[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

RE: E-M:/ Big Rock Nuke Site a State Park? Log your group's opposition before Thursday



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Alexander J. Sagady" <ajs@sagady.com>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't recall that state acquisition of "nuclear brownfields" was supposed
to be one of the purposes for which the trust fund was intended.

But now that you've raised the issue, just how risky is the Big Rock site
and who is responsible for any cleanup required; and is the required cleanup 
enough?   These are overriding questions.

I see that Sam Washington from MUCC is on the board.   I still remember 
how frequently Consumers Energy (then Consumers Power) used to advertise
in the MUCC magazine with pictures of the Big Rock plant and promoting 
nuclear energy for many years.   Does Consumers Energy still buy ads in the MUCC magazine?



At 12:30 PM 11/29/2006, you wrote:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Enviro-Mich message from "Hugh McDiarmid" <Hughmec@voyager.net>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
>Gary: 
>
>You make good and valid points, and raise worthwhile questions that have no
>easy answers.
>
>I think it's worth noting, too, that the choice isn't simply "acquire Big
>Rock or don't" - it is "acquire Big Rock or acquire one or more of many
>other proposed MNRTF purchases that are up for consideration."
>
>MNRTF has about $35 million to dole out next week, choosing between 162
>proposals asking for $63 million in funding this year alone. Many of those
>properties also boast unique, undisturbed natural features; opportunity for
>public recreation;  etc. etc. I see on the list trailways, timber land,
>dunes, riparian lands, wetlands, and any number of worthwhile acquisitions
>that do not come with the legacy and potential risks at Big Rock.
>
>So, while the question of "what happens to Big Rock" if the state doesn't
>purchase it is perfectly valid; the converse is, "what happens to (proposal
>X's property) if the money is used for Big Rock is equally valid.
>
>Big Rock isn't being considered in a vacuum, it's competing to make the cut
>with many other applicants. 
>
>Furthermore, the inherent dangers of nuclear waste......ooops! sorry....I'll
>abide by your deal!!
>
> 
>Regards, Hugh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
>[mailto:owner-enviro-mich@great-lakes.net] On Behalf Of Gary Stock
>Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:55 AM
>To: enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
>Cc: Hugh McDiarmid; Kevin Kamps
>Subject: Re: E-M:/ Big Rock Nuke Site a State Park? Log your group's
>opposition before Thursday
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Enviro-Mich message from Gary Stock <gstock@net-link.net>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>All:
>
>I can not imagine how to avoid this, but I'm begging, _please_ _don't_
>fire back about the dangers of nuclear power or nuclear waste.  I
>already agree.  OK?  I read the entire release.  Let's skip a slew of
>e-mails that I could write myself.  Deal?
>
>Having made that (likely futile) request, I must ask:  what is the
>alternative for the Big Rock Point site?  Why is State control not among
>the best likely alternatives?
>
>The site must contain quality natural features and habitats:
>
>   http://terraservice.net/image.aspx?T=1&S=13&Z=16&X=400&Y=3139&W=2
>
>Different center and scale, but a topo version of the vicinity:
>
> 
>http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=45.35892&lon=-85.19712&datum=nad83&u=4&l
>ayer=DRG&size=m&s=200
>
>
>I'm far more familiar with lands near facilities in Van Buren and
>Berrien Counties.  If (when :-) those are decommissioned, nearly ~1,000
>undeveloped acres in proximity to each one _need_ to be kept intact
>under one management, and _not_ developed.   The sites are less
>contaminated than Big Rock Point (knock on wood), but the option to
>preserve entire sections of lakefront just doesn't crop up every day!
>
>It seems that for Big Rock Point, MEC, NIRS, CNFGL, DWM and others might
>be able -- as the best expertise outside the industry -- to "object
>constructively."  I know, having done such a dance with everybody from
>Joe Bulldozer up to Wal-Mart, that doing it is a complete _pain_! 
>Eventually, though, it tends toward worthwhile outcomes.  And, it avoids
>your being left out while the real decisions occur.
>
>Why would concerned efforts not go to (off the top of my head):
>
>   encourage some level of ownership control over all 563 acres
>   recommend the maximum areas that might be safe for some uses 
>   craft park guidelines to limit public use over the remainder
>   advise MDNR on a target price using data about cleanup costs
>   require the seller to place proceeds in State cleanup escrow
>   define liabilities now, while sellers have legal obligations
>   
>
>IOW, why not get most of a square mile of lakefront and associated
>habitats protected from development... with stringent cleanup terms
>where practical... with harsh usage restrictions elsewhere... and
>funding toward cleanup, rehabilitation, management, and ongoing research?
>
>That seems the best possible outcome.  Who will advocate for it?
>
>What are the alternative outcomes?  What will prevent them?
>
>Presume the site remains in Consumers/Entergy ownership.  It seems that
>they will have likely no better incentive for cleanup, likely no better
>budget for cleanup, and likely no better methods for cleanup than they
>have today -- at least for the foreseeable corporate future.
>
>If Entergy _can_ clean it up, and decides to do so, it seems unlikely
>that they would so willingly sell it for public use.  At least, the
>price would leap upward dramatically.  Why not take control today,
>putting that leap toward BAT/BMP cleanup?  
>
>If Entergy _can't_ clean it up, or decides not to do so, it seems likely
>that they will begin selling off the outer edges for golf courses
>(already visible to the southwest), or other commercial uses -- even
>residential.
>
>Once some development begins around the edges -- and I'm not saying this
>makes sense, just that it's human nature -- such uses will creep inward.
> If no person dies in the first year of the first development, the next
>crop of houses will begin to rise.  Again, yes, humans are unbelievably
>nuts.  How will that outcome be prevented?
>
>I've talked at length with folks from Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
>(under a wicked budget knife recently), much of which is dreadfully
>contaminated.  Still, it has some remarkable flora and fauna (finding
>five endangered species is easier with 300+ square miles):
>
>   http://www.uga.edu/~srel/birds.htm
>   
>Rocky Flats and other sites share similar potential -- but they're also
>instructive about what happens when DOE and industry are left in
>control!  See the excellent study by the Institute for Energy and
>Environmental Research (IEER):
>
>   http://www.ieer.org/reports/rocky/pr.html
>
>DOE proposed lower cleanup standards because it was "only for wildlife!"
>
>Left to their own devices, might the owners just declare Big Rock Point
>a "sanctuary" as is?  Might DOE agree?  Or, might the owners simply walk
>away -- or go bankrupt decommissioning (or constructing) another plant? 
>If so, might DOE resources be consumed by higher priority abandoned
>sites?  Might the State then "own" Big Rock Point, with no prospect for
>funding anything?
>
>To cite the IEER Summary:
>
>   http://www.ieer.org/reports/rocky/summrec.html
>
>   It is not appropriate to assume that site control, institutional
>   memory, and legal land use restrictions will prevail for hundreds
>   of years, to say nothing of thousands of years. There is little
>   factual basis for such assumptions and much evidence that they
>   are unwarranted.
>
>MDNR limitations (and MNRTF political shenanigans) notwithstanding,
>isn't State ownership today preferable to a hazy future under Consumers,
>er... Entergy, that is... Jack Nicklaus "Cesium Masters Course"...
>Glow-By-Night Condominium Estates... "The Dunes Residual-Radiation
>Treatment Center" of Charlevoix?
>
>GS
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gary Stock                                        gstock@unblinking.com
>UnBlinking                                   http://www.unblinking.com/
>Googlewhack                                 http://www.googlewhack.com/
>
>     The best proof for a claim that terrorists are crazy or evil
>     would be to acknowledge that the White House is full of them
>
>==============================================================
>ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
>and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
>http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
>
>Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
>majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
>enviro-mich"
>==============================================================
>
>
>==============================================================
>ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
>and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
>http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
>
>Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
>majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
>==============================================================

==========================================
Alex J. Sagady & Associates        http://www.sagady.com

Environmental Enforcement, Permit/Technical Review, Public Policy, 
Expert Witness Review and Litigation Investigation on Air, Water and 
Waste/Community Environmental and Resource Protection
Prospectus at:  http://www.sagady.com/sagady.pdf 

657 Spartan Ave,  East Lansing, MI  48823  
(517) 332-6971; (517) 332-8987 (fax); ajs@sagady.com
========================================== 



==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================