ML19331B006

Petition for Order Requiring Cost/Benefit Analysis Reassessment in Connection W/Show Cause Proceeding or AEC Obligation to Enforce NEPA Requirements.Verification & Certification Encl

ML19331B006
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	01/29/1974
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, Saginaw Intervenor
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 8007250679
Download: ML19331B006 (13)

Text

l-39-1(/

9'l o>

ca:xa numsu

'ennutt um.s ta - -3 M M O b ens 3 V b~  !-

JAN291974*'

sma st

• W [g W W ,# UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gj@ f ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Ga n>

In the matter of )

) Dockets Nos. 50-329 and 50-330 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) and

) Construction Permits Nos. 81 and 8:

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

PETITION TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION There is pending before this agency matters concerning the Midland facility. These include e Show cause proceeding concerning whether the licensee can adequately comply with quality-assurance regulations and a petition to reopen the proceedings to consider matters of energy conservation. These and other new facts set out below upset the prior and now in-supportable cost-benefit analysis required by NEPA and sur-rounding the Midland facility. Accordingly, the Saginaw Valley, et al, Intervenors in Dockets 50-329 and 50-330, and the Sierra-Saginaw Petitioners in the Show Cause proceeding ,

move the Commission for the entry of an order requiring a re-assessment of the cost benefit analysis for the Midland facil-ity in an indepen' dent hearing, in connection with the Show 8007250 b 7 7

Cause proceeding, or in connection with the Atomic Energy Commission's continuing obligation to monitor Dockets Nos.

50-329 and 50-330 in order to enforce obligations under the Atomic Energy Act and the National Envirommental Protection Act. The hearing would determine whether the construction permits ought to be modified or revoked because of a radical change in underlying economic facts which so upset the pre-vious cost-benefit analysis as to render it meaningless for purposes of enforcement of NEPA obligations. !

1/ Since NEPA and Calvert Cliffs' v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C.

Cir. 1971) it is clear that the AEC must enforce NEPA as 1 faithfully and rigorously as it is obligated to enforce the Atomic Energy Act. Recently, the AEC has called into question the Midland permits because of post-permit new  ;

facts which call into question continuation of the plant.

Mem. and Order of the AEC, in re Construction Permits Nos.

81 and 82, Jan. 21, 1974. Thus, "new safety" facts can force a reversal of permission to build. The AEC had also called into question previous permission to build based on "new facts" which are of a safety-environmental variety.

North Anna, 1 and 2, Order to Show Cause re earthquake pro-blem, December, 1973. Since the AEC must enforce NEPA, it follows that new "NEPA" facts which undercut the previous . l analysis supporting a permit may be a basis for modification or revocation of an existing permit. Otherwise, inaction by the AEC would frustrate NEPA and encourage the building of an unneeded plant in terms of environmental costs.

o

The grounds for this petition are as follows:

1. A primary reason why the Midland plant was proposed was in order to supply Dow Chemical company with economical, low cost process steam. (See Final Environmental Impact State-ment at p.I-2.) In fact, the Final Environmental Impact State-ment states that if economical, low cost steam could not be provided to the Midland Division of Dow Chemical, there is no Apparent reason for building the plant there and consideration would be given to cancellation of the Midland plant; (Final Environmental Impact Statement at p.XI-3) 1

2. The licensee has continually admitted that it would be uneconomical to build the Midland facility solely for the purpose of generating electricity and a Midland plant just for electricity would not be built. (See Consumers Power Company's Answers to Saginaw-Intervenors' Interrogatories, Nos. 172-173 filed on April 13, 1971 in Dkt. 50-329 and 50-330) ;

[

~

3. The original cost of the nuclear power plant at the time of the application filing was approximately $260,000,000.

Summary of Original Application, January 13, 1969. The Environ-mental Impact Statement was based upon a capital cost of between

)

s

$554,000,000 and $590,000,000. (Final Environmental Impact Statement Table XI-l at p.XI-8.) Based on these figures, the Impact Statement asserted that by comparison (considering operational costs and sale of electricity and steam to Dow in a certain amount) it was cheaper to build a nuclear facility than a fossil-fuel facility. (Final Environmental Impact Statement at pp. XI-6-7.)

4. In fact, the Midland nuclear plant is now estimated to cost almost $1,000,000,000, almost double the amount con-sidered in the Final Impact Statement and almost four tbmes the original projection. (Statement of Steve Howell, Vice President of Consumers Power, January 8, 1974. Attached here-to as Exhibit "A" is a copy of the Bay City Times' report of Mr. Howell's statement) ;

5. The increased cost of the nuclear power plant is today jeopardi' zing the single underlying reason why the plant was proposed in the first place, that is, Dow Chemical company's ,

purchase of economical, low cost process steam. Upon informa-tion and. belief, Dow Chemical officials have now conceded that the cost of process steam has almost doubled (100%) over the

~

original estimate, thus placing in jeopardy Dow Chemical Company's contractual commitments to purchase steam without which Consumers Power Company would not be able to justify, on a cost-benefit basis, the building of the proposed plant in Midland. The existing contract between Dow Chemical and Consumers concerning the purchase and sale of steam was up for renewal and extension on January 14, 1974. However, the agreement was not extended as usual and today the parties are in disagreement with the final decision to be made Febru-ary 1, 1974. Moreover, any agreement reached would have to consider the exigencies of new costs, a factor which probably upsets the cost-benefit analysis in any event:

6. In addition,.upon information and belief, Dew Chemical officials are concerned about the reliability of the Midland nuclear facility, if built, and if capable of supplying low cost steam because of Consumers Power Company's unreliable nuclear record at its Big Rock and Palisades facilities:

7. Moreover, it appears that the current estimate of the cost of building the Midland facility of approximately

$1,000,000,000, may also be low in view of the fact that Con-

-S-

A sumers Power Company recently announced that the cost of con-structing a proposed, almost identical facility at Quanicassee would be 1.4 billion dollars. (Exhibit "A" hereto)

Thus, it is safe to assume that the p' resent estimated cost of the Midland facility is not a conservative estimate, particu-larly in light of the additional costs which Consumers Power Company may be forced to incur directly as a result of the Show Cause hearing and indirectly as a result of energy con-servation:

8. Since the estimated economic costs surrounding the nuclear power facility have new almost doubled from the figures used in the Impact Statement, and almost quadrupled from the .

original estimated costs, it is. improper to continue to raly upon the prior cost-benefit analysis as a justification for continuation of the plant. This is even more true in light of current energy conservation principles which may decrease further the need for electricity or steam (to Dow in particular, and to all users in general) from the proposed plant, thus in- ,

creasing capital and operating costs more. Dow Chemical has -

recently ta' ken pains to point out to the public that it has l

+

t decreased its need for future electricity and process steam '

6-

by up to 20%. (See Exhibits "B" and "C" hereto, respectively, Joseph Kraft, Attitudes On Enerev, Washington Post, December 4,1973, and Midland Daily News, November 29, 1973.)

9. All of the facts asserted here are new racts justify-ing reexamination of the cost-benefit analysis. While we ad-mit that new facts may not always require a reanalysis, whereas here the construction of the plant is hardly ccmpleted, the new facts are highly dramatic in their effect. Additionally, new, not later, Consumers has reasonable alternatives available to it such as disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact State-ment at p.XI-3.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Saginaw Intervenors in Dc.;kets 50-329 and 50-330, and the Sierra-Saginaw Petitioners in the Show Cause proceeding, move the Commission for the entry of an Order requiring a hearing on reassessment of the cost-benefit analysis in connection with the proposed Midland facility in an independent proceeding, ,.

in connection with the Commission's continuing overview of Dockets Nos. 50-329 and 50-330, or in the upcoming shew Cause proceeding.

s ,

l Respectfully,

,I

\ IM MyrM M. dherly, t8rney/for i Saginaw' ntervenors in D ckets Nos. 50-319 and 50-330, and Sierra-Saginaw Petitio rs in the Show cause proceed ng.

Myron M.-Cherry One I B M Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Telephone: (312) 222-9350 P

gogII MUMSUI P900,& R 98= $0 '3 E T'3'3 0 VERIFICATI'ON I verify that the facts asserted in the foregoing Petition to the commission are based upon my cwn personal knowledge, or upon my information and belief. I believe that all such facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and as to those statements made en information and belief, I believe them to be true.

1. @ n.

O,,a ,/srJ ~

"# " Ch *"Y

Jggg1974*

s. .-

pass meses

% N

-l l

l i

l l

1

= ,

o Cad J.l P 00CKET NUM PMIO, & E IE O' l

a

{ ~~,,. .s 7 M

~ e f, ,

1. N m

'/ m f .

-l m a

3'O e*.OP o; 4 M 2 f ..' =-'2

\ *

• C o- oa Q C@nc *' E07 3 N ;C $*

. G.= .**ew*n o b G *:*,n* 'U u *'2n- c ", y@ cc

.d **

/'

O 7 9 un n0

- , - = 0: M= W C. o m=

1 y p "0.3143 m -- -

Ea 5e Cr .c

-u

=

, ,~ DnyLn UA >. u

-- CAT uN

- -s en - . .n. c

. --A r

'A,

~

. .- G . =y $. u2 .a aL7- u :" . . .u -2 =-3. *-  :

'~

2 C3 N 4 "~ ~ -N i :.~ nEi0. Ca" wcC o e : -: -

, s(

=

= x - .c y.*- = =sc,a ye O,

, c:Es

\ - --

n.

r c' w s~umc.u o :,,

c .= g-6u.s H

• u = 'N' T= 4 M T,.Z -h 3 D C

.o,a a ~ .wn#

J .. . = == ,.. , w 3 ..c

- - N m

W "8""

E - C *% $ C a' **"9 ,

, C . 6s.to n9

- . . hf

• b h

.O

5. e e .s --

. e5 R 3 ,,,. .M. " ~7 9 * .5 La -E=E2 .- *u=h-7 2 O n * ~ =a:==~-==u-

= uo

• #y Z" c = *: s O:" T = d{NM y .f g f c ectricity is now bein:: sav-Che:m. .d n aticm:e:mg to re cd ro npared to early 14ovem- ed:- consohdate d' partments dure n.. i. c of weam encr;:y, her. lhe savmg is the result and close off resu'.. ant vacant and rtecten.d incr/y as mnih of c'iminaim;; 650 large lights

.c y e art s.

and a.s o.au as pt.db!c to help and adjustin;; cicctiic --- rhc(king all steam traps g

• case the <m r.:y ' i r onch. And switches for 1/>00 other Ights 4 in scical .!ays, the ellort has to turn on lalcr and turn off for cottett operation and Out-saved c.arh energy to heat carliar.1 he . savin; t. 11 r o w n tin;: o!I steam comp!ctdy to c ,,, i nh..ut ; M homes fr.r a } car. said, pnr.ide enou;;h clectricity certain buddin;;t. D ==

- consider on " air lock" type in a.'d !! n. the dinton has for 001.omes.

J. G. Tempic, g encral mana- entranee for No.13 Clochtoom

[N MZ *

-O

• ~ .

the a.ne: i.d 4.vr 11.. nm !c v to s.a r ..ppiosunately N gr of the disiuon. has catted becane .c of the strong cast w.nd.

2 gy@ l ""= W, 1 3 c..

per . nt e: ds turient Mcam for a three - sirp approaich to

- shorten the lunch period. &- -* ,,

t sa.*

. .d at fra t M.0t n kiln- encry conservation: immed: - - shut down spaic punypt. Q w ait 1.ou r3 per day of electri- ate actions, short - term plant motars and fans and en;;mes 4 cdy unta.t iedunn;: produc - and lon;: - ranre plans. not s me. ,9 tion llos would rc.scit lar;:cly Some 500 written ideas on im- - maximize the return of fiom she use ..f new pmccss mediath and shoit term ways steam conden. sate. g techn .to:g dur for udtallation to sa-c encirv have been tuin. And of rousse one wag could-by Ivi7. Su! unuhl aho sequne cd in by divmon employes in n*t resist makm;: this sun;:cs-t sentin.md .la.ly pr.it inre of p.od sc;cnt urck<.

"V.mtmily, uc came up with tion. "Get enited quite ollen $$

toner..n.on measairs.

't hat i, the gist of a pichm- a fair amoant of dopbcatima and near a coat m the heat g Q-rury anaiy:as made by the Dow a mon. thesc '.00 ideas". 'icm- of }onr an;;cr can be put to p a r.t. All ltf the projn ts are -

] m e;:y therimualma Co:n 4ttre pie s.sid. "Itut the apphration ;or=1 1 he use" most telling str tes in nw undcrao.na remmination {,

fotbm ma a 44. cnt plant - wnte of the ;J~as with:n cas h depart- to ditcomme if their .scheduhn;;  :.;g c:

surwy of energy c onse vation nv nt is not a duphration of ener;:y conservation are estett, shouid be anc; crated. K- g plans a::.1 :de.m.

cffort. Insicad, it's an accumu. ed to o. 'a from the lon;cr May Gada. mana;cr of pro- gS -

Ar..uihn : In Pay I. lirubak- lanon of sasings. I m wry mt- range plans for more than lin (c. s engince s.n; f.ir the ehvi- ys c r. s h .::.naa of the .hviN"n par ~4 d t>y it.e way wir p op'c new construction and mainie. ,q connnatre, a 24 per o nt sav- are 36pued.ng. We are :fcp ud- nance piojetis whn h dchber. . sion.

ennse rvatica .says effoit in th.1"thanhs pas:. to ga slion;:

in;: in s:. a m unald he the in;: na rat h depait t.u nt and ately seck lewx . re p.n t s in a bbtion lo mth inent mt g 4 gg.m h m In n k m- m-  %

that ;a the I 1.ht.n:: arca alone, t.asics a ; redurmg licat. turn- neil and am uheduled for in- ) tinue II A"dthat tiend'o nr II "I cven D I'UV" We C3d 6 Mi Llowan ho.na per day m;: ou: leahts nod diivm;; slm ,.allat;on over the next four 4...a..ew.,_

p-w

%*= ~ . . - ~ . _... ya

~

/f

[ } ;$tg.O g n

f- '** MtM.

]Owph Kraft .

9- g bg 5

b muc'es on .inergy e

9 -~7 {

s g, y Ib l/

Tr.e lec;e cf the Arab cil boycott is The one mention c. . e in the that A-e-ieans will blame Israel for t day's proceeding- w as excuiratory-f;el the-ta:es and feree down her 60DgTESSiDDalRtf0fd . Sen. Herman Talt .ad:e of Gect;:a. a W- **--"--"': *- -

threat a Carthannian peace. But so ~ ' - '""'"*'"*"***""-'

conservative Demaerat who heMr cr.e far. at least that isn't the way pub!fe S'"d of the safest seats in the Senate and is c;ir.!:n in this country is reacting at _ .... anythin: but dependent upon Jewish ,

El:#####-~' ~ -- ~I0*?~m~ J .e.d 4 3

support, put into the record an edito-aE .. 30 .

rial from the Savannah >!orning News.

On the contrary, the country seems - . :' :-

!?.r.r- .u. Mff(}(r3 r:::. :--

In introducing the item, the senator E q - p ='Aii M.Yr7 M.D M .'II ;

to be ready for sacrifices far greater E M-

$5f "fO3~2 55~~.7--NEN".g said the United States should not bow to boycott or blackmail in the en.

thar. new being dreamed of in the bu. m : e.

erry field. The editorial said: "The

- -- r . . ". .k-3 r-/.t 92.N -

3.$;[V.3.i reaucrary.as. usual mood still dominant ir. Washin; ton. Insofar as there is

.WJ;;;;G ""'Q'" h-@ crucial decision we must make in rc-Kard to our energy prcblems is nrt cnc {

tr e for shorta;es and confusion, it 3gp_* T . .: ; ; =.y - g,,,ny ; . of Israel or oil but cf eventual self.suf-r,

. r:--E ficiency or dependence."

is te:ng placed first, on President N; Wr51:55

~ .[.g [;'Q', .;

N.1: . and rext, en the oil companies. ^". undercurrent of oppositien in the Ferhaps the best test of opinion is N *'-d$.'M  :<: N Nn.N*i 2 .a President was quite clear. Sen. Huber; tre t wn of M.ichita, Kansas, where p.yg.ggg p.y

/@Z

. =:.- idig;i.T Humphrey (D Afinn.), for examr'e. a s.

setted that 5fr. Ni. son's prope= sis were the r-a.'cr industry is production of .; :.: . . :. .6'- " inadequate, and added that perr.aps s ta'.. ne-utive planes. Reductions in q wedends inN. mnma c- New i A not very different pattern emerges an in s  ;

Le; a;;otatiens for business flying from a randnm perusal of that thesau- [',' a[, ra . ,,

E

'r ave a; ready led to a fallin orders and rus of ristional grtpes - the Con:res. the President cf what it means to k I a d c; in employment. sional Reenrd. Abundant complaints, "id *" i' and many different suggestions for ae. in to the oil companies, Rep. .rc h:

Lt, a::erding to a report in The tion, appear almost every day. Here is a sample from the Record of Novem- 31 ass. a California Democrat P::re duced a measure that wou!d es:st:: n ber 2. a :enment ewpany as a s aMe wjr Rep. Elford Cederburg, a conserva- anst h @au firms. Ecm . .

tive Repubhcan from Bay Chy,5fichi- o red l

".S,aO!t Oi the WorkPUs # ** #8' "'#I*b . [

gan, stressed the theme of consumer I"to the Record an artic.e in 'R.e conservation. "AH energy consumers ashin; ton Post which began w.th ta fcern utlaware Of the can take steps to reduce consumption." " th profits of the maBr he said in introducing to the Record *jg' .. , , - - ' '

Mideast as a causal factor some remarks by the chairman of the h 2" .

D " Ch"nie 1 Company, Earle sarnes. What all this says to me i+ "+ %:

in the energy crisif." Barnes said: American public is not arnremq

" Increased ener:y cost will encour- a age the homeowner to insulate his was. '" " EY There .CI18IS ns no *am publ.ic d:sr - - - .

heute. ai!! prnmpt irdustry to reda. s@ <>ut man forch cym - m w  :.

New Y rk Times, there "Is no feding si:n processes, and will suggest to tne take advarta:e of wea<er, er -

7 ef t.m: ness about the United Mates auto owner that perhaps he doesn't the United States. A Presicer -

'P: red any trust enuld cau..

r '- ' '- ef Israel as a f actor in the oil need a heavy 300 horsepower autemo p.,*t far a PAry nf afnial w-  ;

c .- ;- P tr. deed, n'n<t of the c.ircraft '

the cor t;nued bureaucitt.c

.t.a

e. -r .- e r e seem uraware 'of the > liddle Rep. Carl Perkins a veteran Ken. nm c-cr:v is a shametu! het r..

Ds'. as a causal f actor . . ." tucky Democrat, complained about be. generoe *

• publ'c.

• • "***""'" r r.e general willingness to do what ing *pennywise and dollar foolish" in *;

is ne:essary to ineet the energy crisis appropriations for research and devel.

is re".ected in the ' attitude of the opment of new ener:y sources. He par-

- > cr cf Wichita. "We're willing to, ac- ticularly w anted backin: for a cert a fa:t ' share of the cutbacks. he precess that would consert eca to liq-sa t M in Sir. Lxnn. here := the enm- u:d fuc1~* EXHIBIT "B"

--*- . c f a worker w ho has been Ind Rep. Wit:iam Kctehum, a California c!! Republican. cal:cd int cren:n: up tha  ;-

... r e a. I saw Nixon on T5*.

I Nasa! Pettn eum resene at Ok Heils. ,

In hi.s 5: ate. Itep. John 31urphy, a New i k ca- N :et the word that 1,u as nut.

'a e - d' , hn e seen this thmg Ynrk Ik nacrat. calH f*ir permanent 1 rm:: .t s ets:ustm:- dayl::ht s aw.: t ire at a recans of [

• encr:) conservation " i I

e

• e oocnri nuusat O PROD. & UIE idA. IO'3M.@30

? see -

i

-11 p-JAN291974* m eme w me samarr we nwm mum

//

9 N

/

N.

CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of the foregoing Petition To The Commission was mailed, postage prepaid and properly addressed, to the Secretary of the Commission (6 copies) , to the Chairman ,

of the Board in the Show Cause proceeding, Chairman Glaser, f and to counsel for the Regulatory Staff, Consumers Power Com- j pany, and Dow Chemical Company, on Wednesday, January 23, 1974. f

!~

t f - -

~]bA Myron'f. Cherry

' &-m

+

d i

j:

i I