ML19331A152

Statement of Environ Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19331A152
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	02/06/1972
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19331A151	List: ML19331A146 ML19331A152
References
NUDOCS 8006110591
Download: ML19331A152 (74)

Text

%

l m

U f.

'2 & 4

, e n-E o 710 FEBRUARY 6, 1972 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,i g

1 ATO!!IC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD

^

. SW Qitus&!

IN THE MATTER OF

)

)

DOCKET NO. 50-329 CONSU'E".S POWER CO:tPANY

)

50-330 "IDLA:;D PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2

)

~.,

SAGINAN VALLEY ET AL. INTERVENORS' STATE".ENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTIONS INTRODUCTION r'.

Pursuant to the Order of the Atomic Safety and Licen-I sing Board (" Board"), Intervenors herewith submit their State-t i

.i,.i r ent of Environmental Contentions. Intervenors reserve the right. ;a to amend this Statement of Contentions, from time to time, as regarding environmental matters relating to the construction of the prooosed Midland Units (hereafter referred to as the

" proposed Plant" or " Plant").

Notwithstanding the Atomic Energy Commission's or this Board's rulings to the contrary, Intervenors assert that the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act affirmatively require the ReguIatory Staff of the Atomic Encrgy Commission and this Board, on their own motion, to-considor all matters of environmental significanco, whether or not such matters are brought to the attention of the board by the h

MI

. 8006110 nd

b>

t

.)

Intervenors. AccordincIy, it is our position that the Doard must make its own scarching inquiry into the validity of the e,

Environmental Statement prepared by the Regulatory Staff, the correctness and scope of Applicants' Environmental Submissions and any other environmental matter which would reasonably come to the attention of an objective and reasonable hearing board. It is for this reason, as well as for the reasons that -

the Intervenors have been denied access to reasonable discovery in aid of their Statement of Contentions and that all en-vironmantal submissions thus far by the Regulatory Staff and the Applicant have failed to discuss all sides of a particular environmental issue (thereby failing to provide to Intervenors sufficient information upon which to base their Contentions) that Intervonors believe that they are entitled to raise as Contentions hereafter any matter which could reasonably bo placed before the Board at any time prior to the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing on environmental matters.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a preliminary, request-for certain discovery in connection with this Statement of Contentions. Intervenors, do not, as has been pointed out be-fore,believe it is fair or judicially sound to require discovery to be finalized prior to rulings by the Board as to the scope of environmental inquiry. Moreover, as shall be set forth below, because the submissions of the Regulatory Staff and the Applicant are deficiert, not only because they fail fully to discuss issues raised, but alsg because they fail to discuss.

r

b 1

i Jh at all significant environmental issues, the requirement to

/

finalize discovery at this time is contrary to traditional l'

notions of fair play and justice. Accordingly, Intervenors reserve the right to make their further request for discovery 6 at a point in time when the scope of environmental inquiry

,L-has been validly defined by the Board.

L I

It '

ENVIRON.'1 ENTAL CONTENTIONS RELATING TO THE INADEQUACIES CP THERMAL DISSIPATION

\\ 't DURING NOPJtAL OPERATION OF THE PLANT 1.

Based upon objective engineering data, the cooling pond is of a size insufficient adequately to cool the water dissipated from the Plant during normal ' opera-1 i

id, h tions so as to prevent adverse thermal loading of the Tittabawassee River (hereaf ter " River"). Adverse g,

thermal loading will impair any proposed plans to revitalize the River. Moreover, adverse thermal loading will lead to further degradation of the River and have at least the following undesirable environ-mental effects:

('a)

Decreased dissolved oxygen contents l

(b)

Fish kills:

(c)

Reduction in benthic organisms:

L l

(d)

Reduction in zooplankton (e)

Increase in undesirable phytoplankton:

e I '

9 l-l'

h (f)

Reduction in assimilative capacit/ for waste water treatment plant efflucnts; (g)

Degradation of the quality of waters into which the River flows, including the Saginaw River and Lake Huron; e

(h)

Increased undesirabie burdens on municipal water treatment plants situated downstream.

i n

2.

Because of the meteorological conditions occurring at various times of the year in the geographical vicini-ties of the Plant, it is improbable, and, therefore,

there exists no reasonable assurance, that sufficient make-up water for the cooling pond will be available.

These meteorological conditions include inadequate

o a t c

rainfall, insufficient ground water, low relative.

e humidity, sustained, high wind velocities, and sustained lack of cloud cover leading to increased p

solar input. As a result of these conditions, and the lack of available make-up water from sources other l

than the River, cooling facilities will result in higher l

thermal loading than contemplated in (1) above, aggra-l vating the adverse environmental effects set forth in (1) above.

3.

If sufficient make-up water is unavailable from the niver and, therefore,/ o 8!sEEaEgds are made'from the S

cooling pond to the River, the efficiency of the Plant will be reduced (and on certain conditions availablo,

9 n,,,

r

power from the Plant may be drastically redu-.3 or limited) thereby adversely affecting users of electricity in the relevant franchise area who may, from time to time, rely upon the Plant for a de-pendable source of electricity. These conditions are further aggravated by the fact that as pond water drawdown occu s, the available surface water area for cooling decreases.

4 During periods of insufficient make-up water, un-desirable amounts of blue-green algae will prolifer-ata in the cooling pond because of the high thermal content. These undesirable blue-green algae will cause obnoxious odors and adversely affect the health I

'and life of aquatic'and terrestrial organisms which' i

d u111 rely upon the cooling pond as a source of food and water. Applicants have suggested that they will control undesirable increases of blue-green algae with the use of massive amounts of chlorine or other unde-sirable and dangerous chemicals; however, use of chlorine and other undesirable and dangerous chemicals will also have an adverse effect upon the health and life of aquatic and terrestrial organisms which will use the cooling pond as a source of food and water.

5.

Operation of the cooling facilities will result in unde-i sirable fogging during corpain parts of the year.

Fog-l l

ging will occur during periods when there is a significant

' l 9

dif ference between the a bient air temperaturo and the temperature of the cooling pond water. Fogging will be further increased during periods of such difference when there also exists average to high relative humidity. Under conditions conducive to fog, fog will bo increased when there exists insuf-ficient make-up water for the cooling pond. Foqqing will cause at least the following undesirable environ-mental effects:

(a)

Decreased visibility on adjacent highways and roads, resulting in' hazardous conditions:

(b)

Increase and directly cause icinq on adjacent highways and roads during periods when the f

f e, i ambient air torperature is below 0 Centigrado,','

0 resulting in hazardbus conditions:

Decreased visibility in the Midland community, (c) resulting in hazardous conditions (d)

Increase and directly cause icing in the Midland Community puring periods when the Centigrade, ambient air temperature is below 0 resulting in hazardous conditions:

Decreased visibility in Dow Chemical and Dow (e)

Corning facilities, resulting in hazardous conditions:

(f)

Increase and directly cause icina in Dow Chemical and Dow corning facilities during

.g.

n-a e-w

(.

i i

periods when the ambient air temperature is holow-00 Centigrado, resulting in hazardous conditions,,

production outages, and dangerous conditions' considering the types of raw materials and products used and produced at such facilitiest (g)

Destruction of plant life due to icing; (h)

Destruction of wild birds due to icing; (i)

Impair the efficiency of or break elevated objects, such as coles, wires, towers, and transmission lines.

6.

Regardless of the inadequacies of the size of the cooling.

i pond, Appligant will be increasing, by operation of the Plent, the total dissolvable solids in the cooling pond,.

P Although Applicant asserts that by,;r ~

and in the River.

I the time of croposed operation of the Plant the level of.

total dissolvable solids existing in the River will be decreased, so as to permit an incremental increase as a result of the operation of the Plant, Applicant and the Regulatory Staff have failed to state how this will be accomolished. Increase in total dissolvable solids will cause turbidity on the River and cause various adverse effects, depending upon the nature of the total dissolvable solids, including but not limited to those set forth in (1) above.

Q.

7.

Under certain conditions, Dow Chemical has contractually agreed to supply make-up water to the Plant. There is no',

discussion concerning whero Dow Chemical will secure the make-up water, whether Dow Chemical will be able to supply the make-up water, whether such supply of make-up water by Dow Chemical will adversely affect the amount of water Dow Chemical itself may need for safe operations of the Dow Chemical and Dow corning facili-ties, or whether such supply of make-up water will adversely affect the supply of water to the greater Tri-City area for drinking purposes, or affect the supply of water as a source of food and water to aquatic and r;

terrestrial organisms within the affected geographic area.

II DISCHARGE OF CHEMICAL WASTES 8.

Applicant plans to discharge chemicals or, a regular basis, during operation of the Plant, into the River and Bullock Creek.

9.

Dow Chemical already discharges chemicals into the River and Applicant's discharges will have an additivo and incremental adverse effect upon the life and quality of the River water, the organisns contained therein, the organisms which rely upon it as a source of food., _.

k and water, and the ability to revitalize the River.

The adverse offects will vary in severity depending upon the character of the chemical.

10.

Bullock Creek is an intermittent stream. During periods of the year when Bullock Creek is dry or nearly dry, Applicant's hot chemical discharge will be the only sourco of water in Bullock Crcok. Since the dischargos will be at least as high as temperatures from 80 to 125 ~

degrees Fahrenheit, the severity of adverse effect during such dry periods will be increased.

11.

Since, Bullock Creek is a tributary to the River, any discharges into Bullock Creek are, in effect, discharges Into the River, as well. There is, therefore, an t-I

{ insufficient analysis and discussion of the adverse,

..cffects of such discharges.

12.

There is a failure to consider and analyze what adverse offects discharges into the Bullock Crook and the River vill have upon other bodies of water into which the 9

River runs, such as the Saginaw River and Lake Huron.,

13.

Since it is possible to remove chemicals by treatment prior to discharge into the Bullock Crook and the River, Applicant's proposed discharges represent an unwarranted cost to the environment. Applicants have not discussed methods of removal, such as the installation of a waste treatment system at the Plant itself or some method of using treatment, facilities available at Dow Chemical and Dow Corning.

s.

9 III NON-RADICACTIVE SOLID WASTES

• 4.

There is no discussion of the quantity or character of non-radioactive solid wastes which will be regularly discharged during normal operation of the Plant.

Dependina upon the method of disposal, there may be adverse environmental effects from such waster.

s

15..There is a failure to discuss what relationship, if any,-

will result between non-radioactive solid wastes created -

by the Plant and' non-radioactive solid wastes normally disposed of by Dow Chemical and Dow Corning. For ex-ample, there is no discussion whether such wastes will be used as landfill, what the organic and inorganic i,

i composition cf the wastes might be, and what effect, if any, such wastes and by-products may have upon the surrounding area, including ground water.

IV

(

SANITARY WASTES 16.

Sanitary waste products created by operation of the Plant are planned to be shipped to Dow chemical or Dow Corning facilities for treatment or disposal. There is no explanation, discussion, or description of the manner by which such sanitary wastes will be shipped to Dow or the manner by which Dow will dispose of b

(' ?

such wastes. Thus, a complete analysis of the s

effect of sanitary wastes of the Plant must fj e

include an analysis of Dow Chemical and Dow qf Corning sanitary waste systems. Without such a discussion, relative cost-benefit and risk-benefit analyses cannot be made.

. V ENVIRONMtNTAL EFFECTS ABSOLUTELY AND INCREMENTALLY, 0F THE URAMIUM FUEL CYCLE 17.

Environmental submissions by Applicant and Regulatory,'

Staff have failed completely to discuss or analyze the absoluto and incremental effects upon the environ-j lv (including cost-benefit and risk-benefit' con-l nont sidorations) of the entire ' uranium fuel cycle, f

including the production of uranium by means and l

methods not presently developed, such as, for example, the Liquid Fast Metal Breeder Reactor (" Breeder").

A great deal is presently unknown by the Atomic Energy Commission, and vendors and utilities in the nuclear industry concerning the effects of an f

' increased surge in nuclear development and use of uranium upon the environment. Below in this section, we set forth considerations known to us at this point, which must be the subject of an environmontal anclysis, l

at.d without which, a full and completo analysis cannot be made.,

S 18.

The Plant'wil'1 cause, absolutely and incrementally, environmental damage and adverso offects, known to man, from the mining of the uranium, which will be necessary in order to supply fuel for the Plant, It is contended that strip-mining of uranium neces-

.a sary for fuel for the Plant will without adequate benefits, represent an unwarranted environmental cost to the environment. Additionally, uranium tailis4s will be produced as a by product as a result of strip-mining or any other mining of uranium. The disposition os such tailings and its effect upon man and his environment have not been considered. More-over, during the mining of uranium, many radionu-clides are produced such as, for exampic, raden' 4 j' fl Those radio /aro keEEa1 or sub-lethal; and, thus, contribute to the death of man and other organisms and will contribute to long-term contamination of particular geographic areas, making them essentially useless for any alternative purpose. Thus, we l

contend that this segment of the uranium fuel cycle must not only be discussed in depth, but must also be

(

quantified in any cost-benefit consideration to I

determine whether the resultant costs and risks (which are incremontally an$ absolutely created as a result of the proposed Plant) are outweighed by any alleged or asserted benefits.

i l,

l L-

b 19 Af ter uranium is mined, the oro must be shipped for millinct and processing into yellow cako as the next step in the production of nuclear fuel. Once again, there is absolutely no discussion or consideration of this segment of the fuel cycle, what adverse environmental offects may occur, and whether the costs and risks are outdeighed by alleged or asserted benefits. Af teruranium is fabricated' into yellow cake, it must be further processed into a form of ceramic pellet,* which pellets ultimately become a part of the nuclear fuel rod itself (Uranium 235 and Uranium 238). Thercafter, the fuel rods are distributed for use in nuclear

?

i power plants and for use 'in the proposed Plant.

There is no discussion of the consequences or adverse effects associated with the reprocessing of yellow cake ultimately into fuel rods, nor is there any discussion or analysis of the costs and risks associated therewi$h, and whether they are outweighed by any asserted or alloged benefits.

20.

Subsequent to the use of fuel rods at the proposed Plant, high and low level radioactive waste products will be generated. High level radioactive wastes from irradiated fuel will be transferred, prenum-ably to a reprocessing center, for separation of plutonium and uranium. Uranium 235, uranium 238, e

and plutonium presumably will be used once again to s

creato nucicar fuel. However, the major portion of the l high 1cvel radioactive wastes, which are not uranium or plutonium, then must be disposed of and stored for substantial periods of time. There is no discussion at all of where succ high level radioactive wastec will be stored and what incremental burden will be placed upon storage facilities and their surrounding environeent as a result of high 1cvel radioactive wastes from the proposed Plant. Indeed, the Atomic Energy Commission has, at present, no site selected for the disposition of sdeh high level wastes; and, therefore, as a matter of law, there has not been any )*

.1-1i :

cost-benefit or risk-benefit analyses of the; disposi,1 tion of such high-level wastes with respect to asserted or alleged benefits. Intervenors contend that the disposal of such high level radioactive wastos create risks and costs to the environment and result in adverse environmental effects in terms of radiation exposure, which far outweigh any additlenel benefit, if any, to the electric consumer which may occur as a result of operation of the pro-posed Plant.

21.

During the reprocessing aspect of the uranium fuel cycle, and in addition to radiation hazards connected therewith, there are additional and adverse environ- _

S ncntal effects. Current reprocessing plants are fueled by conventional r.eans and in most cases, are fueled by hiTh sulfur coal. The reprocessing plante thensclves, in the production of uranium for use at the proposed Plant, adversely affect the environment by emitting particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and miscellan-cous other noxious substances. Thus, the very production of reprocessed fuel, for so-called clean nuclear power, creates conventional pollu-tants which are emitted to the atmosphere. There is no discussion, for example, as to whether such conventional pollutants emitted by reprocessing plants in the course of. reprocessing fuel would

( /i' i

I i

create more costs and risks to the environment 4

than similar conventional pollutants which might be emitted if the proposed Plant were a conven-tional power plant.

22.

In addition to conventional pollutants, reprocessing plants release, in normal operations, radioactivity in gsseous and liquid forms. There is no discussion of the amounts, character, and effects of such radioactive emissions; and since the Atomic Energy Commission does not apply either Part 20 Standards or the as low as practicable formula to reprocessing plants, it is conceivable that the total amount of l..

/

radioactive emissions which will reach the environ-ment as a result of the operation of the proposed Plant will exceed safe and tolerable limits. In addition, incremental radioactive releases from reprocessing plants created by virtue of the production of repro-cessed fuel for the proposed Plant will be absolutely increased.

Environmental submissions by Applicant and the 23.

Regulatory Staff admit that low-level solid and liquid radioactive wastes will be generated by operation of the proposed Plant. There is an inadequate discussion of the character or environmental effects of such.

,. radioactive wastes; and (in the sense that each radio-,,

nuclide is not listed either quantitively or quali-fJ tively), no discussion of the ' incremental burden on the environment which will be created by such wastes In addition, from operation of the proposed Plant.

neither Applicant nor the Atomic Energy Commission has considered fully where such wastes will be transported and stored; accordingly, as a matter of law, there has been no consideration as to whether costs and risks created thereby will be outweighed by alleged or asserted benefits. Indeed, there is no discussion or assurance that adequate facilities for storage and disposal of low-level radioactive wastes incre-mentally created by thy' proposed Plant will be available,._

y "c

en considering the amount of low-level radioactive wastes generated and available for disposition and storace by nuc1 car power plants in operation and planned to be..

1 in operation during the life of the proposed Plant.

24.

Uranium, as a source of fuel, is in Icw supply. Appli-cant and the Regulatory Staff have failed to discuss whether sufficient uranium ore will be available to provide nuclear fuel for the proposed Plant, consid-F ering the amount of uranium ore which w111 be neces-3 sary to provide nuclear fuel for other reactors which will be in operation during the life of the proposed Plant. The Atomic Energy Commission has recently an-nounced intentions to construct and develop a Breeder in order to provide further assurance that nuc1'ea'rj j

fuel will be available for the proposed Plant and other power plants which may be in operation during the life of the proposed Plant. The Breeder presents significant and unresolved cafety, scientific, and environmental prcblems. Neither the Atomic Energy Commission nor the nuclear industry fully understand the risks and costs involved in the construction

'and operation of Breeders. Since the proposed Plant may rely upon nuclear fqe1 created by a Breeder, the risks and costs of the development and operation of Breeders must be analyzed against any alleged or j

asserted benefits, if any, that may be gained by con-struction and operation of the proposed Plant.

4

-17.

L o

([

xe 25.

If the proposed Plant is constructed, it will have a defined, useful life. At the completion of its defined,

• useful life, something will have to be done with the l

Plant and all its radioactive components. Neither the Atomic Energy Commission nor the Applicant have addressed themselves to the economic, environmental, and social costs connected with decommissioning of the proposed Plant. In addition to the failure to have T

discussed the issue of decommissioning of the proposed-Plant, neither Applicant nor the Atomic Energy Com-mission have any idea as to how they will decommission the proposed Plant, what consequences will result therefrom, what economic costs will be incurred, and what effect decommissioning will have upon the develop,.

ment of the greater Tri-City area and the health and' safety of the surrounding environment, including man and all other organisms. Unless the issue of decommissioning is adequately resolved, an appropriate analysis of risks and benefits associated with con-struction and operation of the proposed Plant cannot be made.

26.

Throughout the Uranium Fuel Cycle, including in a more general sense the proposed development of the Breeder and tho decommissioning of the proposed Plant, acci-donts may occur in the transporting and handling of radioactive material. Accidents may result from r%e

.9

x g negligen:e or intentional acts, such as sabotage.

There exists no meaningful discussion by either 3

Applicant or the Regulatory Staff as to the character of such accidents, ways in which they will be prevented, adverso or beneficial consequences from such accidents, and the economic and other environ-montal costs associated therewith. To the extent that such accidents increase the total amount of radioactivity emitted to the enviro = ment, they represent a consideration for additional costs and -

risks, which must be judg'ed against the alleged or assertad benefits from the proposed Plant.

27.

Throughout the Uranium Fuel Cycle, including in a' more general sense theiproposed development!of the L; Breeder and the decommissioning of the proposed i

Plant, various amounts of radioactivity in differing character will be released to the environment. Since such radioactivity, by definition, does not dissipate immediately, it tends to' build up in the environment and.various of its component parts, including man and other organisms and water. Since compone,nt parts of the environment tend to concentrate or biologically magnify radiation, the total amount of radiation which could affect man and other organisms is underesti-mated by Applicant and the Regulatory Staff. Accord-ingly, both short and 1png-term risks and costs i t

=

E, s

v t

associated with such magnified radiation have not adequately been assessed in light of presumed or asserted benefits. Biological magnification or concentration occurs in various ways. Thus, for example, radioactive material which is deposited on plant life or soil will ultimately reach water and the organisms contained therein and the organisms depending on that water for their sustenanco. Because of biological magnification and concentration, radioactivity originally deposiced on the soil and plants will have a far greater adverse effect when man and other organisms are exposed to or ingost such radioactivity at the end of the, aforesaid cycle. In addition, there is t

'3

-t biological macnification or concentration of radio-activity in food chain cycles, which begin directly by the discharge of radioactivity 'to water.

28.

Applicant and the Regulatory Staff have struck an i

erroneous balance between the benefits, if any, to be derived from the proposed Plant and the risks and j

costs involved in the consequences of a postulated f

loss of coolant accident resulting in an uncontrolled 1

meltdown. Because of the inadequate experimental,

and other data which underlies the opinions and conclusions of Applican) and the Pegulatory Staf f j

regarding the ef fectiveness of the Emergency Core l

> a i

Cooling System and the so-called Interim Criteria concernine such System and because alternative

(

/

and safer methods of producing electricity are available, the proposed plant results in an inten-tional infliction of risks and costs upon the public and a violation o* the Atomic Energy Act

(

and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Inter-venors hereby incorporate by reference the substantive contentions in the Petition to Parti-cipate filed in Docket RM 50-1 on behalf of the National Coalition of Intervenors. That Petition to Participate sets forth specific contentions recpecting the inadequate basis of the Interim

! Criteria and Applicant's Emergency Core Coolinq

.1

~

l' System, and Intervenors here urge the same' con-tontions in order to ch'a11enge the erroneousness of the resolution of the related cost-benefit enalysis.

I i-VI

' ALLEGED BENEFITS 29.

There are no benefits to be derived from operation of the proposed Plant, and, alternatively, all risks and costs greatly outweigh any alleged or asserted benefits.

j 1

f.

^

n

N.

u

~

I

~.

I i

30.

Intervenors contend that there is no valid benefit at all in connection with the proposed Plant. Appli-cant and Regulatory Staff analyses of the alleced benefits are found respectively at Pages 5.1-1 through 5.1-4 of volume 1 of Applicant's supplemental Environ-montal Report and the bottom half of Page 125 and the first paragraph of Page 126 of the Reculatory Staff's Draft Detailed Statement. Aside from the fact that these discussions are an insult to intelligence, they clearly demonstrate Chat there are no benefits to be derived from the operation of the proposed Plant.

p' 31.

The additional electricity available from the pro-posed Plant is.not a. benefit. Additional electric.'[ ! '.

1-generation through' nuclcar power'merely creates' risks and costs to the environment. Moreover, at a time when our alleged energy demands are increasing / -

it is not beneficial to continue to add to the pro-duction of electricity without increasing our undor-standing how any demand for electricity is created.

And, thus, to the extent that electricity deman'd is created by virtue of promotional activities or other such efforts of Applicant and the Atomic Energy Commission, any increase of elcetricity is not a benefit, but an unwarranted cost to the environment.

Applicant, other utilities, the Atomic Energy Com-l 1,

m

g..

v a

i mission, the Federal Power Commission and the nuclear industry have created an artificial demand for electricity, and no environmental analysis should reward such efforts.

32 Neither Applicant ner the Regulatory Staff has con-social sidered the possibility of changing the present/ stimuli.

to society which could result in decreased demand for electricity, thereby not requirina the production of electricity from the proposed Plant. Elsewhere in this statement we will set forth more specifically our contentions with respect to Applicant's projected load forecasts which we believe are invalid and in some instances untrue.

I Applicant and Requlatory Staff assert that the propose [d:

33.

Plant would create a benefit resulting from shutting down Dow Chemical's fossil fired facilities. Thero 1

is no serious analysis, however, as to whether Dow l

Chemical can purchase power from other of Applicant's generating facilities, or whether indeed, in the long run, it would be less costly to the environment l

to require Dow Chemical to retrofit or update its facilities to provide for, fossil. fuel generation of cloctricity without resultant pollutants. In the long run, it would make more sense to requiro Dow Chemical and others (by denying electricity from the proposed i

Plant) to investigate ways and me'ans of generating

)

~23-4 l

1-m g-e.

w g

m

-n-y 4

w

,--+n

'w.-

w v

v w

L electricity throuch conventional means or other means net new known to man which could result in less

+

risks and ecsts than the generation of electricity through nuclear power plants. The assertion that the generation of electricity from the proposed Plant is a benefit because it shuts down fossil fired plants is in reality trading one risk for another. Thus, before such a conclusion is sound, one must evaluate the effects of pollutants from conventional power sources against the effects of normal and abnormal releases of radiation. Since Dow Chemical has been polluting Midland for several decados with its fossil fired i

facilitics, sufficient information should be avail-able to determine what the effects have been 'and s

il

<s then one could compare them with known offects of radiation upon man and the environment.

34 Applicant and the Regulatory Staff assert that the proposed Plantwill provide economic growth for the Midland Community and enable Dow Chemical to expand its facilitics by virtue of having available to it low cost energy. There is no discussion, however, as to whethor the Midland Community should encourage expanding industry or whether other uses should be found for the land and resources which will bo required in such expansion. Moreovor, since Dow l

l Chemical presently has available to it in its t __

t?

N "g

~

ory.anization nruas, admittedly low cost energy areas, within which it could expand, there must be an analysis of the environmental effects of the Dow Chemical expanding in Midland as opposed to elsewhere in order to justify the suggestion that Dow Chemical's expansion is a benefit.

Finally, in any such analysis, if it is determined that the character and type of the Dow Ch'emical expansion will result in undesirable products, such as, for example, chlorinated the creation of/ hydrocarbons or 2-4-5-T, then the subsidization of Dow Chemical by virtue of the construction and operation of the proposed Plant results in additional costs to the environment without any, concurrent benefits.1 35.

Most of the employment asserted to occur as a result of the construction of the proposed Plant is short-termed in duration. No analysis has been made as to whether it would be more sound to arrange permanent employment of the so-called peak labor force of 700 4

+

men which allegedly will be used during construction rather than spend millions of dollars in the construc-tion of the Plant for a two or three year employment of 700 men.

• here will be no significant increase 4

in employment of Dow Chemical as a result of any expansion of its facilities, which may occur as a result of the construction of the proposed Plant; l

i l

-2s-s i

n

.- y and, in fact, Intervenors contend that the expansion of the Dow facilities will result in a decrease of employment in the Midland Community.

36.

Applicant and Regulatory Staff assert that a benefit from the proposed Plant will be additional revenues and taxes. This is a specious argument and clearly is not a benefit entitled to consideration in a NEPA review, since revenues and taxes may flow from undesirable as well as desirable ventures vis-a-vis the environment. Additional taxes and revenues could be generated by proposing higher taxes on s

existing generating facilities which contribute to pollution and by imposing severe fines on Dow ChcEical and Dow Co,rning for having polluted Midland' '

I i

i and other arcas of tho, United States for several

decades, i

37.

Because available statistics demonstrate that nuclear power plants suffer as compared to fossil fired plants, more forced outages for reasons of maintenance, i

i l

unreliability, and inadequate research, the construc-tien of a nucicar power plant as a base load or peaking l

load generatino facility actually results in ineffi-t l

cient generation of electricity and, accordingly, costs i

and risks to the environment and not benefits.

i

[

l 39.

The proliferation of nuclear power plants and the construction of the proposed Plant will deter research and development into more sophisticated pollution controlsforfossilfuelhlants',intonuclearsafety, in alternative methods of generating electricity, into an analysis of utilities' ast artions as to rising demands for electricity and will deter exploration for gas, coal and other fossil fuels. Finally, con -

struction of the proposed plan will further encourage a commitment to nuclear power and the Dreeder at a time when there are substantial unresolved areas of scientific and environrental concern.

38A.

Applicant has asserted, as stated'above, thatoneod I

the benefits emanating from the proposed Plant will be the elimination of fossilfired generating capacity both in '

Arnlicart's system and in other generating facilities such as Dow Chemical. Assuming the validity of this statenent,in order adecuately assess the full nature of any alleged benefit, it is important to consider whether the proposed Plant will assist in reducing fossil fired generating facilities of other than Annlicant and Dow.

Thus, for example, there are generating runicipalities and municipal power pools (consumer rather than investor owned) which have denanded purchase from or access to cicctricity to mM9e 8

m

Ec generated from the preposed plant. Anruning tin.

validity of Applicant's and the Pegulatory Staff's contention in this area, it is necessary to analyze P

whether the Plant is suitably sited and sized in order to spread any alleged benefit throuchout the relevant franc 51se area. The municinalities and consumer owned electrical cooperatives whose needs should be considered in such an analysis include Ccidwater, Michigan, Holland,' Michigan, Traverse City, Michigan, crand Haven, flichigan, Zeeland, Michigan, the Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative, and the trolverine Electric Cooperation. These municipalitics and cconerativos have a justifiable interest in purchasing from or access

.w electricity,from the proposed Plant,j.y -

j assuming the validity of Applicant's contention with respect to alleged benefits.

380. One or more of the above municioalities and cooperatives are so situated so that interconnections could take rineebetween each-or all of them and Aeolicant granting them cecess to electricity from the prop losed Plant, to electricity f Applicant's existing generating facilities and to i

transmission lines existing or-to be built in connection with Applicent's generating of electricity, An adequate environmental analysis of costs and benefits must-include the environmental ikpact which may occur as a

-27A-A

bs.

i rosult of Applicant's failure to or agreement to provide

~

access to such municipalities and cooreratives to electricity from the proposed Plant and from Applicantta existing generating facilities (includina its inter-connection partners in the itichigan Power Pool and the ECAR Region) as well as access to transmission lines existing or to be built by Applicant. Thus, the validity s

of any' alleged benefit is a function of that benefit's availability to all coordinatingutilities in the relevant-Intervenors contend that Applicant's illegal area.

onlicies regarding the sale of electricity, the sharing of generating facilities, and the nonavailability of its transmission lines has or could result in advorse en-vironmental impact as a result of other coordinating utilities,not having an available input into Anp11-cant's hugo and monopolistic position in th5 greater:

l" r

'tichigan area.

VII ALTERNATIVES TO Tl!E PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY BY 13UCLEAR POWER AND TO THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY FROM THE PROPOSED PLANT 39 Beginning from the time of initial development of t

civilian uses of nuclear power to the present, che Atomic Energy commission, utilities, and the nuclear industry havo underestimated, misreported, and mis -

represented the safety, environmental impact, and reliability of nuclear power plants for the genera-tion of electricity. Nuclear pouer plants were con--

structed and built without respect to the environment 1

x

w v

unt'il the Atomic Onergy Commission amended its

..z illegal policy regarding environmental protection.

?,

During this period of time, the Atomic Energy Com-mission, utilities, and the nuclear industry were actively engaged in the promotion of nuclear power, without respect to criteria and standards necessary for the health and safety of the public and their environmental protection. Significant safety i,

programs such as the Loss of Fluid Test (" LOFT"),

7.'

although admittedly necessary to analyze the safety of emergency systems, have not been completed. Thus, despite the fact that the At'omic Energy Commission-has admitted that its prior conservative assurptionn with respect to safety have not provided reasonable I

O assurance of margins of safety, the Atomic Energy Commission, utilities, and the nuclear industry con-tinue to press for nuclear power plants, content to await necessary safety and environmental research after substantial commitments of resources have been made. The aforesaid and illegal promotional program is intended to subject the general public and persons living within the Tri-City area to the risks of nuclear power plants without sufficient analysis of available alternatives. The program is intended to creato a feit accorpli prior to any meaningful analysis.

• x

-e l

~

40 All of the risks associated with nuclear power, includ-ing scientific, safety, and environmental risks with respect to the proposed Plant, have not been explained or-released or mado available to the public so as to provide a foundation for a cost or risk-benefit ialysis.

Since the consequences of a loss of coolant or a more severe accident are far greater than the cons'equences of an accident from a conventional power plant, such risks must be evaluated in light of the relevant benefits, if any, resulting from the construction of a nuclear or fossil fired generating f acility.

41.

As of January 1,1972, there were a total of 23 nuclear generating units in operation. These reactors are have a primarily of an older generation and / :w size smaller than the size of the rt_Artors present'ly p1,anned to be constructed generally as well as the proposed Plant. There has not only been a lack of experience with respect to reactors the size of the proposed Plant, there has also been no experimontal data or significant experience with reactors the size of the proposed Plant or larger. The Atomic 1

Energy Commission's safety program.with respect to light water-cooled reactoys has been insufficient and de-void of regulatory responsibility. The so-called safety program has been geared to promotion and agrandizement of power by an administrative agency without regard to the public health and safety.

D 9

y 42.

The result of nuhutantial commitments of resources prior to analysis of safety and environmental problems han I,cen to encourage the Atomic Energy commission and others to ignore and avoid a complete analysis k

of alternative methods for the generating of electricity.

This is because the Atomic Energy Commission is a s' ingle purpose agency uninterested in sponsoring for any reason the construction of other than nuclear power pinnts.

Accordingly, all analyses by the Regulatory Staf f haunbeen biased and ncnobjectives for exarple, j;

to date, the Regulatory Staff has not, with respect to any license application, recommended the construction '

of other than a nuclear power plant. It in inconceiv-ab'lo that an unbiased and objective analysis would net',f

~

produce at least one instance where other than a j

nucicar power plant was suggested for construction, j

43 As a further evidence of their promotional efforts, the Regulatory Staff and Applicant have failed with' respect to the proposed Plant to make a sincere analysis of alternative methods for generating electricity; the Regulatory Staf f has not performed any independent inquiry but rather has adopted,uncritic:11y, the position tendered by the Applicant.

Thus, inquiries into alternatives have been ghort-sighted, misrepre-sented, and, in instances, intentionally colored.

t

'.30 i

M

v v

44 A thtenhold inquiry into the alternativos to the generation of electricity from the proposed Plant is whet.hcr additional electrical generation from Appli-cant is necessary from the proposed Plant in light b

of cil of the relevant circumstances. To the extent that this contention also reflects a need for analysis of the alleged need for power, we incorporate here by reference that section of these contentions dealing with the need for power. Additionally, and notwith-

tanding assertions of need for power, a full and complete analysis of alternatives must include a con-nideration of all other power available to Applicant from its own system, from utilitics from which it is carrently purchasing power, and from utilities from,which i,

it could purchase power by virtue of contractual or-interconnecting commitmentJ.

45.

Intervenors contend that ther.1 is no need for electricity from the proposed Plant in light of the short and long-term plans of Applicant to build additional facilities. Thus, electricity trom the proposed Plant is unnecessary and results in an unwarranted cost to the environment.

4G, Applicant, without construction of the proposed Plant, will be able to meet its valid demands for the genera-tion of electricity by virtue of purchasing power from one or more of the following sources o

~

B 4

(a) Power Pools and Regional Associations of which Applicant is a member (b) Power Pools and Regional Associations of which Applicant is not a member but which it could join:

(c) liaking contractual arra.tgements for firm commit-nents for power result'ag in. gurranteed source of supply, rather than making no comitments and relying upon future availability; (d) From other than investor owned utilities, having different peak periods than Applicant, with whom Applicant could interconnect on a national or international basis; and (e) From investor pwned utilities having different peak periods than Applicant with whom Applicant could ~

interconnect on a national or international basis.

~

In any analysis of the various alternatives available to Applicant (instead of electricity alleged necessary from the proposed Plant), Intervenors contend that all of the long-term construction plans of every available source of power must be considered. In other words, in order to ascertain what sources of power or alternatives are available to Applicant, one must analyze and consider the short and long-term construction program of every available source of power in the United States and Canada.

32-1

c Intervenors contend that an analysis of available t-sources of power, even assuming a need for power, will demonstrate that the proposed Plant results in an un-warranted cost to the environment.

47.

Intervenors contend that Applicant and the Regula-tory Staff have been engaged in promotional efforts to :reate a false demand for electricity; and all of the electricity to be generated from the proposed Plant is, thenfore, not necessary for Applicant's franchised area. Accordingly, the construction and operation of the proposed Plant will not provide any benefit to electrical users and the proposed Plant represents an unwarranted cost to the environment.

Intervenors furth'er contend.that Applicant, by virduk '

~

! is of advertising campaigns directed toward-further use of electricity during peak periods, as well as adver-

• ising campaigns deficient in explaining to users in its franchised area methods of decreasing peak period use of electricity, have contributed in whole or in part to the demand for electricity from the proposed Plant; and accordingly, for this additional reason, the proposed Plant represents an unwarranted cost to the environment.

48 Intervenors contend that the sole or primary motivating reason for the proposed Plant is an effort toward public t i

J.1-_

i

subnidization of a privato industry, to wit: Dow chemical Company. Dow Chemical has available to it methods of purchasing or creating electricity and process steam, which would result in less cost to the environment than the purchase of electricity and process steam from the proposed Plant. Thus, Dow Chemical nay retrofit and clean up its own f acilitics, it may purchase from other than Appli-cant, it may purchase from other of Applicant's generating facilities, and/or it may expand or move its facilities to other areas of the United States where low cost energy is already available. To the extent that the, proposed Plant is to be con-structed and cperated in substantial part for the,;

benefit of Dow Chemical Company, it represents an unwarranted cost to the environment.

49.

Applicant and the Michigan Public Service Commission have illegally created an incentive for continual construction of generating facilities when they are unnecessary. The rate structure imposed upon Applicant by the Michigan Public Service Commission encourages Applicant to create unwarranted costs upon the environment. Because Applicant's ability to roccive a fair return on its invested capital is directly related to outstanding amounts of unamortized construction and other capital costs, Applicant has

. Q =.

r r

b an incentive to continue to construct power facili-ties, whether necessary ar not, in order to maintain s

an artificially high rate structure. Specifically, Intervenors contend that Applicant is failing to use existing generating facilities to the extent of their useful lives and it is taking such facilities out of base load or peaking service after each facilities have been amortized and removed from con-sideration of Applicant's rate structure. Thus, the proposed Plant represents an attempt to construct a facility in order to ma[ntain an artificially high rate structure and, as s'uch, it represents an unwar-ranted cost to the environment.

50.

Applicant and the Regulatory Staff have erroneously concluded that natural resources are unavailable in suf-fuel for ficient quantities to supply / fossil fired power plants.

To the contrary, uranium of all fuels is in the shortest

[

supply and considering a rational exploitation of

\\

resources, Applicant - if it needs power - should be building other than a nuclear power plant. Inter-venors contend that there are sufficient re'.uc, es of gas, oil, and coal, individually or collectively, to provide fuel for a fossil' fired plant. floreover, Intervenors contend that it is within the state of the art or would be within the state of the art at the time ;

l l

l

- 1,,

b

~

w- -.

w of completion of construction of a fossil fired power plant, to abate all or substantially all adverse and environmental effects which might occur as a result, of a fossil fired plant. Thus, considering availability of resources, pollution abatement, and nuclear safety, the choice of tha proposed Plant over other hlternatives represents an unwarranted cost to the environment.

51.

Intervenors contend that not only are there sufficient.,

~

supplies of coal, oil, and gas ( nd insufficient sup-plies of uranium), but also that. supplies of coal, cil, and gas, are or would be at the time of completion of construction of a fossil fired plant, readily avail-able to Applicant., Assumptions by the Applicant and the

.2 ig Regulatory Staff that coal, gas, and oil, although in

. existence is not practically available, are a direct result of the massive promotion of nuclear power. Thus, if Applicant finds it is in short supply of gas, oil, and coal, it is not because such resource's are unavaila able, but rather because Applicant, other utilities, and the Atomic Energy Commission have discouraged exploration and development of coal, gas, and oil reserves. Based upon the availability of coal, oil, and gas and the unavailability of uranium, the proposed Plant represents an unwarranted cost to the environment.

To the extent that the Breeder is intended to provide,

b 1

~

fuel for the proposed Plant during any part of its defined useful life, the environmental, scientific, and safety problems in connection with the Breeder must be analyzed. In this vein, Intervonors contend that the Broeder is subject to such a myriad of un-resolved problems that it bill never be developed.

Moreover, the Breeder will be the subject of inten-sive litigation and, accordingly, any reliance upcn the Breeder for fuel in the near or short-term, is an unwarranted assumption.

52.

Even considering the generation of any needed electri-city by a fossil fired plant without additional pollu-tion abatomont facilities, harmful and adverse effects anddangersfromradiationgreatlyoutweighanyharmkul and adverse effects from pollution which may be emitted from a fossil fired plant. This is because radiation effects are long-term in contrast to effects of conventional pollutants, because radiation effects cover a broader geographical effects of area than do/ pollutants from a giver fossil fired plant, because available safety measures are more sophisticated and more reliable in fossil fired plants, and because a fossil fired plant is more reliable in terms of maintenance and forced outages. Accordingly, the selec-tion of the proposed Plant imooses an unwarranted cost uoon the environment.

i.

y

~

T

~

• ,~,.* ~

~

t 53.

Proliferation of nuclear power plants and the building of the proposed Plant deter persons, firms, corpora-tions, and government from research and development into alternatives to nuclear power. Since, because,

of a short supply of uranium and the present inability to resolve problems concerning the Breeder, nuclear technology is a "stop gap" and short-term technology, construction and operation of the proposed Plant will continue to deter resear'ch and development into alter-native methods for the generation of electricity, such as fusion, solar energy, magnetohydrodynamics, geo-thermal and other methods for the production of elec-tricity. As a resul,t, the construction of the proposed-1 Plant represents a serious and unwarranted long-term cost and risk to the environment and to the develop-ment of future and alternative methods for the genera-tion of electricity which may be needed in the future.

54 Since announcement of the proposed Plant, Applicant has increased almost 100 percent its estimate for the total cost of the project. Costs have escalated because of public re-examination of nuclear power, because additional safety research has required atend-ment of the project in terms of hardware, and because of delays in connection with the licensing of nuclear power plants.- Moreover, as Applicant admits, further delays y

b 1

1 e--

nro imminent because of an ongoing antitrust review not only delaying the proposed Plant but also 4

resulting 1.s the probability that Applicant may not be abic to use in its system all of the electri-city which could be generated from the proposed Plant.

None of these delays or costs are evident in the con-struction of a fossil fired plant. Accordingly, the proposed Plant represents the selection of the most expensive and insufficient method of supplying any alleged demand for electricity and results in an un-warranted cost to the environment.

55.

Assuming the validity of Applicant's assertion that it is necessary to build the proposed Plant for the production of electricity, Applicant has selected the wrong site for the Plant considering costs of generating electricity from other sites and consid-cring the closeness to the proposed site to a large population center. Additionally, Applicant has not selected the most efficient method of dissipating waste heat inasmuch as cooling towers, and specific-ally dry cooling towers, represent a better alterna-tive than does the inadequate cooling facilities presently planned by Applicant. ;

h:

L - f

. e p

VIII SURVEILLANCE AMD ' MONITORING PR3GRN!S ARE.

NOT COMPLETE AND API INADEQUATE IN ORDER TO ASSESS FULLY THE EINIRON" INTAL IMPACT OF THT: PROPOSED PLANT 56 Assuning that Applicant will construct the. proposed I'lant, during the period of construction and there-after, inadequate monitor'ing and surveillance programs and measures have been taken by Applicant-or suggested by the Regulatory Staff. As a consequence, Applicant will not, unless differant monitoring and surveillance programs are adopted,.be able to assess adoquately the environmental impact of the proposed Plant to be in a position to.take remedial and prophylactic reasures. Intervenors contend that pro and post operational surveillance programs in connection with radiation, thermal, chemical, and 4

noise emissions fron the proposed Plant are deficient i

in at least the following respects.

57 The radiation surveillance program planned by Appli-cant is not sufficient adequately to monitor the effects of the proposed Plants (a) Applicant's proposed ~ radiation monitoring program i

will not provide, in the areas for which it is intended, a sufficient understanding of back-ground radiation and additive radiation created.

v-

bE a

M L-by the proposed. Plant because there are too few monitoring sites selected and because the frequency of conitoring at_ such insufficient sites is too irregular.

?

(b) There are, Intervenors contend, several other i

areas of radiation effects which Applicant does

-not plan to monitor at all.

It is Intervenors contention that a substantial monitoring of such areas must be made pre and' post operational in order adequately to assess the environmental impact of radiation emissions from the proposed if Plant..These areas are 1.

Phytoplankton; 2.

Aquatic plants other than phytoplankton; t..

3.

3.

Terrestrial plants, including agricultural Crops; 4.

Zooplankton; 5.

Benthic organisms; -

6.

Agnathans; 7.

Osteichthyes;

3. ' Amphibians; 9.

R'eptiles; 10.

Aves; 11.

Mammals; 1

12.

All sources of food grown or produced within a 50-mile radius of~the proposed Plant, which food may be consumed within or without the 50-mile radius of the proposed Plant.

---

.---------,a__-.--.--_._a---.------------a-.m---._

--.x-----.ux---------,,

---

.uma

-am.s

---

.s-a--.

-.-a.

fb,

~

'd The radiation monitoring and surveillance program with respect to the above areas should be of a suffi,

cient scope so that the monitoring will detect effects of direct radiation, such as directly on to soil and plants, and indirect radiation such as when a terres-trial animal consumes a plant that has been irradiated or when a man eats a terrestrial animal which has consuned a plant which has besn irradiated.- Moreover, the program should include methods to determine concentration and biological magnification of radia-tion in the entire food chair..

Intervonors contend that without such monitoring programs, an adequate cnvironmental assessment of. radiation risks and costs will not be mado; and also withou.t proper surveillance

.c i ;

and monitoring, Applicant and the Regulatory Staff will be unable to take remedial and prophylactic measures regarding radiation effects.

58.

Surveillance and monitoring of thermal effects from the proposed Plant are inadequate in that sufficient

~

sites are not provided for and at such insufficient sites, the frequency of monitoring is inadequate.

Moreover, the description of the Thermal Monitoring Program is so vague so as not to provide a mean'ingful point of'doparture for a substantive discussion.

Additional sites should be provided on the River,

,42-I t

+

6 A

b a

Bullock Creek, Saginaw River, Pine River, Chippewa-1 River, Cass River, and Lake Huron. The scope of the Thermal Monitoring Program should be suf ficient i

so as to assess the thermal ef fect upon all organisms l

which inhabit each of the bodies of waters or rely upon each of the bodies of waters as a source of i

food and water.

Applicant does not propose and the Regulatory Staff 59.

has not suggested monitorina the indirect effects of thermal discharges from the, proposed Plant. Thus, the health and development of terrestrial niants and anirals may be adversely affected by changes in ambient

., i.

. air temperature due to thermal discharges.

.)

,g

!J:,1..

Despite the fact that chemicals'will be' discharged [,'

~

69.

into various bodies of water both by Applicant and Dow as a result of the operation of the preocsed Plant, t

neither Applicant nor Dow has been required to develop, monitoring progrars of sufficient frecuency and scope with respect to such chemical discharges. Intervenors contend that the absence of any monitoring of chemical discharges represents a failure in an adequate environ-nental analysis.

f Aeplicant has neither discussed nor proposed to monitor 61 noise pollution which will be created by the construction and operation of the proposed Plant. Applicant should establish a monitoring program of sufficient frequency 9

h

~

L and scope so as to be able to monitor noise pollution and its effects upon man and other animals.

~

62.

In addition to monitoring and surveillance by Applicant,"

since Applicant, Dow Chemical, and the Regulatory Staff sueported have/ths construction of the proposed Plant at least l '

in part so as to provide a benefit to Dow Chemical Company, in return for the benefit it will be receiving, Dow must

/have environmentally clean hands. Accordingly, Dow Chemical Company should be required to monitor its discharges in the areas of thermal, chemical, and

]'

noise from its own facilities so as to determine whether it should be rewarded with low-cost energy for purposes of expansion of its facilities. Dow Chemical's monitoring and surveillance should incibdt' i

.i i

frequency and scope'at least as co=prehensive as 1

Intervonors have contended should be required of Applicant.

63.

Intervenors contend that the cost of a monitoring and surveillance program discussed in this section should be borne by Applicant and Dow Chemical Company and not passed on to the public by requiring the !!ichigan Water Resources Commission to do the work. 4 9

a

..m

hs IX PROCEDURAL INADIItACIES WITH RESPECT TO THE REGULATORY STAFF DRAFT DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT r,4.

The National Environmental Policy Act requires the Atomic Energy Commission to make an independent-detailed environmental analysis concerning the.

licensing of the construction of the proposed Plant.

Situated throughout ' this f tatement of Contenticas are areas of environmental impact which the Regula-tory Staff has failed to consider. Accordingly, the Statement is insufficient as a matter of law for not considering such-areas.

G5 The Regulatory Staff has illegally contracted its ob'1igation to prepare the Draf t Statement to Argonne!,

National Laboratory. The arrangements between.the 4

Regulatory Staff and Argonne are unknewn to Intervenors and, accordingly, they cannot make further contentions with respect to the procedural inadequacies of the relationship. For examplo, we do not know whether 4-Argonne was roguested to'do independent analysis or whether, as appears from the Draf t Statement, Argonne and the Regulatory Staff have only accepted, uncriti-cally, submissions by the Applicant.

66.

Based upon information and' belief, Intervenors contend that the Regulatory Staff and its contractees have failed to provide an independent, substantive review 4.

+

,y e -

p r

k required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

67 The Draft Detailed Statement fails to incorporate all

(

of the information upon which'it is based and fails to '

include a complete discussion of all sides of a particular issue. As such, the Draft Detailed Statement is an incomplete environmental analysis and is insuffi-cient as a matter of law.

I 68 The Regulatory Staff has failed to secure comments on a realistic schedule from all of the Federal, State, and Local agencies which have an interest in commenting.

Moreover, because the Regulatory Staff has only provided-for a less than 30-day comment period (considering mailing time),there 1,s insufficient; tire for various of the agencies adequately to comment upor. *1.e Draft ~ }

I Detailed Statement. Accordingly, this procedural inade-quacy built into the Regulatory Staff's preparation has resulted in an inadequate analysis.

.g-69.

The Regulatory Staff has failed to quantify and qualify in monetary terms all the costs, risks, and alleged benefits with the result that a sound, economic en-vironmental analysis cannot be made. Moreover, the Regulatory Staff has as yet to prepare, for the guld-ance of Applicant, guides for preparation of environ-mental reports by those who are seeking construction pe rmits. As such, the Regulatory Staff has failed l

l.

F

.--y.,

h 3

to impicment its obligations pursuant to the National i

En' iron.Tental Policy Act.

v 70.

The Regulatory Staff has not required sufficient de-tailed preparation by Applicant of all areas of environ '

mental concern and, therefora, in its impicmentation of its responsibilities under the National Environ-f rental Policy Act, the Regulatory Staff has failed to acquire adequato invcetigation and reports by Appli-cant and its consultants.

71.

The Regulatory Staff has failed to describe all risks t

inherent in the generation of electricity by nuclear power; and, accordingly, the Draft Detailed Statement, is incomplete. For example, the aspects, both in

, te'rms of destruction o,f life and property, of a postu-p

.1

-lated loss of coolant accident resulting in an uncon-A f

trolled moltdown are not factored into the Regulatory 6

Staff's Draft Statement.

+

72.

The Regulatory Staff has failed to consider the actual cost of generating electricity through nuclear power.

and indirect The actual cost includes such direct / costs as increased cancer and leukemia, medigal costs' relating to those and other diseases from radiation exposure, and costs t

of decommissioning the preposed Plant when its defined useful life is over. The failure of the Regulatory Staff to have considered these costs, as well as the 447-e k

55

~

t

}

cost of die.posal of high and low level radioactive wastes results in the Draft Detailed Statement being insufficient as a matter of law.

i X

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEnED MEED FOR POWER CENERALLY AS UELL AS PROM THE PROPOSED PLANT 70 The issue of demand for power or need -for poirer is rot a

. function of a sicole application of projected figures to rated generating capacity. In the last two decades, ve have seen a demand for electricity multiply, at least as interpreted by the utilities, the power industry, the' htonic Energy Commission, and.other administrative i

agen'cies.

A simplo arithmetic extension of the present demand curve, as so asserted, makes it clear that in a very short oeriod of time our economy willnotbeabletoneatsuchadcErnd.Therehasbeen a failure to do any analysip as to means to create a decrease in demand for electricity or an elimination or curtailment of industrial and other uses of electricity I

which c uld he decreased or eliminated so the economy o

does not =u'fer in terms of goods and scr"Icr..

From a long range environmental standooint,

-4p-9

.~-,

m

,~, - - -

L_

j the social and scientifL: stimuli currently being injected

+

1 into our economy encouraging peak uses of electricity must be climinated. It is in this sense, as well as in the more practical sense of an analysis of actual figures produced by Applicant and 'the Regulatory Staff, against which any need or demand for power must be analyzed.

74.

Intervenors contend that under the National Environ-montal Policy Act the proposed Plant may not be licensed 8

1 unless it is demonstrated that the electricity allegedly nooded from the proposed Plant, is unavailable to Applicant and/or the users in Applicant's area from any other source and, unless it is demonstrated that such

. i 1.

demand for electricity represents useful social stimuli' considering the long range rationalization of our national energy policy.

[

75.

Intervenors contend that any demand for electricity generated by advertising or promotional efforts or by competition among public utilities to encourage the use of electricity caanot validly be rewarded pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

76.

Intervenors contend that in making an analysis of the promotional or advertising aspects of any denand for power, one must analyze actual advertising figures theresultsofadvertisingcampaigns,andaccmparihon of those results with statistics in areas, if any,.

a i

l i

f where promotional advertising as a function of demand

' I has not taken place. Morcover, any environmental analysin must consider uhother a demand is created by encouraging the public ko use unnecessary or non-utilitarian products which use large amounts of energy in the course of fabrication and production. Thus, if any portion of Applicant's demand is directly related to the production of such goods, an analysis has to be made as-to whether the production of such goods should be encouraged or whether by a denial of electricity, one encourages the production of alternative goods which have similar end uses, but which require substantially lesser amounts of electrical energy to producc.

it Intervonors contend that notwIthstanding promotional '

76A.

or advertising efforts and notwithstanding the lack 9

of analysis of the end uses of energy, Applicant and the Regulatory Staff have failed to set forth adequately a responsible record upon which to substantiate claims for demand or need for electricity from the proposed Plant.

i 77.

Applicant recently announced (January 1972) that it was caneciling construction of a Combined Cycle Plant i

J !

i e

a 7

--.. y

l i

I l

.. t because its statistics underlying the demand and the need for such a plant had been re-evaluated and were not correct. The same demand figures,which Annlicant has admitted are no longer up to date, are being used to support the claim for demand for electri-city from the proposed Plant.

78.

Aeplicant's survey and analysis leading to its orojected load forecasts is unsound in that it overstates the future, industrial needs of Michigan, the future population j

growth of Michigan, and fails to recognize that de. mand ' ' '

for cicctricity will decrease on an absolute and per-l',

centage basis. Moreover, Intervenors contend that

+,

Aeolicant has not considered all generating facilities i ij-i which would be availablef given certain interconnections, to consumers in its franchise area and, accordingly, Applicant has used a statistically erroneous geographic area in which to analyze a demand for electricity. Thus, Anolicant's statement of electric reserves is misleading.

'~

in that it does not cover all available reserves.

70 Applicant and the Regulatory Staff's analyses assume I

that the need for power is constant and firm and will remain so during at least.the ten year period between 1970 and 1980. There is no basis for making this assumn-tion or relying upon statistics during the period 1960

~

to 1970 because the factors governing each such period.

b

~

e are not identical. For example, the rate of population increase during the ten year oeriod, 1960 to 1970, was significantly greater than is or will be the rate of population increase during the period 1970 to 1980.

Apolicant's analysis has not taken into account this difference.

00 Aoplicant's analysis with, regard to orojected power needs is based, in substantial part, on past statistics.:

Applicant does not take into account that much of the

' power generated in earlier base periods was of a e

horizontal character in the sense that areas which never before had access to electricity were provided a. ource of electricity. Applicant and the Regulatory, S

l.

g

' '

i Staff have not taken into consideration in their 4

projected land forecasts that such needs for electricity have already been met by virtue of existing generatine capacity.

81.

Aoplicant's projection assumes a continued growth and'-

'. i development of industry in the State of Michigan.

Ap-plicant has not adequately assessed the fact that there 1

is a national and st'atewide conservation movement which mayseverelyinhibitincreasesinkndustry. Applicant also has not considered the nossibility that industry in Michigan will seek to expand elsewhere and, thus, not be avail-i l

able to suoport an alleged increase in demand.

l O

a

..n..

,,.n.,-

3

's.

82.

Applicant and the Regulatory Staff assert that the electricity from the proposed Plant is needed in order '.

to maintain a rate structure which is competitive with the cost of energy in other States. Applicant fails to recognize that the National Environmental Policy Act requires a long range analysis and, as such, does not normit Apolicant to assume that somehow the state of

'fichigan and Applicant are to be favored over some other aren.

It may be inconsistent with the National Environ =cntal Policy Act and a rational resolution of our National Energy Policy to encourage further electri-,

city uses in the State of Michigan. Finally, in its t

so-called corpetitive analysis, Applicant has failed,

to take into account what effect, if any, the increased-purchase of power (by virtue of a national interconnection r grids) would have upon the alleged need for power.

b-o 83.

Anolicent has failed to analyze its need for power in ligat of any environmentally sound program to share cloctricity with coordinating utilities within and without the State of Michigan and, particularly, muni-cicalities and consum.er owned cocoeratives.

84 Aeplicant and the Regulatory Staff have in part asserted a need for cover frem the proposed Plant in order to retire oldor, less efficient, fossil fired plants. However, Applicant t

G

h

,g.

I i

s I

has failcel adecuately to coroare the reliability of fossil-l-

fired plants with the reliability of nuclear power y:

plants and'the nro90 sed. Plant.

85 Applicant asserts that the proposed Plant is nocensary to provido "a olentiful and inexpensive sunoly of electri-city... to maintain and enhance the living standards.

Aeolicant has failed to analy'ze, however, either the need I to conserve energy resources, a need uhich appea'rs to

(.

be environnentally nore sound than a need to make energy i

. t

-i-resources more plentiful.

Ap(*1 cant does not state whose living standards are going to be increased by the pro-t osed Plang and it does not analyze whether any substen.

tial seencnt of the pooulation's living standards may f.

he decreased as 'a *esult of. th'e proposed Plant in terms of 'a de -

v-graded environnent which would adversely affect health, life, and procerty.

10.

Aeplicant's nrojected demand erroneously assures that all future needs for electricity will be increaned or ne*f domand -

and will not reflect cerely rentaconent demand.

For example, it is true that there may ; he increased resi-dential construction; however, Applicant ignores that a.

cerson who builds a naw here cay bo, at the same time, vacating an old here - which new hone would not, therofere, represent an increase in demand for electricity, c

h

87 There is no basis for Apolicant's assurotion that room air conditioners will increase fror 160,000 to 36n, nog in four years and that they all will be used at peak periods, carticularly if the citizens are educated to conserve energy.

29 Apolicant has misanalyzed the projceted growth of its major usern of electricity such as c-eneral Motors and Dov Chemical. The projected increases in production and uses of electricity by such major users are inordinately high in light of the rate of population for the applicable base period and the national movement to conserve electricity. Concomitantiv, Applicant has failei to factor into its projection the possibility that rate structuren will be revised so as to make largo uec.of I

clectricity on a per unit basis core execnsive therchy discouraging the increased use of.clectricity.

39.

Apolicant has erroneously assuned that the cross National Product will continue to spiral.

The relationship which the Aoplicant asserts exists between the automobile industry and the nross National Product does not take into consideration that many e6trooolitan areas, including those in the State of Michigan, are encouraging the develcpment of nass transit which would result in a relative decrease in the production of automobiles. -

d 90 Anplicant has incorrectly stated the current demand for electricity in light of reports by the Edison 6

E1cetric Institute and the Association of Electrical-Illuminating Companies.

.The Annual. Report published in late 1971 by the Edison Electric Institute disagrees with Applicant's assertions as to the character and scene of a so-called "pover crisis."

91.

Applicant's crojections with respect to elcetrical

~

needs for street and highway lir.hting are unsound.

'rclic nt's o.a figures show a decr:ase in street and highway lighting for the years 1971 and 1972. These fige_es do.

not sucport Aeolicant's projections for the yeam 1973 and Ocyons1,norticularly since highway and succr-highuar

'I construction has and will become more limited.

92.

Anplicant has not provided any support and, accordingly,'

its analysis is unsound,with respect to its claim for the need for electricity will provide jobs for,

an increased number of adults. Once again, Apolicant's projections have failed to take into account the environ-tental revccent and the demands of society for industrial progress and national growth connistent with environ-rental protection.

93.

Apolicant's need for electricity insofar as it relates to its clain to further an icprovement in air and water qualit: is rpceicus, since ?.pplicant fails to take into t-ge-

--r.-

y

---s y

k

. i account the effcets upon the environnent, (absolutely-and relatively by virtue of a cost-benefit analysis) l

. of the creduction of electricity which assertedly the production of' will be used to replace alternative-forns of/ electricity. ' t

.i..

94 The Regulatory Staff in connection with the need or

. i demand for cetter has failed in its obligations to make an indeoendent analysis, but rather has accepted, t

uncritically, statements of the Applicant.

z,(

' [;,..

NI "I!

Q.,

CERTIFICATION OF

^

f tICitIcAM WATER RESOURCES C0""ISSION-

)!'

95.

Consintent with thc Calvert Clif fs' decision, the -

1.f ' ' l.

i.

I 1**

I Atomic Energy Connission has an obligation to ' evaluate.

}

and analyze state water cualify standards and revise such *tandards in the event that they provide insuffi-cient protection for the environment. Intervenors contend that the Water Resources Commission standards and its uater quality Certification for the preposed Plant are based uoon inadecuate water cuality stan ards.

Accordingly, the National Environnental Policy Act recuires the Atonic Enercy Conrision to review and ungrade such water cuality standards.

96.

The local laws of the State of Michigan (Section 6(a) of the Public Act ?".5 of the Act of 1929) makes it

. '------a.

w w

unlawful to dischargo any substance into the state

+

waters which is or may become injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. The state law does not-4 provide an exception to permit diJeharges into state-i.

~

waters which msy result in a concomitant benefit in an unrelated area. Accordingly, the Water Resources Commission has no authority to pernit Aeolicant to na%e any <'ischarges into state wa*.ers fron the

[

arenosed Plant, and the Atomic Energy Cornission may not, tSerefore, rely upon such an invalid water 4

quality certification in the licensing of the proposed,

.lant.

97.

The Mater Resources certification permits Aeplicant toe long a period of time to report excesses of' t-standards established by the Water Resources Commission.

t'oro frequent renorting is necessary to prevent negli-gent or intentional violations of the established vater quality standards.

90 The Water Resources certification is based upon a classi-fication of differing standards for dif fering bodies of water throughout the State of Michigan. The "ater i

Hesources commission has no such authority in light of the lat-ts of *!ichigan,and the National Environmental Policy Act does not permit such a classification which, by its operation, subjects some bodies o' rivers to

.j i

s.

q yy-9m-e-e 7

f"

$++<%> i$<<4 h#

,.e... <e 1,.

TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1*0 "2 m m k m lil=G g,3 1.l E'S IllM l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4

6"

>l

1. 4

$+A,,;

4%

• &f A)x

4 3,,///

sq 44 % g,,

4 sq ~A p

,,+

's

_ E E- -

TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 58B L2a g m gn m m

==

l,l h,D hN l.8 1.25 1.4 l =1.6 a

= -

6"

/+4

• k$[4,p

, *)M,4

'h

t environmental degradation. According1;*, the Water

[

Rcsources Certification is based upon an illegal g

standard.

99.

Assuming the validity of a classification of standards for bodies of rivers, the Water Resources Cc:tnission

-v classification is insuffielent in that based upon the

+

-t existing quality of the River and Bullock Cree %, the V-cperation of the proposed Plant will viclate all standards set forth by the Water Resources Commission in its Certification for the River and Dullock Creek,

[:2 and more cpecifically described in (110) belou. As

^

such, the i.'ater Resourecs Certification ic insuf ficient!

' t 190.

The Uater P.csources Commicsion states that it is

'N t

c'tanging the c esignation of the River cssentially. from t..

a standard of " tolerant fish" to a better standard of " intolerant fish.".This change, due to beceme effective January 1, 1974, will not be able to be achieved if Applicant is permitted to operate the proposed Plant at the proposed site and as currently designed. This is particularly truo in light of the fact that other industries,' including, but not limited to, Lov Chemical Company and Dow Corning Company, l

centinue to pollute the River and its confluences.

Accordingly, permission to Applicant,'in light of the circumstances, rerrosents an unwarranted cost to the environment.

L

k 101.

The. Water Resourecs Connission Certification has failed to take into account the' standard or criteria for i

discharges procosed by Aonlicant into aullock Creek, and, thus, the Water "esources Certification is incomplete.

102.

The r ter Resources certification has erroneously a

concluGed that the operation of Aeplicant's procosed Plant uill not violate the standards set for total

'J i

dissolvable solids in the River. This is because the analysis of Applicant's contribution to total dissolv-akic solic's does not consider Low Chemical's contribu-tion and Dev Chemical's incrpased contribution as a result of planned expansion due to, assert &dly, low ccet energy and process steam from the pronosed Plant'.3

[

!'oreover, the discharges of total dissolvable solids by now Chemical are downstream from those crocosed by Aeplicant, and, accordingly, the geographic coint in the River used as a basis for A.rplicant's analysis is unrealistic and does not result in a true

~

analysis of the actual anount of total dissolvable solids which are or will be contain'ed in the River.

103.

The standard set by the Water Resources Commission with respect to the amount of total dissolvable solids pernitted to be discharged in or accumulated in the niver is qualitatively unsopnd in that it does not 8 1 t.

Eb

'i consider the hiehly injurious and toxic effect of

~

i certain classifications of total dissolvahic solids p

.t such as the solids resulting from the massivo daily discharges by Dow Chemical of chlorinated hydrocarbons.

Thus, the standard set for.the total dissolvabic solids, a standard which permits certain additions to the total dissolvahic solids by Applicant as a result of the preposed Plant, is insufficient to protect or upgrade the vator quality of the River.

101 The Water Pesources Ccenission has established maximum temocrature levels for the River. Intervenors contend that as a result of operation of the proposed Plant and, particularly during a drought year, such as was

{

1 cxperienced in 1944-1945i the, maximum allowable tempera-ture Icvels will be exceeded at points in the River I elow the Dow Chemical Waste Water Treatment Plant.

105 The Water Resources Commission has used the base year 1975 in its certification. The use of the year 1975 as a hann year has resulted in an/aEequate analysis under-1 ing the Certification. This is because subsequent 2

to the year 1975, when Applicant's proposed Plant will be operating, tables of electric power use and projected growth of Dow Chemical indicate that Dow Chemical Company will be discharging substantially more pollutants into the River and, t! sus, the additive effect of Apolicant's

.61-

.. _ _ ~. _

_.. _ ~.

a discharaes will be far greater than has been assumed by the Mator Resources Cornission. As such, che Uater Quality Certification is inadequate.

106 The Water Rrsources Connission has set a standard for the average centent of dissolved oxygen in the River to be not less than five milligrans nor liter and in any seecific instance, not to be less than four milli-s grams per liter. Intervenors contend that this standard is insufficient.

9 Moreover, assuming the validity of this standard, it is obvious from an exanination of 1 -

the statistics thus far provided that, currently, the standard is being violated and the additional discharges.

frer the protesed Plant and the resultant exesnsion cf Pow Chemical will inhibit;and prevent any. ability to'i ncet or =aintain the average and specific standard the for the River with rescect to/ dissolved orfgan content.

117 Tho Mater Ecsources Certification notes major accidents uhich resulted in adverse effects upon the River, including fish hills on at least two occasions, to vitt on September 14, 1969 and July 27, ?.??l.

The Water Quality Standards set for the River and the resultant Certification have failed to take into acccunt adverse offects upon the River as a result of accidents of the frecuency and severity as those exen911fied and cescriked in the Cortification. As a result, the I

5>.

Certification and the settinc of Water quality Standards

~

is based upon the unrealistic assumption that tht' 9fver vill only be subjected to the discharges as a result of nornal operaticas. The failure of the Water Resources Commission and its Ce'rtification to factor a margin of error for its predictions of discharges into the River including, but not limited to, abnormal discharges, results in the Water Quality Standard being insufficient to protect the River in accordance with law.

108 The !!ater Resources Cor=ission has established that the coliform count in the River may not exceed 5,000 organ-inns por milliliter on an average count. There are included within the Water Resources Certification i

instances of colifo=n counts which, exceed the estab ~

lished standard. Intervenors contend that the total 11 coliform density in the River already execeds the Water Resources Standards for intol'erant warn-water fish and agricultural use during substantial nortions' of the year and that the operation of Acolicant's preposed Plant and any expansion of Dow Chemical will j

comoound these oreblems by virtue of additional dis-I charges of sanitary wastes which increases the total coliform density.

i l

109.

The Uater Resources Certification sets forth an estab-I lished standard governing the River with respect to b-.

w r

-t

' 4

- ~

?

~--*- "

- - -7

E

-vr-

=%.-

t temperature limits for mixing zones and the edge of mixing zones. However, this Water Quality Standard i

is inadequate in that the standard does not define the mixing zone absolutely or specifically with respect to thermal discharges by Apolicant or Dow Chemical.

- i-As such, the Water Resources Commission Certification represents inadequate protection of the River, 110.

The Water Resources Commission has set forth in its certification Water Quality Standards applicable to the River and other bodies of water for suspended colloid:,

residues, toxic and deleterious substances, nutrients, phosphates. onmonia, nitrates, sugars, taste and odor c.

and pH.

Intervenors contehd that discharges from the i

. proaosed Plant and from the expansion of Dott Chemical I

resulting from operation of the proposed Plant will separately and/or in combination cause an increase in total amounts with respect to each of the above areas which will lead to absolute and relative values ex.

coeding the Water Quality Standards'and thereby contribute to the degradation of water quality of the River and its confluences.

111.

The Regulatory Staff has made no independent review of the Water Resources Certification so as to form an independent judgment uoon the Certification or the Natcr Quality Standards upon wnich it is based. Accord-I e

,w o

N s

ingly, the Pegulatory Staff has failed to neet its obligations pursuant to the National Environnental l'olicy Act as interpreted by the Calvert Clif fs ' deci-sion.

XII ADVE7SE EFFECTS ON t'ATER t* SED FOR DO'fESTIC PUU0SES A!;D/OR AGRICULTURAL IRP.InATIO!?

Applicant and the Regulatory Staff;asscrt there ' fill be 112.

no adverse effcet on the donestic water sueplies in the greater Tri-City area as a result of the operation of the proposed Plant, !!ottever, neither Applicant nor the Pegulatory Ftaff has presented and analyzed any data indicating survey of seeps or springs coming into the Piver. Furthermore, there is no data relating to a recharge of ground reservoirs by the River. The failure of Anplicant to have ar.alyzed seeps, or springs or re-.

charge of ground reservoirs indicate that Applicant and I

the Pogulatory Staff's assertions with respect to effects,-

if any, on domestic water sunplies are insupportable.

?'orcover, Intervonors contend affir=stively that based on available statistics that there will be an evacorative loss from the cooling cond to the River in the range of 20 to 35 cfs which will influence the total recharge

'g

--w-w

-ye a

-w-g 9

wy

,-i-r

- - l c

y

{

Mc m

4 of ground water reservoir $ uhich will adversely affect i

the arount of water available to wells in the Tri-City Pegion, earticularly, downstrean fron the proposed Plant. Thus, not only have Apolicant and the Regulatory Staff failed adequately to analyze these crucial criteria, but the available statistics indicato that creration o' the proposed Plant will have an adverse o#fect uron donestic water sunplies.

• 12 Teclicant has admitted that in its franchise area, including tha area to be serviced by the propoced Plant,

nrc exists agricultural land which_is, from time to ttro, su!:j nct to irrigation. Apelicant has not anaJyze2 the <"fect which the cenoration of electricity ' ;

. u.

e.nd transnissi"n of electricity fron the prorosed Plant' s

uill have uren the inability of owners of agricultural land to irrigate their crops. Grids and transriesion lines will prevent the agricultural land situated near such grids and transr.ission lines from being irrigated by conventional sprinkler systems. The failure to have consi0cred as a cost to the environment the amount of agricultural land which will be affected has not been considered in the cost-honefit analysis.

I f

s 66-r n

--r-r v

p y

e-

--e

h^

f.

- ~

1 XIII I

I?!ADECU.CE A!!7. LYSIS FP.O*4

,f

EFFECTS OF

?'A70R A"D SEVEPI PLOODS Anglicant and the Regula' tory Staff f have nresented data 114.

on a erohnhle maxirum flood and assert that the design oftheproposedPlantadequatelysdfcguardsthePlant' from such a orobable maximum ficod. Intervenors contend,-

ho:rever, th.st an adequate environmental analysis is not J?

possible unless it includes the probability and effects of a 10-year, 100-year, 500-year, 1,000-year or 10,000 ',,'

year flood and the.t the 634 foot site elevation estab-lished for the proposed Plant willlhe insufficient to

?.

t protect theproposedPlantinrest;ofth'oabove:dloods.

4 In addition, Applicant's failure to discuss the range of possih]e floods has resulted in its failure to consider or take into account such a range of ficods-in connection with the design of the under-r.tructure 2

of the proposed Plant or the emergency measures which t-rould be necessary to be ta!:en into account in the event of such a flood or _ floods. In any.such analysis, Applicant rust set forth statistics uoon which one can concludo what the docree of crobability is with respect to each such fle:S and must also set forth what the consecuencen voulel be from each such ficod. liithout such information, an aricquate cost-benefit analysis cannot be made.

~

v c i

cy r-AREAS IN ICIICII TitEP2 IS tIO DISCUSSION e

RESULTING IN AN INCOMPLETE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 115. Applicant and the Regulatory Staff have failed to considor in their environmental submissions any infor-nation or substantial information in each of the folicwing areas. The failure to have analyzed and considered issues in such areas results in an insuf-ficient environmental analysis of the construction and operation of the proposed Plant:

7, -

(a)

Social and philosophical effects of tho displacurent of people as a result of the 4

construction and cperation of the propos(ed ~,~ '.'I-

}

Plant; (b)

Wildlife aesthetics; n

(c)

Pcpulation projections; (d)

Chemical explosions at Dew Chemical and Dow Corning Companies; (e)

Effects of synergism between radiation and i

~,

chemicals; I

(f)

Effects on fish and other organisms as a result of the operation of intake structures; (g)

Decrease in prcperty values as a result of each cost considered or failed to be considered; t -

a.

?c h-

.+

s J

Effects of the construction and operation (h) of transmission lines, including but not i'

limited to, ef fects in the following areas:

I (1) visual aesthetics; (ii) - displacement of land; and (iii) effects on bird migration.

XV 7

INADEQUATE COST-DENEFIT A:!ALYSIS The ::ational Environmental Policy Act requires suffi-116.

cient information in order to make a cest-benefit -

The analysis both qualitatively and gaantitatively.

d Regulatory Staf f and Applicant have not presonted suf ficient information and have expressly declined to make qualitative and quantitative analyscs!of the$

i '

various costs and benefits discussed in cach of their submisssions as well as those raised in this Statement of Contentions. Rather, Applicant and the Regulatory Staf f have put forward certain value judgments and con-clusions without assessing their economic cost or benefit' '

and without relating such value judgments to the stan-dards of the National Environmental Policy Act.

In certain instances, Applicant and the Regulatory Staff 117.

have provided dollar values but, once again, those dollar valacs are based upon vague or non-existent factual support.

f

,____.____.._-..__.__._..___.___...___.___..________m.

m.

-.a m.

.. i.

.m y

?

. u b

i

.4 AA 113.

.ntervenors contend that because the procedural failures

~

sj s

listed in Contentions 116 and 117, there is a failure to co.. ply Nith the provisions of the National Environ-contal Policy Act as well as a failure to provide a suf.

ficient factual basis for this Board adequately to 4

analyze the totality of the environmental impact of the direct and indirect effects of the' proposed Plant.

-I z 'i XVI

}

MISCELLANECUS-i' 119.

Intervenors also incorporate by reference each of the contentlenn set forth in Appendix B to our Itotions filed on September 30, 1971 and set forth in co=nents of the Environ: ental Defense Fund dated Junc{ 4, '1971

}

t' t

t SA7.INAM VALLEY INTERVENORS, ET AL.

C~%

,f a

7 //

~

'o,e 7

Their Attornev t

ltyron :1. Cherry 9'

109 : orth Dearborn Street Suite 1093 Chicapo, Illinois 60602 312/641-3375

, 6 m

.e e

I

_, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ^ ~

e

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - ^ - - ^ ^ '

[

n-Intervonors, hcrewith, move the Atomic Safety and Licensing,

Board for the entry of en Order permitting them to file detailed requests for discovery within fourteen (14) days af ter the Board,

has ruled upon the scope of environmental inquiry.

3 The grounds for this Motion are as follows:

A.

We believe that it will be some time before the 3 card has established the scope of environ = ental inquiry. 'The resolution of the secpe may necessitate certificatiens to the cc==ission; B.

!io party will be adversely affected by permitting.

Intervonors to await the filing of discovery requests. In fact, the Board and all parties will gain a benefit because no one will have to arguc ca discovery requests in connection with a particu-

~

-~

. lar scope of inquiry which ucy later be eliminated; C.

If Applicant, the Regulatory Staff, and Dew f

chemical have dcne their hc=cwork with respect to enviren= ental submissicas on the basis of this State =ent of Cententions, they could b n to categorize and collate information for later availability to Intervenors. In fact, such infor=ation could be turned over to Intervencrs voluntarily during the pe,ried of time during which the 3 card and the Cc=missien will be finalizing the secpe of environmental inquiry; D.

Intervenors agree to sit down with counsel for each of the parties and atterpt to work out an informal exchange of infermation so as to save the Board the additional burden of 2 craal requests and argu=ent thereen; A-2 x

a EXIIIBIT A TO SACI!Uel VALLEY ET AL. INTERVt.a. ORS '

i-.

STATI:!C'T_ Ol' CVIRO :MLtITAL CO:ITENTIO:IS

^ '

Intervenors have labored diligently and in good faith to prove this Statement of Environmental Contentions based upon submissions made by Applicant and the Regulatory Staf f.

Inter -

venors do not believe it makes sense to file detailed inter-rogatories with respect to these Contentions, until such time as the Board has ruled upon the scope of environmental inquiry. '

Earlier in these proceedings, Intervenors filed a demand fer documents which necesssarily was brcad in secpe because of the absence of the refinement of the environmental scope of inquiry in this proceeding. Since the filing of'that request for docu=ents, which is still outstanding, although the parties #

and the Board have moved forward toward an environmental hearing,-

the secpe has not been defined.

Intervonors do not feel it would serve any useful purposo.

tcward moving this proceeding along to file a request for docu-monts and interrogatories new which necessarily would be broad in ucopo and obviously would be objected to by all of the parties.

Intervenors believe that they have demonstrated their good faith ef forts in the development of Environmental Contentions, all in accordance with the Board's earlier rulings. Because the Inter-venors have demonstrated good faith, they should not be penalized by having to file detailed discovsry requests before the scope of inquiry is set forth by the Board.

d t

n

i v

e-

~.

d I

i.

1

}

1 r,c r

i' CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE i'.

I certify that a copy of this Statement ef Contentions-was nailed, proterly.addreu ed and pos.tage prepaid, to l'

"er.bern of the Atomic Safety and' Licensing'Doard,-the

+

i-

}

Secretary of the Atenic Encrgy Commission, and All Counsel t'

of.Pocord.

y 4

N y.

V F

J-

./,

(-

ii

}~

{

*. i Ut ll~' ~~t

.lll,

.ye!-

?)-

.p.

t Myron M. Cherry-1 g

b

'[

t,-.

-, ;,{'

g t

I e

s 4<'

(

4 ve

? N.

f.I

I -

l*

. 9. f..-

,F

.' 4 ;I

,; s, 1

n.

rl(

l

?.).]

1.

?!s _

, !+$4..

a, w

• .['

i

+-

• M' E.

Finally, Intervonors assert that the granting of this Motion will result in a judicially sound resolution of resources of the parties and their counsel in this proceeding.

F.

Intervenors at this time and in addition to outst, Sing requests, ask Dow Chemical, the Regulatory Sta_,

and Applicant the following intorrogatory:

Please list by category or other characteriza-tion all documents and other information (as those terms were defined in earlier interroga-tories addressed to the parties) which deal with, relate to, or. discuss each of the Conten-tions which each of you reasonably agree is within the secpo of environmental' inquiry.

If each of the parties is required to answer this interroga-t 4

tory, the process of discovery vill begin without the added burdens cf argument upon matters of inquiry not yet the subject cf a Board decision.

i 1

i e

A-3 L

y

• t