ML19331A782
| ML19331A782 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades, Midland  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1977 |
| From: | Fouchard J NRC OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS (OPA) |
| To: | Antle R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007230812 | |
| Download: ML19331A782 (5) | |
Text
.
. m. _ g
.-. m
-._.y___
,u-i
~
e O
November 9.1977 j
Mrs. R. C. Antle fo 323 2501 Center Avenue Bay City. MI 48706
Dear Mrs. Antle:
Your letter to President Carter was referred to us for reply by the Depart-ment of Energy and was received in this office on November 7.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an independent agency established to assure that if nuclear power is used to produce electricity, the public health and safety dnd the environment are protected. The procedures we use for doing this.are described in the enclosed booklet " Licensing of Nuclear Power Reactors."
i These procedures were ap,) lied to Consumers Power Company of Michigan's application to build its two-unit Midland Nuclear Power Station. As a '
result of favorable findings construction posits for the facility were issued by the staff of the foneer Atomic Energy Coussission in December 1972.
However, as the result of a July 1976 by a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
l the public hearing on the construction permits was reopendd to consider the environmental impacts of fuel reprocessing aad weste management and the use of energy conservation methods as an alternative to meeting the i
need for electricity which would be provided by the Midland facility.
The first phase of this proceeding--to consider whether the construction permits should be suspended pending a decision on the merits of the issues J
reised by the Court of Appeals--has been completed. The Licensing Board detemined that suspension was not warranted. and this decision has been appealed to an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. In the meantime, the Licensing Board, at a date yet to be determined, will proceed to con-sider the merits of the issues.
Depending on the outcome of this proceeding, additional safety and environ-i mental reviews by the letc staff--and, possibly, another public hearing--
would be required before licenses to operate these two power reactors could be issued.
Sincerely.
S Jossph J. Fouchard M1' Acting Director nff4em af DuM 4e Affm4pa PA /b PA\\
. = =
- Enclosure w w
Ensrmi.id_ AEou2Lhard _
.. =
- D t9t11 Dk.lh7
- - < ?. m
_ =..~. -e
_}
8007230 [/2
[
.._-w.-
.W 3
n l 3 '~ M' f0 October 25, 1977
~
President James E. Carter The White House Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear President Carter,
Plea _se have someone on the Atomic Energy _ Commission rend _these en m es %plus.one in the_SEPTEMPER 1977 issue of BUDUBON, pages 50-67.
WE_DO NO UdANTlHEED_TH_I.S ATOMIC _ POWER PLAN _T WHICH IS BEING FO!STED UPON US!
MICHIGAN HAS ENOUGH PROBLEMS WITH ITS PALABADES PLANT AND ITS PBB AND PCB WITHOUT MORE!
Thank you for your kindness, Sincerely,
[(
l Ck Elizabeth H. Antle (Mrs. R. C. Antle) 2501 Center Avenue Bay City, Michigan 48706 0
_.4
-.~
._m
- - +.
m e
.w e
W kg u-N "
- W W
.s I
g f
- y' i
, Q *;; q e
-[
" ' -i g
,m g-s gr s
Nuclear' Power BottomL 1
~ In giving Consumers Power Company a tenta.
The same notes reflect the exploration by a threl tive go. ahead on its Midland nuclear power Consumers' attorney of the possibility of using pered plant, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dow witnesses unfamiliar with the facts relat.
coura rejected most of the company's defense against ing to the Dow. Consumers dispute to testify at hold; intervenors' charges. But what. impressed the the hearing; they further disclose a proposed
- ead, board and. led to its decision was the potential strategy by Consumers tu ' drag feet' in the up th economic losp discontinuance.of construction hearing process because as long as construction L.Th
\\
would entail.
continues, Consumers 'has a lever.'"
board Yes, said the board, Consumers was devious The matter was aired in advance of the hear.
crucid and dishonest. Yes, the Atomic Energy Com*
ings, so the strategems were not successful, the, viabil mission failed to consider the' environmental ef.
board noted, but added:
Thd s
fects of the nuclear fuel cycle. Yes, there was "Of course there remains the suspicion, tal,o:
an additional violation of the Enviromental Pro.
raised by the disclosure of these instances, that stagg tection Act in the failure to consider energy there may have been similar ploys which were
, It 'ij conservation as an alternative to the Midland successful."
~
i
,gue,1 plant. Ard yes, there was a kind of blackmail Surely that requires an inquiry at least.
matte t
at work in Consumers' pressure on the Dow Although once again', if the board's reasoning ly m a, Chemical Company.
is applied, the ultimate cost would be borne not answq All trug said the board. f by the company but by the ratgayers.
- assum But what we have in this case and others like That is the crux of the matter,' and the bot.
Ju it is a balancing of equities "a traditional ~ tom line below the bottom line.
on balancing of equities."
Early in this long, long game we predicted powe Grant the intervenors.their points - their that in the end the controlling fact would be proof equities - and fin'd Consumers Power guilty as money; that the primary mistake was permit.
safely charged, "we think that to ignoie several ting construction to begin before the completion
. As hundred million dollars worth. (of sunk costs) qf licensag hearings and investigations.
died 1
as a punishment would work an out.of.
The irony is that the longer intervenors de.
dustr;
. proportion injustice on those who will ultimate.
layed the licensing process - no matter. how-of the ly provide the money."
good and. solid their reasons - the stronger.ingho'
. Those who will ultimately provide the money, they made the opponents case. Every month's new o
~
l of course, are the ratepayers.
delay meant more millions sunk.
10 a y Attorney Myron M. Cherry, counsel for the The RATEPAYER'S money.,
now; intervenors, was understandably outraged.
So there is the second fly in the ointment -
"An extension of that reasoning," said he, the system that permits that ratepayer rip-off.
" simply means that every Atomic Safety and Consumers conceded in the hearings on the Licensing Board decision which becomes im.
Marysville pla'nt that it permitted millions in mediately effective is beyond review, waste, confident _that it would all be charged "Every utility which has a construction per.
against ratepay(rs.
mit starts to spend money. What this Board has In,this case, Consumers contended that a told every utility is that if they spend that mo-nine-month delay in construction would cost ney fast'enough, not even a Court of Appeals about $245 million, and that' dumping the plant
./
decision can be fairly implemented."
would cost $5 8.5.million,. Add the cost of a j~
The very least the board should do, said. coal fired plant in its stead, and the total "ad.
Cherry, is consider sanctions to impose on Con-vantage" to be derived from completion of the -
sumers Power.
- 'nuclear plant is in the-heighborhood of $5.5
' There is evidence in this record," said the. billion.
board, "that Licensee (Consumers Power) has The board questioned the figures and a few of l
considered conducting its share of this proceed.
the assumptions but. held nonetheless that the I
ing in such. a way as to not disclose important more.than-a-billion. dollars - advantage was facts to the Board. Notes taken by a Dow attor-decisive. '
ney of meetings with Coasumers' attorneys in.
And not just because'that's a lot of money, or,
i dicate the desire of the latter to ' finesse' the because ratepayers would have to pay it but be.
dispute with Dow if no Intervenors appeared...
cause the stability of the utility itself would be j aw -...,
~----.s-+
~.~. a 3
l
-M*=nk
- an.neW**y
- we 7* ne=~
k { ;, ry fv ~
. f y m-
, g.
n.
' ' am n
. k.
.{..
,+
-L e
r.
-a s g",']~
f b
3
-e
.3 qs a -l.
.o Mary Sinclair, y t
fervent foe > 1 g"
.4 r.
of the Midland d, '9.
r' o'
b~
t 7
nuclearplant h ~
((,
(background) e now under 9 F 7g
,3
(
construction.
f
=r n...
f.
~. ' '
- 0N l
.i
.a Nuclear Plant's Foe !
i Won't Give Up Fight l
=
BY ALEX TAYLOR MIDLAND E ine years of fighting Con.
s6I COuldn,t hate pCOple '
Pree Preis swimss writer j
N ew tliey d *neen.j 9
sumers Power Co. and Dow Chemical Co. have use taken a toll on Mary Sinclair - financially and -
}ed(O*"
-MarySinclair l
, sychologically.
p For that matter, her crusade hasn't been a picnic for the companies either.
Leading a campaign to halt construction of Consumers' nuclear power plant adjacent to million -it should continue while new hear.
the Dow complex in Midland has cost the 501sh, ings.on the license were held.
y somewhat shy. colle ge lnstructor $5,000 a year Construction costs, meanwhile, are being' for copying documents, raising money and borne by Consumer's customers through elec-.
l traveling to meetings.
tric rates.
Her attorney husband. William. estimates he Though Censumers disagrees. Mrs. Sinclair.
has lost' $50.000 in legal fees because plant says the current construcuon license is "not backers convinced banks and real estate bro.
valld" and says that making consumers foot the' kers to take their legal business elsewhere.
bill is an " affront" to them and the public.. !
Mrs. Sinclair's group has filed an appeal of
- SHUNNED BY FRIENDS many of whom the NRC decision with the U.S. Court of Ap ".
-l were married to Dow employes Mrs. Sinclair peals. Fiehting Consumers again through the' stopped attending meetings at two women's licensf., cedure would be an lengthy andi l
clubs,andfound her social life "droppea off to expen* *e p xess, costing $75,000 to $100 '
At cchool, her children were told. "Your zero.
000, wt.. rs. Sinclair doesn't relish.
mother's going to have our parents selling WHILE THESE ISSUES hang in the balance..'
Mrs. Sinclair continues to be enmeshed in the '
l apples in the street."
Since1968 Mrs. Sinclair.a former technical. problems of energy conservation. Having re I writer who at one time worked for Dow, has ceived a master's degree in environmental.'
argued that the Midland nuclear power plant communications from the University of Michie was unsafe and would produce radioactive gan in 1973 she now teaches a course there on <
wastes that no one knows how to dispose of the subject and is co-ordinating a wide-ranging :
- safely, conference on energy issues for the uaiu rsity Delays in construction, cawed partly by Many of the friends who turned against her; opposition from the Saginaw Valley Nuclear in the early years of the struggle have changed-1 Study Group she headed, have sent construc. their opinions on nuclear energy. These days..'
tion costs bailooning to nearly five times the sitting in the living room of her spacious home-original estimate of $350 mi!! ion. and the on a tree-lined Midland street. Mrs. Sinclair is' sche.d.uled c.amplet.i.o.n.date has been pushed philosophical and forgiving of her former an ;
o...
.. a.,.
, o 2501 Ccntor Avenua h y 77.-~..h*
'"~ "'"
. ') 2 4
~
Bay City, Mi.
48706
- ---7 f..g l
.1 g -.
m l
("
i.
- ~.. _.
m i
)
s..
- 'w
' ~.;j :s :~Q. '
~-
~.-
I i
President James E. Earter The White House Wash 6ngton, D. C.
20510 i
d i
i 4
6 9
-