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

E-M:/ Big Rock and Trust Fund Board

Enviro-Mich message from Andrew Mutch <andrewimutch@yahoo.com>

There's been quite a bit of discussion of this by the
Trust Fund Board already. Based on these comments from
the August meeting, Sam Washington appears to be
opposed to moving forward with this:

"Chairperson Washington asked how much lakefront there
was. Mr. Bailey responded 1.5 miles. Chairperson
Washington asked what the total Lake Michigan
lakefront was. Mr. Bailey responded he did not know
the exact amount. Chairperson Washington stated that
there are
other linear lakefront miles in Michigan. He questions
why we would want to buy 1.5 miles of it that has a
nuclear waste site in the middle. He cannot imagine a
scenario where he would support this project as long
as this waste site is there, because there are
hundreds of other projects that don?t have nuclear
waste on them. The Board has a very limited amount of
to allocate for projects and is trying to use it as
judiciously as possible. It seems to him from all
he has heard as though the State of Michigan does not
want to own this property. The federal government does
not want to own this property. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission does not want to own this property. He
cannot imagine someone advertising condos with a view
of a nuclear waste site.

Mr. Bailey stated that that there are single family
homes right up to the property line that are bringing
premium prices. Chairperson Washington asked if this
area has always been patrolled. Mr. Bailey responded
yes. Chairperson Washington added that he does not
feel comfortable with this project."


There's more discussion at that meeting and also at
the  April meeting:


More details here:


In the interest of disclosure, the City of Novi does
have a project seeking funding from the Trust Fund
this year so whatever decision the Board makes with
Big Rock could potentially affect whether our project
gets funded or not. 

Andrew Mutch

--- "Alexander J. Sagady" <ajs@sagady.com> wrote:

> 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:
> >
> >  
> >
> >Different center and scale, but a topo version of
> the vicinity:
> >
> > 
> >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 
=== message truncated ===

Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at

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"