|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20070E4671991-02-26026 February 1991 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-73-9 Re Upgrading Design Basis Threat for Radiological Sabotage of Nuclear Reactors.Recommends That NRC Deny Petition to Increase Design Basis Threat for Security ML20207C1331986-12-18018 December 1986 Order Terminating CPPR-81 & CPPR-82,per Util 860711 Motion to Withdraw Applications for OLs ML20215E7301986-12-17017 December 1986 Memorandum & Order Authorizing Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissing OL Proceeding,Per Applicant 860711 Motion. Served on 861218 ML20215B2071986-12-11011 December 1986 Responds to Questions Posed in ASLBP 861203 Memorandum & Order Re Conversion to gas-fired Facility.Imposition of Conditions on Withdrawal of OL Application Unnecessary. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20211L6391986-12-11011 December 1986 Affidavit of Gb Staley Re Preparation of Answers to Board 861203 Questions on Termination of OL Proceeding. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20211L6181986-12-11011 December 1986 Response to Board 861203 Questions Re Util Request to Terminate OL Proceeding ML20214Q4431986-12-0303 December 1986 Memorandum & Order Granting Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal Proceedings & Posing Questions to Parties.Served on 861204 ML20214G7941986-11-24024 November 1986 Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal of Licensee OL Application & Terminate Pending OL & CP Mod Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214T7361986-09-26026 September 1986 Memorandum & Order Dismissing OM Proceeding as Moot & Deferring Action on Applicant Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application Pending NRC Preparation of Environ Assessment.Served on 860929 ML20212M7661986-08-25025 August 1986 Response to Util 860711 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & for Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings.Board Should Hold Motion in Abeyance Pending NRC Review of Stabilization Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M8171986-08-15015 August 1986 Response to ASLB 860716 Order Requesting Responses Re Termination of OM Proceeding.Termination of OL Proceeding & Withdrawal of OL Application Requested.Om Proceeding Should Be Considered Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212B0311986-08-0101 August 1986 Memorandum & Order Withdrawing Retention of Jurisdiction Over Radon Issue Presented in Facility CP Proceeding & Vacating ASLB Partial Initial Decision on Remedial Soils in Consolidated CP Mod & OL Proceeding.Served on 860801 ML20212B0521986-07-31031 July 1986 Order Extending Time Until 860815 for Util & Other Parties to Respond to Questions Posed by 860716 ASLB Order.Time Extended Until 860825 for NRC Response to ASLB Questions & Util Motion.Served on 860801 ML20203F8791986-07-28028 July 1986 Response Supporting Util 860711 Motion for Termination of Appeal Board Jurisdiction Over Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207H6871986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Extension Until 860815 to File Responses to Four Questions Re Util Motion to Dismiss OL & OM Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207E2851986-07-16016 July 1986 Order Presenting Questions in Response to Util 860711 Motion to Dismiss OL Proceeding & to Terminate Order of Mod Proceeding.Served on 860717 ML20202G1621986-07-11011 July 1986 Notice of Change of Address for Washington Ofc of Isham, Lincoln & Beale,Attys for Util.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G0121986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings ML20202G1201986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Termination of Aslab Jurisdiction to Facilitate Termination of Cps,Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissal of Consolidated OM-OL Proceeding ML20202G0491986-07-10010 July 1986 Affidavit of JW Cook Re Conversion of Plant Into combined- cycle,gas-fired Power Plant.Plant Never Operable as Nuclear facility.Nuclear-related Equipment Will Be Sold ML20202G0281986-07-0808 July 1986 Affidavit of Ta Mcnish Re True & Correct Extracts of 860408 & 0618 Minutes of Meetings.Resolutions Recited Therein in Full Force & Effect ML20198J3861986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechoefer,Chairman & J Harbour & Ga Linenberger,Members.Served on 860529 ML20198J4651986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechhoefer,Chairman & J Harbour & Ga Linenberger,Members.Served on 860529 ML20137E0041985-11-21021 November 1985 Notice of Appearance in Proceeding ML20137D9651985-11-21021 November 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133F6421985-10-0909 October 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20134N3771985-08-30030 August 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl DD-84-17, Order Affirming 840724 Director'S Decision DD-84-17 Denying Bp Garde 10CFR2.206 Petition for Action Against Util Re Plant Const.Const Abandoned on 840910.No Further Enforcement Action Required.Served on 8506241985-06-24024 June 1985 Order Affirming 840724 Director'S Decision DD-84-17 Denying Bp Garde 10CFR2.206 Petition for Action Against Util Re Plant Const.Const Abandoned on 840910.No Further Enforcement Action Required.Served on 850624 ML20127N7591985-06-20020 June 1985 Transcript of Commission 850620 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote in Washington,Dc Concerning Denial of 2.206 Petition for Midland plant,SECY-85-60 Concerning Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule & Shoreham Order.Pp 1-4 ML20133D9481985-05-13013 May 1985 Response to Aslab 850423 Order.Aslab Should Cancel OL Application & CPs Because Compliance W/Nrc Basic Requirements Not Met ML20116G5181985-04-29029 April 1985 Response to Memorandum of City & County of Midland,Mi Re ASLB 850405 & 0313 Orders on CP Mod Proceedings.Bechtel Should Not Be Granted Admission to Proceedings ML20115J5551985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Response to Aslab 850313 Order to File Memoranda Re Whether Aslab Should Vacate ASLB Decision Re Certain Mods to CP Due to Mootness. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J4751985-04-19019 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850405 Order Re Dismissal of OL Application.Application Neither Abandoned Nor Delayed in Dilutory Manner.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20115J5501985-04-19019 April 1985 Response Opposing Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order Re Dismissal of OL Applications.Urges Board to Permit OL Applications to Continue in Suspension Until Applicant Affirmatively Resolves Disposition ML20116G5321985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Resolution of Issue to Involuntary Dismissal of License Application,Per Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order.Granted for Aslab on 850422. Served on 850429 ML20115J4351985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae,Per Aslab 850313 & 0405 Memoranda & Orders Requesting Response to Questions Re Proceeding ML20115J5461985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate Amici Curiae in Resolution of Issue of Involuntary Dismissal of License Application as Identified in Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order ML20115J5421985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Aslab Request for Responses to Questions Presented in 850313 & 0405 Memoranda Orders. Proof of Svc Encl ML20112J5281985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850313 Order LBP-85-2. Decision Should Not Be Vacated.Ol Should Be Dismissed.Based on Listed Changes,New OL Review Required ML20112J6301985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum Requesting Aslab Not Take Any Action to Vacate LBP-85-2 or Dismiss OL Applications,Per 850313 Order,Based on Current Intent to Hold CPs & Attempt to Sell Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20112H0981985-03-27027 March 1985 Response to Aslab 840313 Order Re Whether ASLB Decision to Review Issues in Soils Hearing Appropriate Use of Public Resources.Concurs W/Decision to Remand OL W/Instructions to Dismiss OL Application for Failure to Pursue Soils Issue ML20106F6531985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor B Stamiris 841224 Motion for Evidentiary Hearings Re Litigation Between Applicant & Dow Chemical Co.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106D6631985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing B Stamiris 841224 Pleading Requesting Evidentiary Hearing on Matter Raised in applicant-Dow Chemical Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9111985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension of Time within Which to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9421985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension Until 850306 to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Granted by Aslab on 850201 ML20101F3191984-12-24024 December 1984 Request for Evidentiary Hearings on Matter Raised in CPC-Dow Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20107K8011984-11-0101 November 1984 Affidavit of Jd Selby Re Plans Concerning Facilities.Const Will Be Resumed Only If Proposed by Appropriate Governmental Agencies & Officials & If Funds from Some Other Source Become Available.Related Correspondence ML20106F5241984-10-24024 October 1984 Motion to Request ASLB to Cancel Const License & Application for OL ML20092J0241984-06-22022 June 1984 Reply to B Stamiris Second Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on QA & Mgt Attitude Issues. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20092J0361984-06-22022 June 1984 Reply to NRC Further Supplemental Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re QA 1991-02-26
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20215B2071986-12-11011 December 1986 Responds to Questions Posed in ASLBP 861203 Memorandum & Order Re Conversion to gas-fired Facility.Imposition of Conditions on Withdrawal of OL Application Unnecessary. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20214G7941986-11-24024 November 1986 Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal of Licensee OL Application & Terminate Pending OL & CP Mod Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212M7661986-08-25025 August 1986 Response to Util 860711 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & for Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings.Board Should Hold Motion in Abeyance Pending NRC Review of Stabilization Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M8171986-08-15015 August 1986 Response to ASLB 860716 Order Requesting Responses Re Termination of OM Proceeding.Termination of OL Proceeding & Withdrawal of OL Application Requested.Om Proceeding Should Be Considered Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20203F8791986-07-28028 July 1986 Response Supporting Util 860711 Motion for Termination of Appeal Board Jurisdiction Over Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207H6871986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Extension Until 860815 to File Responses to Four Questions Re Util Motion to Dismiss OL & OM Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G0121986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings ML20202G1201986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Termination of Aslab Jurisdiction to Facilitate Termination of Cps,Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissal of Consolidated OM-OL Proceeding ML20133D9481985-05-13013 May 1985 Response to Aslab 850423 Order.Aslab Should Cancel OL Application & CPs Because Compliance W/Nrc Basic Requirements Not Met ML20116G5181985-04-29029 April 1985 Response to Memorandum of City & County of Midland,Mi Re ASLB 850405 & 0313 Orders on CP Mod Proceedings.Bechtel Should Not Be Granted Admission to Proceedings ML20115J5421985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Aslab Request for Responses to Questions Presented in 850313 & 0405 Memoranda Orders. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J5501985-04-19019 April 1985 Response Opposing Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order Re Dismissal of OL Applications.Urges Board to Permit OL Applications to Continue in Suspension Until Applicant Affirmatively Resolves Disposition ML20115J5551985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Response to Aslab 850313 Order to File Memoranda Re Whether Aslab Should Vacate ASLB Decision Re Certain Mods to CP Due to Mootness. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J4351985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae,Per Aslab 850313 & 0405 Memoranda & Orders Requesting Response to Questions Re Proceeding ML20116G5321985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Resolution of Issue to Involuntary Dismissal of License Application,Per Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order.Granted for Aslab on 850422. Served on 850429 ML20115J5461985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate Amici Curiae in Resolution of Issue of Involuntary Dismissal of License Application as Identified in Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order ML20112J5281985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850313 Order LBP-85-2. Decision Should Not Be Vacated.Ol Should Be Dismissed.Based on Listed Changes,New OL Review Required ML20112J6301985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum Requesting Aslab Not Take Any Action to Vacate LBP-85-2 or Dismiss OL Applications,Per 850313 Order,Based on Current Intent to Hold CPs & Attempt to Sell Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20112H0981985-03-27027 March 1985 Response to Aslab 840313 Order Re Whether ASLB Decision to Review Issues in Soils Hearing Appropriate Use of Public Resources.Concurs W/Decision to Remand OL W/Instructions to Dismiss OL Application for Failure to Pursue Soils Issue ML20106D6631985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing B Stamiris 841224 Pleading Requesting Evidentiary Hearing on Matter Raised in applicant-Dow Chemical Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106F6531985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor B Stamiris 841224 Motion for Evidentiary Hearings Re Litigation Between Applicant & Dow Chemical Co.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9421985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension Until 850306 to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Granted by Aslab on 850201 ML20101S9111985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension of Time within Which to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101F3191984-12-24024 December 1984 Request for Evidentiary Hearings on Matter Raised in CPC-Dow Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106F5241984-10-24024 October 1984 Motion to Request ASLB to Cancel Const License & Application for OL ML20084J6111984-05-0404 May 1984 Responds Opposing Sinclair 840419 Motion to Request Caseload Forecast Panel Evaluate New Const Completion Schedule.Aslb Should Deny Request for Relief Contained in Motion. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20084H2581984-05-0202 May 1984 Memorandum in Opposition to Govt Accountability Project (Gap) 840417 Petition for Review.Gap Policy on Disclosures to Press Rules Out Genuine Claim That Affidavits Were to Be Maintained in Total Confidence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083N6481984-04-17017 April 1984 Petition for Review of Aslab 840330 Decision & Order ALAB-764 Re Subpoenas Directed to Govt Accountability Project.Aslab Erroneous Re Important Questions of Law & Policy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087M9821984-03-30030 March 1984 Response to B Stamiris 840304 New Contention Re Transamerica Delaval,Inc Diesel Generators.Bases in Support of Contention Clarified.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079M6481984-01-23023 January 1984 Request for Leave to File Encl Corrected Copies of Applicant 831209 Memorandum in Opposition to Appeal of Govt Accountability Project.Table of Contents & Table of Authorities Inadvertently Omitted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082U0311983-12-0909 December 1983 Memorandum Opposing Govt Accountability Project (Gap) 831021 Appeal of ASLB Order Granting Util Motion to Depose Gap Witnesses.First Amend Argument Inapplicable Since Affiant Identity Will Not Be Disclosed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082E1341983-11-22022 November 1983 Request for Extension Until 831209 to File Brief Opposing Appeal of Govt Accountability Project Deponents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20086A8801983-11-0404 November 1983 Response to Util Motion to Compel & Application for Enforcement of Subpoenas.Submission to Discovery Would Cause Immediate Grave & Irreparable Injury to Organizational Viability.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20081F8991983-11-0202 November 1983 Motion to Compel & Application for Enforcement of Subpoenas Against Govt Accountability Project Deponents,L Clark, T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg.Response from Deponents Must Be Filed Before 831110.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081E8931983-10-31031 October 1983 Reply to Applicant 831014 Response to Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of B Stamiris 831005 Motion to Litigate Two Dow Issues.Issues Timely Raised & Present New Evidence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20090H4271983-10-26026 October 1983 Motion to Continue Beginning Date of Hearings Scheduled for 831031 to 3 Days After Date.Extended Hearing Necessary to Allow Time to Receive Responses to 831011 Discovery Requests.W/Certificate of Svc ML20081B1751983-10-25025 October 1983 Motion to Compel CPC Responses to 831011 Interrogatories & Request for Production Re Investigation of Alleged Violation.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20090H3401983-10-25025 October 1983 Motion for Admission Into Evidence of Transcript of Jl Donnell 831015 Deposition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081E9481983-10-25025 October 1983 Memorandum in Support of 831021 Appeal of ASLB Orders Granting Issuance of Subpoenas.Subpoenas Violate First Amend Rights.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081B0681983-10-21021 October 1983 Memorandum in Support of Appeal from ASLB Orders Granting Discovery Against Govt Accountability Project.Subpoenas Violate Common Law of Privilege.Util Showed No Compelling Need for Discovery ML20078K3141983-10-14014 October 1983 Response to B Stamiris 831005 Second Supplemental Memorandum Supporting Dow Issues.Stamiris Fails to Show New & Significant Info Justifying Reopening Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078F5561983-10-0505 October 1983 Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Intervenor Stamiris Motion to Litigate Dow Chemical Co Issues Against Applicant.Dow Documents & Complaints Support Litigation of Issues Raised in Original Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P1161983-10-0303 October 1983 Errata to 830930 Motion for Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P9131983-10-0303 October 1983 Motion to Stay Depositions of L Clark,T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg as Directed in ASLB 830831 Order.Depositions Should Be Stayed Pending Review of 830930 Motion for Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078A3471983-09-21021 September 1983 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of 830808 Motion to Litigate Dow Issues.Documents Reveal That Util Knew Fuel Load Dates Presented to NRC Jul 1980 - Apr 1983 False. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20077S7161983-09-19019 September 1983 Motion by L Clark,T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg for Extension Until 830930 to File Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 830831 Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoenas. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E8261983-09-0202 September 1983 Response Opposing M Sinclair Motion to Reconsider Privilege Ruling.Presence of Bechtel Officials at 821124 Meeting Does Not Destroy Privilege.Bechtel & CPC Share Common Legal Interest.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E8771983-09-0202 September 1983 Motion to Reconsider Schedule for Submitting Proposed Findings of Fact on Remedial Soils Issues.Intervenors Should Be Required to File Proposed Findings on Remedial Soils Issues by 831115.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076F3261983-08-23023 August 1983 Motion for Extension Until 830902 to Respond to Intervenor Motion to Reconsider Order Upholding atty-client Privilege Protection for 821124 Util/Bechtel Meeting.Motion Received 5 Days After Mailing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076C6711983-08-17017 August 1983 Response to M Sinclair & B Stamiris 830728 Motions Re Dow Vs Util Lawsuit.Aslb Should Defer Motions for 30 Days.Motions Could Be Refiled After Documents Reviewed.Two Oversize Drawings Encl.Aperture Cards in Pdr.Certificate of Svc Encl 1986-08-25
[Table view] |
Text
.. .
~
o Y' 4 00CKET NUMBER
.. "M [
P200. & unt, Eg. 3D M'[,4%
4, dCT 41971
- eme, et me Iwdut .
og #'dT.P S UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA i ()L4_. . ATOMIC ENERGY C,OMMISSION 4 (P -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
l In the Matter of
!)
')
- )
CONSUMER POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 4
) 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
l EXHIBIT B TO'INTERVENORS MOTIONS FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 1971 3 PRELIMINARY STATE- l MENT OF SAGINAW VALLEY ET AL. INTERVENORS ON ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS IN ACCORDANCE l WITH PAGE 4 OF THE BOARD'S ORDER OF AUGUST 26,' 1971 ,
~
i We are unable, because of the lack of information in the hands of Applicant, Dow Chemical Company and the Regulatory Staff, i set forth in any specific detail, even 1 our preliminary views on environmental questions. In addition, we are handicapped, as is the Board, by the failurc i 1 of the Regulatory Staff to have prepared and filed a -
Detailed Environmental Statement in accordance with the 1
National Environmental Policy Act. However, for the benefit
. i of_the Board and'the parties.we are submitting some of the broadissueswhichwebelievemustbeconsiderbdinconnection
-with'a so-cal. led NEPA analysis.
In addition, we would refer the Board to certain documents which we believe will be helpful. These are:
8007'490 955~- .
. , ,, r
, , 6 -
. }
A. The National Env ronmental Policy Act cf 1970, together with its legislative history and the t
Reorganization Plans and Comments as set forth at 43 U.S.C.
t S4321 et seq. (Supp. 1971) ;
B. " Draft Guide to the Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" issued for comment and interim use by the Commission in February, 1971; C.
Preliminary staff draft dated August 25, 1971, entitled " Scope of Environmental Reports With Respect To Transportation, Fuel Cycle, Disposal of High and Low Level Waste, Transmission Lines, and Accidents";
D.
Exhibit A to our Motions filed on September 30, 1971. This list of documents will give an indication of Intervenors' views with respect to some of the issues which' must be analyzed; E. Our letter to the Chairman of August 10, 1971; F.
EDF comments upon Draft Environmental Statement filed June 4, 1971. -
- We believe that tihe rejuired risk-benefit and cost- ;
benefit analyses require the Atomic Energy Commission to analyse the imposition of an additional nuclear plant in a context divorced from the Commission's l promotional oblicjations. Thus,
{
any analysis, if it is to be independent and objective, must k include a determination as to whether at any given point in time and~at any given location a nuclear power plant is the best alternative, based upon all of the factors, to any other
. kind of power plant or indeed.no power plant at all.
'Thus to preserve.our environment and to attempt ,
to-work _oward a rational National energy policy, the Commission may not. license a plant (assuming it resolves nuclear safety, radiological protection and specific environment'al matters) unless the Commission has also decided i
based upon substantial evidence that an additional power plant is necessary; or indeed,,1f one is necessary, if it should be a nuclear power plant. The Commission does not discharge its responsibilities pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act merely by encouraging an applicant to build an environmentally and otherwise safe nuclear power plant.
l L
It is in this context, therefore, that we offer the following statements which we believe, at a minimum, l must be-analyzed in these proceedings. l i
l 1. Any analysis under NEPA must include a review i of whether Consumer's determination to build the Midland Units,
'is justified at all. Thus if it'is not demonstrated that I
i.
Consumer's has long range needs.for an additional power plant, i
it should not be able to build it. NEPA, it would also appear, e
requires an inquiry as to whether Consumere, if additional f
power needs are-demonstrated, could purchase necessary electricity,by' virtue of'present or new interconnections, -
from' utilities having a different_ peak period than1 Consumers, 1
. -s. ., -
, L 1
rather than build.a. facility.
- 2. An' analysis of demand for electricity must include a discussion of ih'at' creates demand. We all know that utilities. spend a good' deal of money in promoting a j
need for electricity. Under NEPA should a utility be able
- to build a-plant based in whole or in'part upon' a demand
! for electricity which it has created itself? Or indeed, should 1
, a sound, long range environmental policy require a utility
- to invest sums.to promote.a decrease in the use of l
I' electricity in order to conserve natural resources and avoid !
unnecessary or unwise expenditpres of capital costs.
! 3. A NEPA analysis for'a nuclear power plant also 4
)
- requires an analysis of alternatives. Thus, given a long -
j- range view of proper rationalization of our natural resources, if a power plant is needed, then should it be a nuclear _ power
)
plant? Accordingly, it appear's necessary to analyze long and short range supplies of coni, oil, gas and-uranium and a
make some' judgment as to whether or not a nuclear power plant ought to'be built, given.the relative supplies of~various
- of our natural resources. This issue is all the more signifi-cant because of the proliferation of nuclear power plants and the obvious and continued use of available uranium.
This 1 l
analysis must consider the feasibility of the Atomic Energy
-Commission's so-called " fast breeder" program. The. commission r lhas-stated that with'dwin'dling supplies of uranium it is
_4
?
? - s y 9 -- - - - +
9 -4y n9 w g= $-
,-~ ~
t
- . I necessary to increase activity regarding the fast breeder program. To the exte.2t that available resourc of
- uranium.are to'be generated by'the fast' breeder, the Midland environmental review should also analyze the relative '-
l environmental and' operational feasibility of the fast breeder. program. -
- 4. Since Dow Chemical and Consumers have urged the idea that the nuclear power plant is necessary "to save Midland from economic destruction" it would appear that an adequate ;
NEPA analysis would examine into that assertion. Should i
industry in L.dland be expanded at the cost of the environment orshouldtheenvironmentaleffectsofexpansionheminimized by spreading it throughout the United States in other areas' where Dow exists? What are the relative costs of energy production in Midland, Michigan versus Freeport, Texas, the latter being the site where Dow can expand and already has facilities? What is the expansion to be used for? For example, iff an it is tsserted, the Dow facilities which are i to be expanded and for which the process steam is allegedly needed are plants which will produce chlorinated hydrocarbons which have carcinogenic effects, should the National Environmental Policy Act encourage such .a plant; ,to be built.
Therefore, inLthis sense; the question is not.whether process steam is:needed but whether the' environment needs another .
facility'which pollutes the atmosphere and creates chemicals N a
t . " -
( -
... . J and. compounds which may have adverse effects upon man and I
his environment.
, 5. If Dow Chemical eb'lieves it needs a nuclear
! power plant'in order to escape retrofitting its facilities with pollution controls whic it now uses for the generation 4
of steam and electricitf, does NEPA agree? Accordingly, another issue in the Midland proceedine is the relative cost of Dow abating pollution in Midland without the building of an additional pcVer plant.
- 6. Given unresolved ACRS asterisked items, the stato i
of the art of nuclear safety (with particular reference to
- the still unresolved issue, nationally, of emergency core cooling systems) are the objectives of NEPA satisfied by th'e i
building of any nuclear plants and specifically the Midland Units. This issue is not only important from an environmental review but also important from'a long rango analysis of our energy needs, since if the pr'sentp and staggering utility commitment to nuclear power is or proves to be unwise so as ,
to adversely affect energy prbduction due to unsafe or poorly built nuclear power plants, then a rationalization of resources i
and a decision under NEPA would require that the Midland Units not be built. t e
- 7. What are the problems in' depth which we face by the imposition of the_ proposed' Midland Units next to a gigantic chemical complex. Unshackled now by its earlier and erroneous
. ~ .
r.
e, !.
. view that'the Commission is on'y I interested in nuclear-safety and radiological protection, a full and complete i
environmental review must attack and analyse the environmental ;
implications of the proposed juxtaposition. We had earlier {
l' raised the issue of synergism of radiation and chemicals. !l 1:
l The real thrust of-that issue is whether mutagenic and l carcinogenic effects from chemicals produced at or released !'
by Dow's Midland facility -(and we all know or should know l
the problems Dow has had with 2, 4, 5-T and Dioxin) somehow l renders it environmentally unwise.to impose upon persons i 1
within the area of affect additional exposure to harmful }l 4 carcinogenic effects, even from a small amount of radiation.
Viewed properly this is not an attack on Part 20 Standards .
since those standards were not;only conceived prior to the National Environmental Policy Act but also were not written in the context of the particular factual circumstances presented by.this proceeding.* t.
- 8. In any risk-benefi't or cost-benefit study NEPA j requires an analysis of what social losses there would be, '
-if the proposed Midland Units were not built. Thus it is
' i j
- We noto in passing that the Regulatory Staff has yet to respond to Dr. Goodman's inquiry as to whether:Part 20 Standards are only applicable to or were written with respect to a so-called perfect environment which did not contain a chemical or any other industri*al complex. ,
l
-7 .
4
.+._
's p, .
e g
not sufficient merely to: conc $ude that the plant must be
{ built because Dow Chemical Le ds processed steam or 1
Consumers need additional eledtrical generating capacity; i
t it:is quite proper to conclude that' an adversely affected ,.
- publicmayvery.wellwishtofowithoutthebenefitsof
, Midland-expansion or increased generation of electricity to forestall harm to the~ environment. In other words, it l is improper under'a cost-benefit analysis merely to consider j industrial needs or industrial costs.
i 6
- 9. The NEPA' analysis ,must consider what the j real cost of generating electricity from the proposed Midland i e Units.would be as opposed to the cost resulting from 4
Consumers purchasing allegedly needed electricity or building j a different type of facility. Consumers has contended that .,
c .
l the costs for the Midland project have increased since its-s 1
- inception nearly 100%. Given th,e realistic fact that the public by virtue of its being rate payers absorbs this added cost, is it economically, and environmentally sound to i
permit the Midland project to continue, if cheaper and 4 ,
- alternative methods of producing electricity are available?
l In.this connection', it wi,ll~be important to understand that 1 the rcal cost of generating electricity is not,merely the
~
amount paid on'one's electrical bill but also includes
$ indirect costs _ paid by the public such as medical bills and increased maintenance bills incurred as a result of the
~
i i
j !
4 A :
\, .
effects of a' power plant. ,
- 10. We believe that air quality is an important issue in this proceeding in light of the claim that Dow must have the nuclear plant in order to abate its continued pollution of Midland.
l
- 11. We believe there Are also issues of land use.since it is our information that certain portions of residential land were rezoned in order to accommodate the proposed Midland Units,
- 12. Various public officials of the city of Saginaw, Michigan, have asserted that the Midland Units, with their tremendous water needs, may adversely affect the water needs
, I of th'e greater Tri-City area. . ,
I
- 13. Additionally we believe that issues which must be resolved in a NEPA analysis include an understanding of l' i
what will be done with the radioactive wastes which will be generated by the plant and whap will be done with the plant j. !
i after it has run its assumed useful life of 40 years. The i, risks and costs = imposed upon the public by these problems l, are-of enormous concern to a NEPA review. i
, t i
- 'i
~
I We are continuing our review of the. environmental ,
i,ssues wi.th information presently'available to us. We hope in i
-9 l
l 1
, . :. 3
,7 _ ,,
^ r'- -
l e ,
r the near future to'be able to be more specific. - However, we realize (and we are sure that the Board will agree with
, us) that it is necessary for the Applicant, Dow Chemical, and the Regulatory Staff to come forward with those matters, if any, which they have alreacky analyzed so that we and the
- Board can be in a position to' issue our agreement or dis-agreement. Moreover, once discovery commences and the Regu-latory Staff becomes more candid with its views well in advance of the Detailed Environmental Statement, all the parties and the Board will be'able to focus more properly
.upon the specific issues which are posed by the Midland Units, whether or not they relate to6the issues set forth herein.
r 1 e i
6 s
i 3 .
l
. . . . ~ - . . . _ . ~ .. - . .~ , . - . ~ ~ .
a 9
.g
.~ .~.
s : .: .
..50-329,'-330. P2sa.2 ,
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esa.
Natural. Resou'rces Defense Council
. 917. : - 15th Street , N.'W.? - ((
Washington, D.C. 20005 a
Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Ishac, Lincoln &'Beale rr 1050 - .17th S treet,: N.W. ""
Washington, D. C. 20036
- f".'
Michael I. Miller, Esq. lll :
- Caryl A. Bartelman, Esq. i= -
Isham, Lincoln & Beale .
One First National Bank Plaza EP Chicago,: Illinois 60603 :...
C Ms. Mary .Sinclair }g 5711 Sunenerset Street- ag Midland, Michigan 48640 [!:s
=
2 Mr. Steve Gadler, P.E.
2120 Carter Avenue ".j.h St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 !?l."
l iIi=
l I".E
!i :
~
~~
I EI:5 l
T'.*..:
eee t.=
i=5 hN
==
Er F":
run i
! ~ li."
pun; h5.I s l$
t :.
E,
- 2 --l i .
l S3
- .:)
e