ML20050B761

Comments on Des.Water Resource Impact Inadequate in Meeting 1969 NEPA Requirements

ML20050B761
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	04/02/1982
From:	Washington J MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS
To:	Hernan R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8204070344
Download: ML20050B761 (5)

Text

l J to s 50 e

RECEi'KD 1 D APR OG1982a 3

" untmaamramas <

PIUM' '

s

"""a"""

MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS D // -

2101 Wood St. 6 P.O. Box 30235 9 Lansing, MI 489o9 4 517-371-1041 April 2, 1982 Mr. Ronald W. Hernan, Licensing Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Hernan:

RE: Comments of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs on the Draft Environmental Statement:

Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-239 and 50-330 Consumers Power Company These comments are provided on behalf of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) on the Draft Environmental Statement (DES) regarding the proposed operating license for the Consumers Midland Plant. MUCC is a non-profit citizens organizttion representing over 100,000 members and 400 affiliated organizations.

Since wa were not provided a copy of the DES and do not know the exact date of expiration of public comment, we request an extension of time if necessary to meet the comment deadline, as provided in 10 CFR 51.25.

These comments are limited to water resource impacts from the proposal.

Based on our review of the DES and applicable federal regulations, we have con-cluded that the DES is inadequate to satisfy requirements of the National Environ-mental Policy Act of 1969 (N UA). Reasons for this conclusion are outlined below.

In addition to our comments on the adequacy of the DES pursuant to NEPA, we have attached coments directed to the State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) wnerning the adequacy of this document to satisfy state laws and our questions and objections relating to issuance of the draft NPDES permit.

Contrary to the statement in the DES (5.3.2.2), the Michigan Water Resources Commission (MWRC) has not " issued" a draft NPDES permit, but has merely placed such a proposed draft on public notice. Further, the DES (1.2) states: "the staff is not aware of any potential non-NRC licensing difficulties that would significantly delay or preclude the proposed operation of the plant." I can assure you, on behalf of the MUCC, that such a sanguine observation is inaccurate.

Resolution of objections to proposed degradation of the Tittabawassee River through public review of the NPDES permit may very well "significantly delay" the proposed operation of the plant.

7 8204070344 020402 $E0EfESmneoe,.um.h UASYc$55//OYE,re

% PDR ADOCK 05000329 e57 *

• pi g

• R-' . m e 01.Mw PCMr4? g.iNGr.t g. Jo

""" UOm W M*"1 M N

~~~ l USS ~ ~~

OD 4 HM K p 9 & . W r i i f h De J ,P1 0 .

Northern Michigan Office Box 121, Frederic, MI 49733, $17t348-2316

Mr. Ronald W. Hernan Page 2 - April 2,1982 Thermal / Chemical / Radioactive Discharge to Tittabawassee River:

The DES (5.5.2.2) concludes that the thermal discharge to the Tittabawassee River will result in " negligible impact." This is directly contradicted by

. statements by MDNR fisheries biologists in review of the DES before the Michigan Environmental Review Board (March 27,1982). They claim the high discharge temperatures will " kill fish" and have clear negative impact on the river.

There is no discussion in the DES of the relationship between increased water temperature and increased chemical reactions from other pollutants discharged by Consumers or by Dow Chemical Company. The Dow NPDES permit is being re-viewed at this time by the MWRC and consideration of additive or synergistic effects of the two federal permits is an obvious omission in the DES. Dow is currently discharging, based on our estimates, over 200,000 pounds of chlorinated organic chemicals directly into the proposed Consumers mixing zone.

This includes thousands of pounds of highly toxic substances and carcinogenic chemicals.

There is no discussion in the DES of potential bioaccumulation of radio-active materials by aquatic organisims. The DES (5.9.3.3) does state that "in-creased radiosensitivity in organisms may result from environmental interactions with other stresses (for example, heat or biocides)" but the converse possibility is not mentioned. It concludes that "no measurable radiological impact on populations of biota is expected" based on experiences observed at other nuclear plants. However, we are aware of no other nuclear plant where the plant's mixing zone overlaps the mixirig zone of a major chemical plant's wastewater discharge.

The DES (5.5.2.4) concludes that "no adverse impact on river biota is expected" due to reduced dissolved oxygen in the river. No substantiation for this conclusion is provided.

Groundwater Impacts:

The DES (4.2.6.1) states that the cooling pond "will be the intermediate sink for many plant chemical wastes..." It also states (5.3.1) that seepage from the cooling pond to groundwaters is occuring. No discussion is included regarding potential water quality impacts from such seepage, or whether potential water quality degradation may violate Michigan groundwater protection regulations.

Fogging Impacts from Cooling Pond:

The DES (5.4.1) discusses the predicted dense fog from the cooling pond which is expected to be "quite common" in the area. However, no discussion is included of possible air and water quality impacts from interaction with radioactive gases from the plant or with chemical discharges from Dow. Will the fog entrap such pollutants? Will such possible concentrations fall out and increase water quality impacts in the local watershed?

Exclusion Zone:

The DES (5.9.4.4.(2)) discussed the " exclusion area," including portions of the Tittabawassee River and Bullock Creek. It is not clear if this exclusion of the public from publicly-owned surface waters is proposed only during accidents or will be routine. Routine exclusion would be illegal.

Mr. Ronald W. Hernan Page 3 - April 2,1982 A_lternatives to Minimize Water Quality Impacts:

The DES (3.2) concludes that consideratior, of alternatives is not required for the operating-license stage. However, a major change from the proposal out-lined in the construction permit final environmental statement is elimination of a cooling tower.

Discussion of the new proposal is included, as per 10 CFR 51.23(e),

but alternatives are not, as per 10 CFR 51.23(c). Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) clearly specify that "this section [on alternatives] is the heart of the environmental impact statement.. It should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public." It shall

" rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives,"

and even include " reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency." It shall then specif preferable" (40 CFR 1505.2(b))y The .

the CEQalternative " considered memorandum defining to thebe environmentally

" environmentally preferable alternative" (46 FR 18026) states: "ordin'arily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environ-ment." Clearly, none of these requirements has been met regarding water quality impacts to the Tittabwawassee River.

No mention is made of the alternative of obtaining cooling pond make-up water from Lake Huron, nor of resulting positive and negative impacts which would ensue.

No mention is made of the alternative of returning such Lake Huron waters to Lake Huron for discharge.

No mention is made of the alternative of using a higher base _ flow rate than 350 cfs to withhold blowdown to the Tittabawassee River (such as 500 cfs).

The need for discussion of such alternatives is obvious since increased environmental impacts will result from the proposed action, as discussed in the DES and above.

Very truly yours, j M . bN Thomas L. Washington i Executive Director

Attachment:

TLW/dll

- +

,--a,-, -m, -

NIUC1:

MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS 2101 Wood St. O P.O. Box 30235 9 Lansing, MI 48909 9 517 371 1041 April 2, 1982 Mr. Robert Courchaine, Chief Water Quality Division Michigan Department of fiatural Resources P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909

Dear Mr. Courchaine:

RE: Comments of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs on the Proposed flPDES Permit 0042668:

Consumers Power Company, Midland fluclear Plant These comments are provided on behalt of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) on the proposed flPDES permit for Consumers Power Company for its Midland fluclear Plant. Also enclosed are coninents provided to the U.S. fluclear Regulatory Conunission on the draf t environmental statement. Many of those congnents also directly relate to the proposed f1PDES permit.

Issuance of the proposed permit is clearly a major state action, pursuant to Executive Order 1974-4 and requires preparation of a state environmental im-pact statement. Just as clearly, the federal environmental statement is in-adequate to satisfy the federal standards and would be inadequate to fulfill state requirements. We request preparation of an EIS under the executive order on questions os!tlined in the attached ccnments and those discussed below directly relating to the proposed f1PDES permit.

i l Part I(A)(19) proposes to authorize withdrawal of water from the Tittaba-l wassee River for cooling pond makeup. Such authorization is not within the legal l powers of the Michigan Water Resources Commission.

Part I(A)(4) proposes standards for total dissolved solids as measured l at the Freeland Bridge, approximately seven miles downstream. Such an extensive l mixing zone clearly violates Part 4 Water Quality Standards.

l The Fact Sheet states that maximum sunaner discharge temperatures of 100 l degrees F will be authorized. Yet fisheries biologists claim this will result l in fish kills, clearly contrary to Act 245, 1929. Responsibility for cutting i back on discharge of total dissolved solids (Consumers, Dow, or Midland) when l maximum limits are reached is ambiguous, at best.

l

' l A$ 6 8 ' t /, *l [e. "db' i I O IJ $ 's l < ' ' , , . , t- ., ,

• < 4 o e o r

1 e

Mr.' Robert Courchaine Page 2 - April 2,-1982; The federal draf t environmental ' statement concludes that (Abstract):

" Chemical discharges are expected to further decrease the existing marginal water quality of the Tittabawassee River.and may adversely affect future downstream water use, but will be-required to meet conditions of the plant's NPDES permit." Part.5.3.1 concludes that the plant "may produce small to moderate ' impacts on existing and potential new water users in terms of additional water-treatment costs." Issuance of an NPDES penmit which would permit such adverse impacts to downstream riparians would be illegal. Further,

, the first-statement makes little sense; the purpose of an NPDES permit is-to prevent water quality degradation, not require it.

Pending resolution of these questions and others raised by the Michigan Environmental Review Board, and pending completion of public review of a state environmental impact statement, we urge the proposed NPDES permit be denied, i

Very truly yours, A ,

l Thomas L. Washington-

! Executive. Director ,

cc: Honorable William G. Milliken j Michigan Environmental Review Board

Attachment:

TLW/dll 1

4 J

f I

4 f

_N