ML20114F706
Text
0;;sti f,.'.'btR A
PROD. l. Uill, [1C. N-3/2,3J'[
UNITED STATES OF AKERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter
)
)
)
CALVERT CLIFFS' COORDINATING COMMITTEE, INC., )
)
Docket No.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, and
)
)
THE SIERRA CLUB,
)
)
Petitioners
)
PETITION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDCM For Immediate Issuance of an Order to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company To Show Cause Why the Construction Permit For the. Calvert-Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Should Not Bo Suspended Pending a Complete Study of the Environmental Impact of the Plant, to Require Baltimore Gas and Electric Company To Submit As Soon As Possible a Detailed Environ-mental Report with Respect to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear l
Power Plant, to Begin a Complete Study of the Environmen-tal Impact of the Calvert Cliffs Plan % and for Rule Making l
o A
S 1
l DOtttil0 I
(
M 9
BERLIN, ROISMAN AND KESSLER JUN2 91970 ca 1
.% @ony Z. Roisman E-em a g g,u,,,,y g
reai rnne 1910 N Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 M
N 1
+
4 Counsel for Petitioners
~
i 9210130262 920520 PDR ORG NRCHIST PDR
Lt.G
.U'/.4 R Ut03. L UT\\L. [hC, ' O 3 I /,>
i j
PETITION 1.
This petition requests that the Commissions (a) immediately order Daltimore Gas and Electric Company (hereinaf ter BG&E) to prepare and submit with respect to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, the environmental statement required by the National Environmental Policy Act (hereinafter NEPA) and by the tegulations of the Commission; (b.
immediately begin the environmental studies required by NEPA with respect to the proposed plant to determine if, in light of these environmental studies, l
nodifications in the location, design, method of con-struction or opcration, or any other aspect of the l
proposed plant are required; (c) insite to BC&E pursuant to 10 CFR, Part 2, l
52.202 an order to show cause why the construction permit issued on July 2, 1969 should nbt be suspended pending investigatica of these environmental factorst and (d) promulgate rules and regulations for apply-ing NEPA to all nuclear power pl.nts for which construction permits (or pro ~.sional construction pe rmi ts) have been issued and which have not as yet received operating licenses.
2.
Pttitioner Calvert Cliffs' s cdinating Committee, Inc.
I is a non-profit, incorporated association of individuals and con-servation organizations specifically concerned with the environmental effects of the proposed Calvert Cliffs plant.
The purpose 7f Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. is to protect Chesapeake Bay from the threats posed sp rifically by Mhc Calvert Cliffs plant.
CN ss
.s DOChETED s
k_
US1EC
_9 JUN 2 91970
- r C"
Omc4 at et &#t/1 10 PAhs'tw at;s BTJ
)
D c-hG
't I
3.
Petitiwner sational Wildlife Foloration (NWF) is a 1
r non-profit, membership entporation organized under the laws of 5
e the District of columbia, organized in 1936, NWF is the world's largest private conservation organization.
It has members and contributors of various clast"a totaling 2,500,000, including the i
members of 49 affiliate state organizations.
It is NWF's policy to i
promote the proper management in perpetuity of those resources of
(
i l
the earth upor which the lives and welfare of men depend
- soils, waters, forests, minerals, p1. ant Jife and wildlife.
NWF believes that for such proper _ management, overall public benefits must take procedence over partisan and special uses ofLnatural resources and that users of pr511c waters should return those waters in as high 1
NWF strives'to bring about coordination among
- j a quality as taken.
1 l
conservation agencies and programs, and promotes planning-for wildlife i
and recreational values in connection with all_ water improvement 4
J l
and diversion projects.
NWF engages in litigation of national importance to protect the values of conservation and the.nvironment, f
i l
publishes magazines and other literature, promotos. teacher work-
{
shops, holds national wildlife conferences, distributeu-400,000 pieces of educational material annually, sponsors research efforts, and engages in many other activities to protect conservation values.
j 4.
Petitioner Sierra Club is a non-profit membership i
corporation organized under the laws of L the State of California 4
I with membership of 100,000. Among its stated purposes is the pre-4 servation of scenic resources,. forests, waters, : wildlife 'and p
l wilderness.
In furtherance of its purposes, the Sierra Club engages i
2-
~
O i
J 4..
,~.,--,,_,..o
,wm.--<.
+.-,-e
.,,,~.e.
..-m r--
,..-..,....w..m..,,.-__-
,,o.-e
. - r
-w-,,
...,..+4.w,c.,c-,. m
s in many-educational activities, including 4.
.<'ensive publishing program and a wilderness outing program, maintains _ staff i
offices'and n.ambership chapters in all regions of the country.
In addition, the Sierra Club has participated in several -legal actions
~
to preserve-the' environment.
Thefsierra Club has also~taken a 2
strong interest in estuarine-protection.
It has, for example, partic pated vigorously in efforts to protect San Francisco Bay.
5.
NEPA was enacted on January 1, 19 *.
and by its-terms requires that every rederal action "which significantly affect [s]
the quality of the human er.v.ronment" be preceded by a detailed statement by the responsible official on (i) the environmenta) impact.. the proposedEaction; (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (iii)
' alternatives to the proposed action; (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and tha maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments laf l
resources which would be involved if the: proposed action l
should be implemented, l
l-6 Before the Calvert Cliffs plant can_begin operation it must obtain an operating permit from the Commission.
7.
Granting of this operating permit will. constitute federal action whfeb ' tgnificantly af fect(s) the -quality of the human environment" witilin the meanina of Section 102 (c) of NEPA.
i
-3~
l
(
.-..-.,-J_.,,..._...._,.-
.._-__..-,,_,-.,-~,,2-----.,.,.m._,.~,..i.~.-
R 8.
Until the enactment of NEPA the Commiusion was not i
required to take into account any environmental factors (other than radiological dangers to man) in its licensing decisions and in fact no such factors were considered in approving.the construction permit-for the Calvert Cliffs plant.
9.
-In particular the Commission has not considered-with respect to the Calvert Cliffs plant the factors required by Section 10 2 (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (public Law 91-190).
10.
Under presently proposed regulations of the Commission, 2
BG&E will have -to submit an environmental statement with respect to
- he Calvert Cliffs plant before it can obtain an operating permit 4
and the Commission will have to conduct an evaluation of. the i
j environme.tal impact of the Calvert Cliffs plant as required by NEPA.
l 11.
Tc. Commission nas the authority to issue an order to j
show cause why a construction permit should not be suspended and l
has the authority to suspend a construction permit where this will l
protect the health, safety or public interest, including the environment.
l 12.
The Commission is empowered to amend, modify or revise a cor:< *.ruction permit as a -result of amendments of its statute ar its rules and regulations or where required for health, safety l-and the public interest, including environmental protection and l
is empowered to revoke a construction permit where it discovers f actors which would warrant it in refusing to grant the construction 1
permit if application were now being made forithe pentit.
l 4
l i
I e
l
[
,,.....,,-~2,_----..
_ - = -.
i 13.
-The Commission is requested within 30 days to issue to DG&E and publish in the Federal Register an order to _show cause j
why the construction permit _for the Calvert Cliffs plant should not be suspended pending determination of relovant environmental factors required by NEPA and to require.a response to that order _ within 30 l
days.
14.
The Commission is requested to immediately order BG&E to submit at the earliest possible date -(without waiting until BGRE
}
submits its application for an operating permit) an Environmental h
- Report with respect to the C41 vert Clif fs plant in conformity -with 1
a the requiremcots of Sections 1 and 2 of the Commissions proposed v
NEPA regulations.
- 15. MNua Commission is requested to immediately begin an in-dependent study of the environmental-impact of Calvert Cliffs plant, an i
once'the environmental factors required by-NEPA'are considered the Commission should prepare its detailed statement on ' the environmental conditions required with respect to the plant and should issue an order to BG&E advising them of he conditions which a
must be met in order ta resume construction of the Calvert' Cliffs 1.
plant or, if necessary, that the construction permit has been revoked.
16.
The procedures requested to be utilized inithis pro-t 1
cceding for app?.ication of NEPA should be promulgated as general-regulations of the Commission at the earliest possible'date-without
+
i regard to any time limits set by the Commission-for this petition and such regulations should.nclude amendment:of 10 CFR, Part 50, i-
...-._.,,,._,.m.-.<,,..,_
_,,,,,,-,,_.,,.--,__,,.c._
L S50.109 to require backfitting of a f acility where it is found that such action will provide any additional; protection for the environ-
- ment.
This petition shall be treated as a request for rule-making i-from an intereste(' garty within _the meaning of -10 CFR 2.800 et seq.
A copy of the proposed rules.are attached.
l For the reasons stated above and in the attached Memorandum i
i the Petition should-be granted.-
a Respectfully submitted, l
BERLIN,.ROISMNi and KESSLER 193 ^ N S treet, N..W.
j~
Washington, D. C.
20036 i
Counsel for Petitioners b
A By l
Anthony-Z. Roisman u
e f
i Date:
I d-I
_p 4
3 e
i i
-r, - - -
e
+r
,n,,,w,,..e.
.r,N.-,,..,,,,.wi.ea,,-y',emm,,.m,,-y,.,,m-..
,.,a,
,< w,c. &e, p, e-. & 4en, n.e yw4 e w-.,,. e-g--,v4
.~ s.,.
500. & unt. me. F04I? sis 4
4 h
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION o
A 2
s 000iE?E0
[b tale 0 g
JUN 2 91970
- r e
em a e, t,ven o
tw.v.
n hm l
1 A
t t
F i
=
p
~.
su r=ax pN t
sco. i. uut. FAc. 50 M N N
&Q7IIIEE "E MO PR'DU M IN SUPPORT OF PETITICN p
WS Q
2 JUN 2 91970
- r
{
v.m 10
- na s
N
%,' f.
s 4'
'Q"Th i
In State of New Hampshire v. AEC, 406 F.2d 170, 173 (C.A.
1,1969) the First Circuit, in rpholding the Commission's refusal to consider the potential thermal effects of a nuclear plant, stated:
We have the utmost sympathy with the appellant ard with the sister states of Massachusetts and Vermont which took the same position before the Commission.
That position was simply that adequate planning be required of the applicant before a construction permit is issued in order to assure all l'hasible protection ag. Inst thermal pollution instead of waiting until heavy investment has been made, and damage has occurred or is imminant.
To delay the day of reckoning is to invite the unnecessary dilenma of choosing between having natural environment, with harmful ef fects on the health and well being of humans, and frustrating the needed production of power.
Notwithstanding its " sympathy" for the appellant's position the Court concluded that in enacting and amending the Atomic Energy Act "the Congress has viewed the responsibilitj' of the Commission as being confined to scrutiny of and protection against hazards from radiation."
406 F.2d at 175.
The enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) explicitly repealed any such limitations.
The mandate which it has now placed upon the AEC is unmistakable:
that the Commission explore fully the environmental consequences of its actions (including the issuance of permits and licenses) and that it do so at the earliest possible time as the First Circuit itself recognized as essential if the inquiry is to be a meaningful one.
l' specifically, before any' federal action is taken which "significantly af fect (s) the quality of the human environment" the
-federal agency involved must consider (Section 102 (c), Public_ Law _.
'91-190):
(i) the environmental _ impact of the proposed action, (ii).any adverse environmental effects which cannot R
be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between' local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable conmitments of resources which would be involved in.the proposed-action should it be-implemented.
There is no question but _ that the requirements of Section 10 2 (c) apply to the AEC and that they will have to be satisfied before an operating license is issued in connection with Calvert Cliffs.
On April 2, 1970 and again on June 3, 1970 the Commission-acknowledged that NEPA applies to its licensing procedures by pub-lishing preliminary NEPA guidelines. ~1/
~
When the legislation was first debated in the Senate, Senator r-i Henry Jackson, the-floor leader, had this to say about its " action-forcing" effects on all agencies:
9
-As reported by-the Committee, S.-1075 provides a con-sidered congressional statement of national goals and purposes for the management and preservation of the i
quality of America's: future environment.
The bill directs that all Federal agencies conduct their. activities in 4
accordance with these goals,'and provides " action-forcing" l
~1/
To the. extent that this_petiton requires amendment of=those guide-lines-it should be treated as a comment.on those guidelines _'by petitioners.
On June;11, 1970 the Commission published further guidelines with_ respect to NEPA.
To the: extent that-those guide-lines-may be interpreted to preclude application of NEPA to L
projects such as Calvert Cliffs this petition and supporting L
documents should be treated as a comment on those guidelines as well; I
I l
~
l b
~ -
procedures to insure that these goals and principals are observed.
The bill specifically provides that its provisions are supplemental to the existing mandates and authorizations of all Tederal agencies.
This constitutes a_ statutory enlargement of the responsibilities and the concerns of all instrumentalities of the Federal Government.
2/
The need for structuring the legislation so that it would be " action-forcing" on all agencies was first suggested by Professor Lynton K. Caldwell in the following colloquy with Chairman Jackson:
When we speak of policy we ought to think of a y
statement which is so written that it is capable of in-plementation; that it is not merely a statement of things j
hoped for; not merely a statement of aesirable goals or objectives; but that it is a statement which will compel-or reinforce or assist all of these things, the executive-l' agencies in particular, but-going beyond this, the Nation as.a whole, to take the kind of action which will protect and reinforce what I have called the -life support system of this country.
4 Let me give you-just a few illustrations of what I mean, by-policy-forcing or operational aspects of a policy-statement.
For example, it seems to me that a statement j
of policy by the Congress -should at least consider measures to require the Federal agencies, in submitting proposals, to -contain within the proposals an evaluation of the effect of these proposals upon the state of;the environ-that in the licensing procedures of the -various
- ment, 3-agencies such as the Atomic Energy Commission v.
the Federal Power Commission or the Federal Aviation Agency there should also be, to the extent that there may not now exist i
j fully or adequately, certain requirements with respect to i
environmental protection, that the Bureau of the Budget-should be authorized and directed-to particularly scrutinize administrative action and planning with respect to the impact of legislative proposals, and particularlylpublic 3'
works-proposals on the environment.
Now, these are what I mean-by action-forcing or operational measures.
'~2/
-Cong. Rec. July 10, 1969, S 7815.
7See also:
Cong.
Rec.,-
October 8, 1969, S 12125 and 12143; December ~12, 1969, S 17450-17454; December 23, 1969, H 13093-13095; and Senate
-Report No. 296, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., pp.
6-9, 14 and 19-20.
i f
f ;
i w
e e
e
.e,r 4,,-%
y-3-y(
,,,,s.
.-,.w-.rev w
ac w
Ce,-,
e m
.m,
The Chairman.
Well, Dr. Caldwell, that'is an.
excellent presentation, needless to say.
I:think you have-been most constructive.
I have been_ concerned with the inadequacy of the policy. declaration in the - bill-that I introduced.
Obviously, this is not enough.- It does, however, provide a predicate from which to launch at a discuss' ion as=
i to what is required and as to how we should proceed.
I would like'to pursue this-policy matter for a moment.
I agree with you that realistically what is needed in re-structuring the governmental side of this problem is to -
legislatively _ create those situations that will bring:about an action-forcing procedure the departments must comply with,
+
Otherwise,-- these lof ty declarations are nothing more.than 1
that.
It is merely a finding and statemant but there is no requirement as to implementation.
I believe~this is what-you were getting.at.
Dr. Caldwell; Yes. Exactly so.
j The Chairman.
I am wondering if we might not broaden 1
the policy provision in the bill so as to lay down a. general requirement that would be applicable to all agencies that have responsibilities that af fect the environment rather than trying to go through agency by agency.
I think the immediate example that comes to my mind and has to yours already by-the statement is that the Atomic Energy Commission, in-granting permits or licenses in connection with nuclear powerplants, should be required to make an environmental finding.
3/-
i
~
l Thereafter the legislation was revised to make it " action-forcing" and in its report the Senate Committee reiterated 'that the
" legislative mandate and
- responsibility to consider the I
consequences of their actions on the environment *
- - would be true of the licensing functions of independent agencies as well as 4
l 2 -
3/
Hearings on S.
1075, S. 237 and S.
1752, before the Senate
~
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 91st Cong., 1st, t
Sess., pp. 116-117, emphasis added.
4 N,
-me
-,m.-e
,r m.--
,v5
the ongoing activities of the'regularLFederal agencies.."~4/
Pinally, the applicability-of the Act to the functions of the AEC
. 5 /- -
was alluded to ih;the Senato Deba'te.
~'
Even if?there-had not been these specific-references to the AEC, Senator. Jackson emphasized ithat while; "[C]oncern for environmental quality _ must be made -part o f every_ phase of Federal-i
-6/
action,"
section 102 is~ intended to apply "especially-(to) those agencies who now have little~or no_ legislative authority to-take environmental considerations into account".-7/
Those environmental
{
considerations are to include:
4 1
4
[
the loss-of-valuable open spaces; inconsistent and often, incoherent-rural and urban land-use policies;;
i-critical air and' water pollution problems, diminishing recreational opportunity; continuing soil ~ erosion; the 4
degradation of unique eco-systems ; L needless deforestation; the decline and extinction of. fish'and wildl-ife speci~es;' falter-ing and poorly designed transportation' systems, poor.archi-
{
i tectural design and-ugliness in_public'and private structures; l
rising levels of noise; the continued proliferation of l
pesticides and chemicals without adequate consideration of-l the consequences; radiation hazards,~ thermal pollution; an 1
inexeasingly ugly landscape cluttered with hillboards, power-1 l
lines and junkyards; growing scarcity of essential resources; and many, many other environmental-quality problems. 8/-
1 It is also clear that the Commission must take environmental factors-into account at'the earliest possible date'in order to y
assure a full meaningful consideration of these factors.
-In-i
~
essence, NEPA'" establishes priorities and gives. expression to our 4
o l
4/-. Senate Report No. 296, 91st Cong., 1st. Sess., p.
14.
~S/-
See Cong. Rec., December _ 20, 1969, S.17459 where-it is noted that one of the Senate Committees that will be concerned with agency
. actions under NEPA will be the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
6/
Cong. Rec., October 8, 1969, S 12145.
7/- Cong.
Rec.,. December 20,- 1969, S 17453.
[
8/ :Cong. Rec., December 20,: 1969, S 17452.
t-
-S-
9/.
national goals and aspirations."~~~ The consideration of-environmental.
factors is no longer to be postponed until irreparable harm results or economic pressures preclude a full evaluation of alternatives.
This is the real thrust of the legislation.- As the Senate Report states:
As a result of this failure to formulate a compre-l hensive national policy, environmental decision making largely continues to proceed-as it has in the past.
Policy is established by default and inaction.
Environmental prob-lems are only dealt withL when they reach crisis proportions.
Public desires and aspirations are seldom consulted.
In-portant decisions concerning the use and the shape of man's 6
future environment continue to be made-in small but steady _
i increments which-perpetuate rather than avoid the recognized mistakes of previous decades.
i Past neglect and carelessness are now costing us dearly, not merely in opportunities foregone, in impairment _of-health, and in discomfort and inconvenience,-but also in a demand upon tax dollars upon personal incomes, and upon corporate earnings.
The longer we delay meeting our environmental responsibilities, the longer the. growing list of_" interest charges" in environ-i mental deterioration will run.
The cost of remedial action and of getting on to a sound basisifor the future will-a never again be less than it-is today, 10/
As Senator Jackson reiterated:
i We can no longer afford to view-the environmental problem on a basis of cleaning up our dirt.
We L must approach it-from the stand-point'of prevention.. Prevention will require and that planning must long-range planning planning-rest upon research and new technology.
11/
i
)
9/
1 Cong. Rec., July 10, -1969, S 7815.
l'
~~
Senate Report No. 296, pp. 5,-16-17.
See also Cong. Rec.,
i 10/
December 20, 1969, S 17451, _where Senator Jackson expresses concern over the fact that "too' much of our past history of dealing with environmental problems has been. focused on efforts to deal with ' crises',-and to ' reclaim' our resources from past abuses."
11/
Cong. Rec., December 20, 1969, S 17457.
-, ~ - -,
. ~. -,,, -
n,_
n.~
.+
+n.,
,-n.
It is thus the clear thrust -of NEPA that an agency, when contemplating action which could have an environmental impact, must conduct a full inquiry including consideration of alternatives,-at the earliest practicable date -- before "the dif ficulty of evaluating (environmental consequences) in comparison with economic and technical 12/
f actors " arises. ~~ This is particularly so with respect to nuclear power plants.
If the NEPA inquiry is postponed until the operating license stage we will be confronted with precisely the dilemna that the Senate Interior Committee constructed NEPA to avoid:
the ability to evaluate alternatives and to select that which is more compatible with the preservation and development of a healthful environment will be precluded by technological determination and economic commitments.
Calvert Cliffs is a case in point.
To postpone consideration of its environmental impact is to abdicate the responsibility to be consious of most of the intrusions that Senator Jackson listed includina "the loss of valuable open spaces
- diminishing recreational opportunity; continuing soil erosion; the degradation of unique eco-systems the decline and extinction of fish and wildlife species
- poor architectural design and ugliness in public and private _ structures
- radiation hazards; thermal 13 pollution
- and many, many other environmental quality problemsT*
12/
Cong. Rec., December 20, 1969, S 17455.
13/
Cong. Rec., December 20, 1969, S 17452.
i t I
t l
~
4his early consi leration of environmental f actors -is clearly required by the.NEPA guidelines laid down by the-Council on Environmental Quality on May 12,_1970.- Those guidelines provide in Section 11:
To the fullest extent possible the section 102(2) (c) procedure _should be applied _to further major Federal actions having a significantf effect on theLenvironment even though they arise from pro 3ects or programs initiated prior to enactment of Public Law 91-190 on January 1, 1970.
Where it is_ not practicable tua reassess the basic course of action, it is still important that further incre-mental major actions be shaped so as to minimize adverse enviranmental consequences.
It is also important in further action that account be taken of environmental con-1 sequences not fully evaluated at the outset of the project or program, i
obviously the Calvert Cliffs plant is such a project.
Furthermore in Section 2 of the guidelines the policy of 1
NEPA is stated as follows:
Before undertaking major action or recommending or making a favorable report on: legislation that-significantly af fects the environment, Federal agencies will, in con-sultation with othcr appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, assess in detail the potential-environmental impact in order that adverse affects are avoided, -and i
environmental quality is restored or enhanced, to the fullest extent practicable.
In particular, alternative actions that will minimize adverse impact should be explored and both the long-and short-range implications to man, his physical and social surroundings, and-to nature, should be evaluated in order to avoid'to the fullest extent practicable undesirable -consequences for-the environment.
This policy clearly contemplates that the inquiry precede the con-templated federal action by a sufficient time to allow a full exploration of the impact of the proposed action and exploration of 1
alternatives which can in fact be adopted to eliminate or reduce adverse environmental impact..
_ -. ~.
To permit construction of the.Calvert Clif fs plantLto
~
continue and_to postpone the necessary'NEPA investigation until inmediately before operation will ef fectively foreclose many possible alternatives which could reduce or eliminate adverse environmental i~
impact.
For instance an alternative method foricooling_the-plant will be less likely to be' adopted once the present cooling water intake and discharge _ channels are completed.
If'NEPA recuires nothing else, -it clearly requires that irrevocable actions not be -
taken by-Federal agencien which foreclose the-fullest exploration of.
l l
alternatives to reduce environmental problems.
The Commission acknowledges that before an-operating-permit is issued there must be an examination of all environmental f actors not previously considered by tne Commission.
In its proposed rule making regarding NEPA, published on Jur.e _3, 1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 8594), the Commission provides ' for the _ preparation of-a detailed statement )n all environmental f actors not previously considered before an operating license is issued.
In the' case of the Calvert-l Cliffs plant this statement will have to encompass all-environmental factors because none have as yet been considered by the Commission.
-14/
The f actors-which must be considered-~ by the Commission
~
include the following, as set forth by the Environmental Quality-Council in its guidelines for Federal agencies-(35 Fed. Reg. 7391-7392) :
i 14/ Despite the apparent attempt by the Commission to avoid its re-sponsibility to actually consider and study environmental factors.
e
[
(see~the proposed NEPA standards of the Commission'in 35 Fed. Reg.
~
8594, 8596-7, paras. 9 and 11) it is clear that the Commission as the " responsible agency" must actually conduct studies of alterna-t tive courses of action and must explore.which alternative will best
+
meet the environmental criteria.
Perhaps, as.infthe specific case of water quality standards for f acilities for which construction-begins after April' 3, 1970, the Commission will defer to another i
federal or state -agency for purposes of deciding whatL standards are
'to be met but clearly the Commission has responsibility under NEPA to explore plant sites,- plant designs, construction proposals, etc., to determine how to best meet those criteria.
- 4 7.
. Con tent o f : environmental s tatement.
(a).The a-following points are to be covered:
(i). The probable-impact of the proposed _ action-on the environment, including impact on-ecological.
4 systems such as wild. life, fish-and marine life.-.Both i
primary-and secondary significant consequences.for i
the environment should be: included in the analysis.
For example,-the implications; if any, of the action.
for-population distribution or concentration'should be estimated and an assessment made of the ef fect of f any possible. change in - population patterns upon the resourca t
base, including land _use, water, and public services, j
of the area in question.
(ii)
Any probable adverse' environmental effects-which cannot be avoided (such as' water or air pollution, damage to life systems, urban. congestion, threatn-to health or other consequences adverse to the envi'ronmental i
goals set out in section 101(b) of Public Law 91-190).
(iii)
Alternatives to the proposed action-(section 10 2 (2) (D) of the Act requires'the responsible agency to " study, develop and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in'any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources").- _' A rigorous exploration and objective evaluation of alternative actions.that might avoid some or all~of the-adverse environmental effects is essential.._ Sufficient analysis of such alternatives and their costs and impact on the environment 1should; accompany the proposed-action through the agency review process in order not tonforeclose prematurely options which might have less detrimental effects, i
(iv)
The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance-and enhancement of long-term productivity.
This is essence requires the agency to assess the action for. cumulative and 'long-
-term effects from the perspective that each generation is trustee of the environment for-succeeding generations.
(v)
Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of recources which would be involved-in the proposed action should it be implemented.- This requires the agency 1to identify the extent to-which-the action curtails -
the range of -beneficial uses : of _ the environment.
i l.
] !
e n
+
?
I
,w r --
a r-
,m,
~,:,,-<~-
,,-w,,,,
am m,-
+ - - +,, -
(vi): Where appropriate, a discussion'of problemsgand objections raised by other Federal agencies and State and local ~ entities in the review process Land the disposition - of: the issues involved.
(This section may be added at the1end of the review-process in the final _ text of - the. environmental statement.)
These determinations cannot be made either in the f ace of 4
continued construction of the Calvert Clif fs plant or,- even worse, 1
j in the-face of a fully coupleted plant.
Since the determinations 4
must be made at some time, obviously this is the time.
Thus the i
Commission, in order-to allow the necessary environmental studies, should issue to BG&E an order to show cause why the construction a
i 15/
s permit should not be suspended. -~
At the very least the economic practicalities of the situation demand the earliest possible consideration of environmental effects.
That inquiry cannot be deferred until completion of the l
l project (that is, until the operating license stage).
By that time, j
in the words of NEPA, there will be an " irreversible and irretrievable commitment (s) of resources
- which can only serve to' restrict L
l the Commissions options.
In short, to postpone _ action is, for all practical purposes, to deny it.
Sec Federal Power Commission v.
- Hunt, 376 U. S.
515, 526 (1964) and City of Pittsburgh v. Federal Power j
Commission, _ 237 F.2d 741 (C.A.D.C., 1956).
I-
--15/
Petitioners contend that the decision to issue a show cause order does not represent an adversary proceeding to which BG&E is a i
party.
Any objection by BG&E should come in_the form of a re -
sponse'to the show cause order.
Nonetheless, as a matter'of courtesy petitioners have delivered a copy of this petition to BG&E.,
3 Commission Authority.
d
.In exercising its'responsibil,ities-with respect to radiological dangers the Commission has always acknowledged -its broad authority to amend, modify, revise, suspend or revokc a construction permit.
l See'for instance 42 U.S.C. Sections 2232,=2236 and.2237 and 10 CFR Part 2, 552.202 and 2.204 and Part 50,.550.100.. Even retroactive 4
application of conditions on licensees or'permitees. have been q
f'1 required as in tho' case of backfitting.
See 10 CFR, Part 50,
.S50.109.
The general standard applied in such cases is that where the Commission obtains information as the result of investigations,.
technological advance, or any other means, to. establish that the.heaJth and safety of the general public can be better protected-if ' new conditions are imposed on nuclear facilities, then in order.to meet its statutory duty to protect the health and safety of the general public the Commission must impose the new conditions through amend-ment, modification, revision, suspension or revocation of the permit 4
or license involved.
The National Environmental Policy. Act merely adds environmental protection as an additional statutory responsibility of the Commission and charges the Commission with the same obligation for vigorous j
enforcement of environmental safeguards that it now possesses with-respect to health and safety generally.
The provision governing issuance of an order to show cause is 10 CFR, Part 2, S2.202(a) (1) which provides:
i j
4
e.--
.. -~ ~.-
2 (a)..
t The Director of'RegulationLmayitnstitute a i'
proceeding to modify,4 suspend, or revoke:arlicense e
or for such.other action as may~be proper'by serving on the licensee an order to show cause which will -
t 1
(1)
Allege the violations with which I
the licensee is charged, -or the potential:1y_
hazardous-conditions or other facts deemed to be suf ficient gtound for the proposed actio_n_.
s i
[ Emphasis--added)
The ' enactment of NEPA, its application to the Commission and 4
}
its specific applicability to work _in progress such as Calvert' Cliffs represent-facts-which are sufficient to warrant _a -suspension of _the i
i Calvert Clif fs-construction permit pending-_ a.-f ull study cWE ' environ-5 I
mental factors.
,4 It is thus appropriate -under existing Commission p
-procedure, as well as being required'by NEPA, that.the Commission 4
p issue ar order to show:cause to BG&E.
1 t
In 10 CFR, Part 2, S2.202(f) provides:
2
( f)-
When the Director of Regulation. finds that the public health, safety, or interest 1so requires or that the violation is willful, the order to show cause 1-may~ provide, for stated -reasons,. that the proposed I
action be temporarily effective pending further order, f
While petitioners ~here do-nnt claim that
.i -
the order to chow cause 1.
snould make the proposed suspcasion of the construction permit -
i ef fective immediately (althougb. we1 believe that1 issuance.of -the-order-t l
of suspension should be expedited), _ it :is clear:-from ~this regulation that-matters of safety and health ~(which in light of'NEP1, include-matters relating to environmental protection) 3 aroxa suf ficient basis F
for_ issuance : of a show cause. order.
This1Luthorityfis further set-
!O forth in 10 CFR, Part 2, 52.204;providing1that the nodi ~fication of=
5 i
1 4'
t
.m_
.m._m....,,e-,,.,w
, r r,- rw
+m-.v
-wev~ e.
.,-rv ve m-m- v
a construction permit may be made effective immediately where required by the "public health, safety or in'terest".
Finally in 10 CFR, Part 50, S50.100, the Commission is authorized to revoke, suspend or modify a construction permit because of conditions sub-sequently revealed which would have warranted refusal of a permit in the first instance.
Clearly the failure to fully investigate environmental factors would have barred issuance of a construction permit and is a basis for suspension of the construction permir his time pending the required environmental studies.
a' Thus, the first step in the process of applying NEPA to the Calvert Cliffs plant is for the Commission to issue to BG&E an order to show cause why construction of the plant should not be suspended pending determination of the environmental f actors. ~~16/
Once that issue is determined, as we are sure it will be, in favor of the suspension of the construction permit the Commission should begin the detailed examination of environmental factors required by NCPA.
The Commission should also immediately require a full
~~16/ The show cause order sht ld be published in the Federal Register to permit other interested parties to submit comments.
environmental report from BG&E with respect to the Calvert Cliffs.
plant. ~-17/ From these investigations which should of course include 1
public hearings on environmental _ f actors as well as independent-in-j_
vestigation and study by the Commission and its staf f or special consultants, the Commission will develop the conditions which are to be imposed upon BG&E if it is to be permitted to continue 4
construction and/or-operation of the Calvert Cliffs plant including, if necessary, a requirement that the proposed plant be located clsewhere or that the construction permit be revoked.
i 17/
If the Commission should decide not to suspend the construction permit and regardless of any challenge to that decisioniin the Courts, the Commission should nonetheless immediately begin the l
process required b) NEPA and.immediately request that BG&E, at the earliest possible time, submit-the required environmental report.
To delay that report and the NEPA investigation is to place the general public and even BG&E in the intolerable l
position of not knowing until after construction of the plant has progressed even further, what modifications in design, structure, l
etc. will be required for environmental protections.
This can only increase costs and delay the start of operation of the plant._ There~is no possible reason to_ postpone the commence-ment of the NEPA investigation, an investigation which is required as a condition of granting an: operating permit for the Calvert Cliffs plant.
In this regard see - Report of an Internal Study Group of the AEC released June 25,-1969 which found:
The problem mentioned most by industry representatives was uncertainty and instability in regulatory require-ments.z Utilities faced with decisions on the addition of generating capacity have not been certain of ultimate licensing requirements at the time of their selection of the type of nuclear power units to be installed and when they contracted for those units.
There have been related j
increases in costs and. changes in plant scheduling and man-power requirements which _ were not anticipated when utility selection and contracting decisions were made.
Many of these unanticipated changes were the result of safety requirer...cs imposed by the regulatory groups to maintain adequate margins of safety consistent with l
increases in. reactor size and power density. !
Environmental Factors t
While it isEtrue that theLCommission has not considered any
{
environmental factors in its investigation of the Calvert Cliff:
plant, there have been some studies conducted by other agencies touching on a few, but not in any sense all, of the environmental l
4 factors required by NEPA.
The one inescapable conclusion which arises from these studies is that ' virtually nothing is known about
?
the environmental impact of the proposed-Calvert Clif fs plant.- The i
report to the Maryland Academy of Sciences by_ the Study Panel on Nuclear Power Plants (January,- 1970)' summarized the problem:
In particular, we of the panel deplore ~the fact that the nuclear power station being built by the Baltimore -
l Gas and Electric-Company at.Calvert. Cliffs was. sited and designed, at least-in general terms,-before any such survey
[of the environmental impact of the plant] was made.
We recognize that a long_ lead. time is necessary_ for pl'.nning construction of such magnitude, but this very_ fact underlines the urgency of anticipating future developments.
The panel gave careful attention to the plans for the Calvert Cliffs generating plaat and to many aspects of-its possible influence on the environment. - We recognize that there are many areas in which further'.research is '
needed these are described later in the report ; -
but based upon the best information available at this time-concerning the_ expected ~ biological, chemical and physical impact of the Calvert Clif fs plant' in normal operation, we have concluded-that, in.all probability, the plant will i
not of itself represent a. major environmental threat.
It was evident at the' outset that in-the specific question of Calvert Cliffs, there'were only two possible alternatives to be considered by the panel-either to recommend that the State of Maryland act to prevent operation of the plant, or to recommend that the State give conditional approval for the ultimate operation of the plant, subject to appropriate guarantees and monitoring. -only after careful consideration 4
have we resolved ~ on the latter.
' 4 4
i r
,y v
r y
m*
-em, v
~
~~rr,
The dilemna which this -panel and :the State of Maryland faced i-
.is-preciselyLthe dilemna which NEPA resolves by rejecting the "its j
[
too late to do anything" attitude:and requiring.instead: full environ-.
4 4-mental. studies even for work-in progress.-
The--Commission with its
[
broad authority to amend and modify _ permits is.obviously well suited to the task.
?
i While,-in the last analysis, NEPA requires the Commission,-
4 using-its own investigation and vast resources to explore the l-environmental impact of the proposed-plant, there are some studies i
j which at least suggest where the possible environmental problems i
are with resper.t to the Calvert Cliffs plant.-
4-The environmental problems arise, of course, because th'e j
plant, when in operation, will -represent an enormous factor in the ecology of the Chesapeake Bay.
It is to be located at a point where t
[
the bay is only 6 miles wide (its widest poi..t is 35 miles,.its-4[
narrowest is 3 miles and the mean width is 15 miles'(Condenser i-Cooling Water llandling Facilities and Related' Environmental I
Considerations by the Baltimore Gas -and Electric Company _ (hereinaf ter h
BG&E Study), p.
13, and where there is extremely heavy 1 movement of-l l
sea life in bo'th directions (Comments: on Proposal by Baltimore Gas i
l and Electric Company for Calvert Cliffs Nucicar Power Plant,- by l
{
L. Eugene Cronin, Director, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of. Maryland, dated 25 February, 1970-(hereinafter Cronic), p. 5; Statement Concerning Use af Chesapeake Bay Water,.by Charles !i..
-Southwick,-Professor of Pathobiology,' Johns Hopkins University (hereinaf ter Southwick), -pp.
1-2).
Thus to the. extent the plant will have an effect on the bay, the site selected will1 intensify that effect to the maximum..
.,,m.
4..
r,m=+.r5,w,*
.e The plant's major environmental impact willibe as.a result of its use of the waters of the bay for cooling and_ for di'sposing i
of certain~ nuclear wastes.
The plant will withdraw S,600 cubic J
J feet of. cooling water from the bay every.second (or a total of 3,456,000,000- gallons per day)- -_ a rate equal to-a little more than half the minimum total flow of the Susquehanna River.
(Nuclear k
Power Plants and our Environment, prepared for the Maryland v
i Academy of Sciences by The Study Panel on Nuclear Power Plants, dated January, 1970 (hereinafter Maryland Academy of Sciences),
1
- p. 26).
The Susquehanna River provides the greatest influx of f resh water into the bay (Maryland Academy of Sciences, supra.,
- p. 23).
This comparison is particularly -relevant because of_the unusual composition of the bay-and the design oi the plant.
J The pattern of circulation in the Bay is rather com-plicated but it 1s reasonably simple and. accurate to imagine the water as generally consisting.of two layers,.
1 one overlying the other.
In the_ top _ layer, there is an' average motion down the_ Bay, the total' transport' past~ the Calvert Clif fs site being about 45,000 cubic feet per second.
The lower, more saline layer moves ug the P.y from the sea, with an average j
transport at the same position of 35,000 cubic feet per'second.
The difference'between-these two just about' balances the inflow from' the Susquebanna. River.. There is, of coursc.,.
a mixing between the two layers and the extent of this varies-greatly throughout the season.- As the more saline,Jand generally cooler, water moves up - the Bay, - it is. gradually absorbed by mixing into the surface water.
Fresh water 1from-the Susquehanna-l River then becomes more saline as-'it moves south-in the upper i
layer as the result of entrainment cf the water below.- - This-distrib"Fion of salinity has very important consequences for the mari..e life in the region, since it is_one-very critical 4
factor; involved in spawning locations and nursery areas, i
l The plant, _using an-artificial channel extending _nearly one!and j
one-half miles into the bay (or one-fourth of the distance.across 4
h t e bay-at this point), will draw its water from the lower, cooler and more saline depths of the bay and will discharge that water cn1 9 :
i
....m,._,,
or near the surface of.the bay.
(Malyland Academy of Sciences, supra., p. 26). -As a result there'will be an enormous alteration in i
_the saline coatent of the surf ace waters of the bay as salt water equivalent to more than half the flow of the largest fresh water source of the bay is artifically discharged on or near the surface-of the bay whete the saline content is relatively low.
In addition the water taken from the lower depths is lower 2
in _ oxygen and not suitable for many important kinds of sea life.
Maryland Academy of Sciences, supra., pp. 23-24; BG&E Study, supra.,
pp. 14-15.
To these problems must be added the intended addition of nuclear wastes to-the water as they are-discharged to the bay, in i
particular the radionuclide tritium.
The waste discharge may run at some times as high as 10% of the safety limits set by the Commission 1
for such discharges.
(Initial Decision, Atomic Energy Commission, 1
dated July 2, 1969 (hereinaf ter AEC Decision) ).
Finally there is the heat discharge which will be created L
by the plant.
The water which enters the plant will be heated by 10*F before it is discharged into the bay.
(BG&E Study, supra., p. 16).
This thermal plume created by~ discharging 5,600 cubic feet of-heated water every - second into the bay will extend,' at some -times, almost the entire distance across the bay. to a. depth of nearly 30 feet, the heat increase at this distance being 0.5'F.
-(Statement for Submission at the Public Hearing on Application Made by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, For Permit to Appropriate and Use: Surface Water 1
t
,e
--,.,4
for Operation of the Calvert Cliffs-Nuclear Power Plant, by'D. W.
Pritchard,' Director, Chesapeake oay' Institute, The Johns Hopkins University (hereina f ter Pritchard), p.-10).
The horizonital ares--
covered by the temperature increase will;beJ5;6 acres increased
+
5*P, 23 acres increased-3*F, 92 acres increased-2'F, 920' acres
-increased 1*P and 10,330 acres increased 0.5'P.
(Pr.4 tcha rd, supra, o
p. 13).
These figures represent only surface areas affected and i
[
they do not take into ' account 'the water depth of the heat increase which will be approximately 20 to 30 feet for all heat increases.
The total heat plume, which is approximately 6 miles long ano 3 miles wide will, depending upon the direction ofIthe tide, extend 6 miles up the bay, 6 miles across the bay or 6 miles down the-bay as it sweeps from north to south with the tides.
(Pritchard, supra.,-
p.
9)
)
In addition-to this evidence of the impact of the plant i
on the' bay there is also a substantial body of evidence to suggest that this-impact will have an adverse affect upon-the environment of the bay.
For instance the-low oxygen level of the lower bay waters being used for cooling could adversely affect the' ecology of the c
upper bay waters where the discharge will-occur-.
-(Report on Pollutior.
i.
Control Aspects, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Baltimore Gas-and Electric Co., prepared by U. S. Department of Interior, dated May 9, 1969 (hereinaf ter Report on Pollution Control), pp. 9-10).
The cooler, low lying waters of the Bay have.been observed to'become devoid of oxygen in the summer season.
s Unless specific efforts are made to raise'the D.O.
in the plant discharges, the use of these waters-for cooling purposes co'.ld have an adverse effect upon the ecology of
- t 4
f-
-.--,,,..-..,.,.,n.--,
~
the Bay '
the vicinity of-the plant.
At-present, the shallower,,aters in the vicinity of the plant - have ample oxygen and are tho. waters from which the shelitish,- crabs, and fin fish are generally obtained.
If large volumes of water deficient in oxygen are brought into these shallower' areas, the natural equilibrium could be distuibed, and it would appear that the plant could be~in violation ofiappl-i--
cable water quality standards.
The preliminary hydrological program included in the PS AR appear to touch upon-this problem, but not to offer any data which would assist in its appraisal and correction.
This oxygen deficiency probably will be increased by the fact that higher temperature water intensifies the growth of oxygen consuming cpecies such as algae and high temperature water loses oxygen more quickly as the result of evaporation.
(Report on Pollution Control, supra.,
- p. 9; Southwick, supra., pp.2-3).
The increased salinity of the dischr je water can be a _ majo:
factor in the ecology of the bay as ' fish and other living organisms which require lcw salinity are faced with a considerably heavier concentration of salt at the surface of the bay.
(Report on Pollution Control, supra., p.
9)
Another aspect of the possible problems created by. the Calvert Cliffs plant relates to the radiological discharges.
As the Commissica 4
knows, there is considerable concern in the scientific community about the levels of radiation approved as safe by the AEC for humans, l
)
particular'.y in light of the growing number of sources of radiation.
See for instance Effects of Nuclear Power Plants on-Chesapeake Bay
!~
by the School of Hygiene and-Public Health, Johns Hopkins University
- p. 17-22.
However, petitioners do not seek in this petition a review of those criteria for humans.
The concern is with the radiological
t k
affect on ether:living organisms, for instanec1(Statement for the 1.
{
Joint-Committee on Atomic Energy, prepared by Edward P.
- Radford, M.D.,
~
^
Professer of Environmental Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, 1
School of Hygiene and Public Health, _ dated January 28, -19 701(here-
?
inafter Radford)):
_The point we were trying: to ;make with regard to the-
}
Calvert_ Cliffs reactor is that tritium discharged into the L
Bay at the Calvert Cliffs plant could be taken up at the-dis-charge point relatively quickly by rapidly-growing organisms
~
in the Bay.-
Their tissues would then remain labeled with the tritiu,n atoms for varying times, but in many cases long'after the organism had moved frvm the vicinity of the plant..Thus
~
at this time the organism such as a plankton or; a crabi _ might i
have more_ tritium than wouldfbe predicted from the average water-value after dilution into a larger area of-the Bay.
This process is fairly likely in the Chesapeake at the point
]
where the Calvert Clif fs plant is to be, because it is a particularly active area of the Bay in terms of growth of organista.
Now this argument was particularly important in view of information brought out at the safety hearing in May,.
1969 to the effect that the tritium released from the Calvert Cliffs reactor would be coming-out in " pulses",'or more concentrated amounts, periodically, approximately-twice.a 4
month, and in a. f airly concentrated " pulse" once. 2 year-when e
the reactor was shut down for refuelling.
Under this regime, i
the organisms in the Bay could have at particular times of 4
the year more tritium present in relation to hydrogen than the
~
water in which they swam, not because of any true concentration effect but simply because once incorporated into certain of their molecules the tritium would remain fairly stable.and not be diluted rapidly-once the organism stopped growing.
By not being--diluted with the less radioactive. hydrogen, the tritium laid down during the " pulse" would reflect the pulse l-concentration.
I_ understand.now that such " pulsing" will not generally be done, and thus'with essentially continuous release of tritium the operation-is safer.
j.
The same mutations, the same. over exposure - af fects, the same cell-j damage that humans can suffer from radiation could also_be-suffered
[-
by other living organisms.
4.
G A
2 4
)
....~-----.-m-
..,~- -..--~,
~-
~,
J
' ~
g Another factor related to the? water discharge has to"do'with--
therminer11 content of the water.- As note'd earlier the composition l'
of the wat.or 'being_ used for -cooling. differs from that 'of the water into which it will be discharged.
For-! instance copper and nickel;are importantL minerals -which can af fect the seaLlife. 'They exist in-i.
[
different concentrations in sea water than in fresh water and th'us in different concentrations in the lower bay waters than_in _the upper; i
bay waters.
A' change in these and other mineral concentrations can produce fish kills and sublethal ef fects which in ~ the long - run will L
kill fish.-
(Routine Chemical, Physical and Bacteriological Studies, No. I for'the Baltimore Gas and, Electric Company,. prepared by-l
,p p-Academy of Natural Sciences of I iladelphia,- Department of-Limnology,
1
-daied October, 1969, pp.
5, 5 and 11.)
l' The intake water is' intended to come'from: 25-40 feet which it is believed will be below the zone where micro-organisms live.
1i 1-In fact this is.true only ~for 1045Fof the year and at a' depth of i
f 25-40 feet micro-organisms will in fact be trapped in the intake waters-and subjected to temperature increases of 10*F.
(Cro nin ', supra.,
p.
15),
It is known that thermal changes _ can have a marked influence,-
usually detrimental, on sea life.
(Thermal Pollution, supra..
- p. 1-1) :
We, first, can note that any large scale modification of the thermal regine of rivers and reservoirs will change its ecology and usually for the worse.--
4 See also Thermal Pollution, supra., p.
II-7.
L 4
)
I i a
j h..
~
4 99 i
..-.a.:.....--.~-......-.
e But such dramatic temperature changes are not needed to e
produce the adverse affoetae Fish have been shown capable of detect-ing thermal changn as low as Os6*re (S tatement Regarding the Baltimort Gas and Electric Company r.aeques t to_ Use Chesapeake Bay Waters f,o_r.
Purposes of Condenser Cooljng of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power PJant, prepared for the. Department of Water Resources, State of Maryland, by C c1eton Ray, PheDe, Associate Professor, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns !!opkins University, dated 10 March 1970 (hereinaf ter Ray), pe 6) e There is' substantial evidence of heated water discharge from power plants killing fish. (Ray,,. nupra ) :
e ettoevio vis.t nu ci. ate e,.neien aesn*4 tie esc =eim se:w itureic eoate f,(% 84114G tiahts a sie *+e.
R.jrett teet et Deg'ee e' e' 898 fe'9
$ f e 's Li'ese se la.s legate t e.o r ite 4ife ag69nEl teces,!. in a t e se en $44 age. Je.aie tes ten.
pa s,,.
1.041 u
a a g 14. IF.?
' M
- s. *
- t t: i go tsea'le Wealiste 1save es.
Ut o
t te.
a.,1 ! 1941 nett er a e.,e...
- st e tyd L get we, te ist.e
?....
yu p asi*ea.m
.,,rier e.
.s a.g ie tee).
p.r... i n.4
' r e... a e.
see.eg W f e + e's.
1E e & g M d',*.
Os.a '
i +e eie, %* see
..es V**ie *M Dva's.
L' M -
14 + l% *? 19%
Me
(.4 4 ew et I. orae i ett IN
$eM f.e 4 f-
..i.smi Lt
$ - es s
Pte pep Me?.e 80 i',
la..,e at..., e.. e e..
e..g. 44:8 e
saa e ter,?
M.
e ID Jte is
- 68 ' ** F
- e f 4*1,ie v e tv..
f, e Cav ti.,
'l tH a
ita i At, S *+ e i t t se e e ist.- :$
esit t gg w derre
%W e
isi ? 11* e t%a la* 1ce, p..e e _
tono Menty,.
?M M'
~
w i t t o.3 is in te4 e te..e.
. f eit'ess.
. me s..
Si e
tec, M se,
w w.ut s#e
( s y's,
- i c e a ti.
S enee st.
e'e so s't.
r a.
? ? t er.e.
to ce fe of ive m,v v.tg +4 i n e p.,e s,
. %#,e Cemeens*4.. g3H 9!M ta 1i me us..
t o,%se, e..e,,
te % se Cev te.;
- 3. b*
a Mi 't l*6) t o le 9 ns.*e See
. w>e n.
s ven set me es,asJ a nataa# e*,seterhe' pat w 39 naies 4 4 tms a f *e f n iee ni mieer
- v,* s. f eene' a sm, e
e t
e.a e 4%? 14 e ee,e** as t e + t at f ra se *us *etv's setttie to rese'ai.1 $'e's s ie ma! as'e' ta 'e'-o' soae e' ee et* e+ s.e* sete es init te%+e'ver oneuvi ser es seat -eJ ae e*plete t %eca.ne e' f's we'w ta*t ette's et en'<t.neate.*.#.s*e the e+s'
' et ina ass.es =4 egewee ta e*e= et es mde*'s ai ese me4si.tv a
i St.o.. c e.e It has also been reported that direct kills are not the only affects of water temperature increase (Steam Power Plant Site Selection, report prepared by The Energy Policy Staf f, Of fice of Science and Technology) : - _ __
5, j
Even where a temperature change is not directly damaging to the development of desi<able species, an increase is
(
1 usually found to facilitate the more rapid development of less desirable or undenfrable species.
While fish are generally available in discharge areas sometimes in greater numbers than elsewhere, it is often found that an increase in temperature results in a loss of i
the more desirable species since they are unable to compete successfully for food, breeding areas or their lives.
A
]
warmer temperature is also considered to increase the j
occurrence of disease in fish populations.
A particular problem exists with migratory rpecies, since changes in_ temperatures are apparently important in a number 1
of species as the stimulator of migratory activity.
Too early migration, avoidance reactions to changes that occur near a waste discharge, viability of eggs or sperm, or the j
availability of appropriate _ food when the eggs hatch are-j probably.more important11n the preservation of migratory species tJuin the direc t lethal effects of the discharge.
i Since acclimation.to the increased temperature, and to the i
1 decrease as the waste heat source area is passed, affects the j
temperature that can be tolerated, each altuation should bc coneidered individually by fishery biologists.
~
u l
These problems are oxtremely acuto at Calvert Cliffs because of t
j the use of this portion of the bay for migration cif virtually all hay fish and crustaceans-particularly during the spawning season..
These sublethal temperature exposures have been acknowledged to be environmentally detrimental even af ter the exposure to the heated water has passed (Biological Effects"of Thermal Discharges:
i Annual Progress Report for 1968, prepated by W. L. Templeton,-Manager,.
Aquatic Ecology 1Section, Ecosystems Department, Battelle Memorial i
Institute, dated December 1969) :
Studies of differential predation rates between' prey fish given sublethal _ thermal shocks and control fish indi-cate that even small exposures to potentially lethal tempera--
tures reduce the likelihood of survival'insthe natural environment.
Equilibrium loss due:to-acute thermal shock can.no longer -be considered-reversible _ at all lethal tempera-tures, for our studies show significant delayed mortality of rainbow-trout 24 hr-after exposure to. temperatures between 27 and 30 'C.--Above 30 'C equilibrium loss apparently is reversible. -
All of these thermal af fects van be particularly serious at the Calvert Clif fs plant because the bay temperatures st certain times are close to the lethal limits (Ray, supra., pp. 3-4).
In addition many bay fish have a very delicate temperature tolerance at certain times such as rock fish which have a spawning response at 5 8 -5 9 6 E'. (Southwick, supra,., p. 2).
Petitioners do not argue that this data conclusively proves t
that the Calvurt Cliffs plant should be modified or relocated.
The point is that too little is known about the possible affects of the Calvert Cliffs plants and NEPA requires that these investigations i
be undertaken by the_ Commission'before irrevocable damage. occurs, t
]
It is widely acknowledged that there is a need for further-studies i
j of the environmental impact of the Calvert Cliffs plant.
BG&E has agreed to conduct such studies and acknowledged their need.
(BG&E
}
Study, supra., pp. 30-33)
The State of Maryland clearly feels such studies are.sacessary. -
(Permits for Construction in a Waterway and Appropriation and Use of Surface Water - Calvert Cliffs Nuclear i
l Power Plant issued by the Department of Water Resources, State of j
Maryland., p. 8, Appendix I.) A request to-conduct extensive studies has been made to the Commission and details the range of problems that need to be anplored.
(Ecological Effects of Nuclear S team i
Electric S tation Operations on Estaurine_ Systems for_ the U. S. - Atomic i
{
Energy Commission, prepared by Dr. J. A. Mihursky, Chairman, Department of Environmental-Research, Natural Resources Institute, University of Maryland and Dr. S. Lakshmanan, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Department of_ Chemistry-, University of Maryland.)'
l l
l l i ir
i_ __ _ _.__._ _ _._ _.__. _. _ _ _. _ __ ___ _ _. _ _ _ _.
t i
i i
The reason that the studies were not' conducted earlier is i
that BG&E-kept its plans for this plant secret until the last j
possible' moment when it could then claim that power needs required i
)
that the plant be built before necessary studier are completed.
The f
j environment should not be made to pay for the transgressions of BG&E.
l Only through advance studies can adequate consideration be t
j given to alternatives such as possible-uses for the waste heat s.
l produced.
(T,he Need for Advance Planning of Thermal Dir7b s.ges Before Site-Acquisition for oral presentation at the American Power f
Conference,- prepared by R. T. Jaske,-Battelle Memorial Institute, i
1 dated April 1969) :
i-Turning to other aspects of the siting of stations,-
i I
the examination of an entire regional system is_ essential, j
This involves the integration of all proposed stations from i
the standpoint of thermal dif ferential allowable at a i
given point.
j Advance plar.ning of thermal discharges is also vital i
in the planning for incidental benefit for the enhancement t
of ecological systems or reduction of icing on navigable waters.
1 l
PetitionerJ urge.the Commission to act now to.obtair, the necessary i[
data to assess the environnental impact of the Calvert Cliffs plant and, in order to fully respond to the results of these studios, to 1,
suspend the construction permit for the plant u,'.11 the studies i
it have.been completed.
I i
The saddest part of the entire Calvert Cliffs development 1
i is the conclusion reached in-theLstudy prepared by the Maryland i
l Acadeny of' Sciences,' supra., p.132:
I2 a
4,
e
,an,4,-,,,-.-~,?
...rn.,on,,-n,,n.,-,..~--,,,
J,m,,now-~.,-c-
.~.,..,-r.-,..,.,-,..,.n.;n,,J,.-n~,..-
.,,n.,,-
-, +
9 In summary, the panel looks upon the'Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant as an experimental-tool, one purpose of which is to provide information allowing assessment of the impact of the nuclear power industry upon the environment.
NEPA requires that Federal agencies prevent further environmental experiments and that studies and definitive conclusions precede federal actions.
Other Agencies As indicate:1 carlier the actions of other-agencies, federal or state, do not relieve the Commission of_its NEPA responsibilities.
The Commission must itself make the necessary studies to insure that the environmental impact of the plant is minimized.
With regard to water quality standards the State of Maryland-has offered BG&E a permit to use State waters provided certain conditions are met, the conditions appear to conform lLo the present water. quality standards for Maryland.
However, this does not1 foreclose the_ inquiry into water quality._.First, under the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970- (Pub. Law 91-224) the Commission is only relieved of its responsibilities with respect to water
~
quality standards-for projects upon which construction was begun after April 3, 1970. -See Section 21(b) (7) of the Act.
For all other projects, such as Calvert. Cliffs, no state certification of - - -.... -...
5 i
O water quality standards is required and the Commission mu:t, under NEPA, determine what standards should be applied and whether the plant will conform to them.
Second, existing water quality standards in Maryland, which were adopted in 1967, are under review and there is reason to believe that those standards will be increased (Report on Pollution control, g[ ra.) :
Although the above criteria adopted by the State of Maryland have been approved by the Department of the Interior, it should be noted that they are not compatible with the temperature criteria recommended by the National Technical Advisory Committee in its report on Water Quality Criteria of April 1968.
The NTAC report suggested that the monthly mean of maximum daily temperatures should-not be raised by more than 1.5'F during the summer-months - nor 4'F -
for other months in coastal and estuarine waters.
The De-partment of the ';ist or 1r& ends to open formal discussions with the State o; thi
--r reviewing and revising the
~#
adopted and appr( N6 n td.4 t The-Baltimore Gas and Electric Company u cuj r} t a es>ro of these diccussions so that they could be in
,,asition to provide the necessary measures to meet these ntandards if subsequently adopted.
Thus the Calvert Cliffs plant will in all likelihood _have to comply with a higher standard imposed by the state _ at some future time and the Commission, in order to prot'ect the electric _needs of the public, should now impose the higher standards to avoid protracted shut-downs of the plant.
9 Conclusion For the reasons stated above the petition should be granted and the order to show cause should be issued at once.
Respectfully submitted, DERLIN, ROISMAN and KESSLER 4
1910 N Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036
_ s'
/
/
t
}
By / _
Q r1_Lus,,\\
f t.o[] l i
t <'
Anthon Z f.'_ disman
/
4 1.
._.r
...