Statement doe:: not reflect sufficient examination of the relevant environmental considerations then the conclusions reached by the Staff on the basis of that Statement arc arbitrary and capricious and beyond the Staff's authority. Environnontcl Defense Fund, Inc. v.

Rucholshaus, _ U.S. App. D.C. _ __

F. 2d (C.A. D.C.,

decided January 7, 19 ~/1) ; Greater Boston Televisio,n_ Corp. v. FC,C

. I

i, 9

(decided November 13, 19 70) (C. A. D.C., No. 17,785 slip op at 15-22);

Medical Committee for lluman Rights v. SEC, U.S. App. D.C. _

>; 432 F. 2d 659, 673-676 (C.A. D.C., 1970); Moss v. CAB, ,

U.S.

App. D.C. , 430 F. 2d 891 (C.A. D.C., 1970); Wellford v. Ruckels-haus, U.S. App. D.C. , F. 2d (decided January 7, 19 71) (C . A. D.C., No. 24,434). The measure of the legality of the Statement depends upon Section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA.

Second, af'ter roccipt of the Detailed Environmental Statement Intervenors will need a reasonable period of time for discovery wi,th respect to the radiological environmental issues. These issues are of course properly before the Board in this proceeding regardless of the disposition of this Motion, but examination of the evidence with respect to these- issues must await the Detailed Environnental Statement which is the definitive AEC document on radiological environ-racntal considerations. ~6/

A Memorandum in1 Support of this Motion is attached.

~6/ In any event some of the parties have requested that disposition of environu;ntal' issues be certified to the Cortaission. See also Calvert Cli:7fs Heraorandun (p. 4). We also reiterate our support of.this suggestion. Obviously certification of these issues to

- the AEC will leave ' final disposition of these matters in doubt for'a longer period but will ultimately serve to shorten the entire' proceeding by allowing discovery to proceed wit.h full knowlc6ge.of the insues validly involved in the proceeding.

> + * - s%..

b r

10 Respectfully submitted Berlin, Roisman and Kessler Counsel for Intervenor EnvironmGntal Defense Fund By 4

/$' "(hk' M r ': '

/ 6 t v .t t .: c;.

Anthony Z. oisman i'  ? (??U L. ( .AW g Myron M. Cherry' ' ,.i Counsel for Intervenors Saginaw Valley Nuclear Sturly '

droup

' Citizens c.the Environ-mental Committee Protection fo[6f Michigan Sierra Club United Auto Workers of America Trout Unlimited West Michigan Environmental Action Council, Inc.

Environmental Law Society of the University of Michigan Law Students Dated: March,[,1971

.