ML19344A080

Exhibit B to 710930 Motions,Submitting Broad Issues to Be Considered Re NEPA Analysis

ML19344A080
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	09/30/1971
From:	Saginaw Intervenor
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19344A073	List: ML19344A072 ML19344A077 ML19344A078 ML19344A080
References
NUDOCS 8007290955
Download: ML19344A080 (10)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.. .

                                                                   ~

o Y' 4 00CKET NUMBER

         ..            "M                                   [

P200. & unt, Eg. 3D M'[,4% 4, dCT 41971

• 3 .

              -      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. -

                                   *

• i
• 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}}