ML19256E519

Petition to Intervene as Full Party in Proceeding.Alleges That Licensee Did Not Provide Adequate Technical Staff & Was Negligent in Training Operating Personnel.Urges ASLB to Permanently Revoke Ol.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19256E519
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	10/22/1979
From:	Aamodt M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7911070560
Download: ML19256E519 (6)

Text

.

NRC PUBLIC DOCUMEXI ROOM

• f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RECULATORT COMMISSION q $$

g y D d

In the Matter of g @p e,gt d

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY #

to (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit il ) Docket #$0-289 PETITION FOR INTERVENTICN OF MARJORIE M. AAMODT Petitiener, Marjorie M. Aamodt, R. D. #5, coatesville, Pennsylvania, 19320, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, seeks intervention as a party in this proceeding, and respectfully represents thatt R. D f$ Coatesville is approximately 48 miles from Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1, hereinafter referred to as TMI-1.

Coatesville is in the county of Chester. Petitioner is part-owner and operator of a farm, approximately 160 acres in size, including buildings, livestock and equipment necessary for operation of said farm. Petitioner and date.

family have resided at this location for sixteen years until present

~

Petitioner's family, hereinafter referred to as family, consists of hus-band, Norman 0. Aamodt, daughter, Susan E. Aamodt, sons Norman O. Aamodt and Jason B. Aamodt and mother, Mabel E. Stadele. Petitioner respectfully submits that husband, Norman O. Aa=odt, and daughter, Susan E. Aamodt, be permitted to serve with petitioner.as co-intervenors. These members of petitioner's family, as well as others not able by reason of minor age or prior commitments to serve, share petitioner's interest in defining and presenting to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hereinafter referred to as NRC, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and Metropolitan Edison Company, herein after referred to as licensee, those aspects relating to TMI-1 startup which could jeopardize the health and safety of petitioner and family, their animals and farm.

These interests are common to many farm as well as non-farm families in our area. Family has been included in original letter of contention and more recently in October 4, 1979 l e *. t e r citing areas of interest.

Petitioner herewith states areas of interest to comply with 10CRF7214 regarding eligibility for intervention. Petitioner removed self and family Unit 2,following hereinafteraccident at Three referred Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station.

to as TMI-2. Petitioner considered that radiation plumes posed a potential hazard to her and family, their farm and livestock. Petitioner and family have interest in pecposed opening of TMI-l for many reasons including husband's place of businesa is located at Intercourse, Pa.,

35 miles from TMI-1, and older son is employed there.

Husband and son travel to and from Harrisburg airport. Family has social attachments in Lancaster and Lebanon Counties, and family's food supply is from their farm and lands adjacent to TMI-1. Disposition of radvastes by way of public roads and possible choice of burial site for such rad-wastes within Pennsylvania. Further, former customers of their farm who perceived said farm as a desirable source of food no longer do. Present censideration to re-establish their farm as a dairy farm is threatened.

Sixteen years investment in conservative farming to improve the land has been Isotope reduced levelsininvalue theirand would be livestock arefurther a damaged by the openist of TMI-1.

detailed in letter of October 4, 1979. concern. Other considerations were Petitioner sets forth contentions in good faith after discovery October 16, 1979 in Barrisburg in conference with counsel of NRC and licenses.

Petitioner does not have financial resource to retain legal counsel in preparing petition; the time lapse between discovery and date set for final draft of contentions was not sufficient fcr complete search of evi-dance to support contentions. Petitioner therefore requests leniency in interpretation, acceptance prior to hearing of evidence not sufficiently researched and entered, and permission to alter or add :o contentions or submit additional concentions as information relevant to hearing and in-terests of petitioner are revealed through subsequent release of findings of a number of investigations and studies of TMI-2 accident. Validit?

of relationship of lessons learned at TMI-2 accident and subsequently 1911070 N O

2 and restart of TMI-l has been recognized by all parties.

The following contentions ars respectfully set forth by petitioner:

1. It is contended that TMI-1 should not open until a program of psycho-logical testing and counseling of operator personnel and management be in-stituted and routinely maintained to observe and/or alleviate or ameliorate fatigue, boredom, hostility, confusion, substance abuse, and/or other char-acteristics deemed inconsistent or contrary to the safe operation of said nuclear plant.

Basis: Personality characteristics have threatened safety (Surry).

Human errors in plant operation vary 'in type. (TMI-2 Lessons Learned NUREG-0578, Investigation - NUREG0600)

Time of accident and lack of adequate response by operating personnel.

(NUREG-0578, NUREG-0600)

Inadequacy of performance of supervisory personnel and management.

NUREC-0578, NUREG-0600)

2. It is contended that TMI-1 should not open until the performance of licensee technicians and management can be demonstrated to be upgraded as certified by an independent engineering firm. This upgrading should in-clude 100% test performance of job description with provision for retrain-ing and retest, or discharge of those who cannot consistently and con-fidently master all necessary information for safe conduct of their j ob description under all anticipated critical situations as well as routine situations.

Basis: IMI-2 technicians who passed tests at 71: level or above were not retrained . (NUREG-0600)

Licensee in Ressonse to NRC on restart proposes a level of 80 test proficiency for lessons taugnt. Licensee assigns in this proposal the evaluation of testing to trainee and instructor rather than independent, qualified authority.

18: of all incidents in 1978 were due to human error. (NUREC-0578)

TMI-2 accident was contributed to by human error. (70 REG-0578,0600)

TMI-2 operators were not instructed on Davis Besse September 24, 1978 incident, similar to TMI-2 incident. (NUREG-0600)

3. It is contended that ths licensee has not made adequate provision for 1

assessing the potential risk to htmans and animals from accidental dis-charge of airborne radioactive gasses or particulates. It is contended that1. existieg environmental monitoring plans do not call for ,

monitoring several important radioactive substances,

2. quantifying total emissions from a given discharge. i 3.

defining danger to health and safety as a function of distance, direction and time.

It is further contended that these capabilities must be provided by licensee before restart of IMI-1.

Basis; Derives from NUREC-0578, 10CyR50, expert opinion and public documents.

This contention is of unique interest to petitioner because the loca-tion of petitioner's farm outside 10 mile perimeter of TMI-1. Peach Sottom, Berwick, Limerick and Salem facilities, all of which are from 25 to 50 miles away.

4 It is contended that licensee has not made provision for timely dissemination borne radioactive of information in the event of accidental release of air-gases or particulates. It is contended that licensee must made information available to the public which will allow appropriate action to be taken to protect persons, livestock, foodstuff and feed in the event of a discharge of significant proportions. It is further con-tended that licensee must provide this capability before restart of TMI-l .

Basis: Derives from public documents, recent hearings by Lancaster County Commissioners, and experience gained in preparing to leave our farm during !MI-1 incident.

5. It is contended that present evacuation plans do not provide for care and/or relocation of livestack. It is further contended that such pro-vision should be made before rentart of !MI-1.

Sasis: Petitionsr's experience when preparing to evacuate during TMI-2 accident; saccher basis is the fact that dairy cattle can develop mastitis or go dry if left unattended for any protracted period of time.

Lack of adequate provision for animals would jeopardize health and safety of farmers who would remain.

3

6. It is contended that present emergency plans do not adequately provide for the health and safety of persons living more than 10 miles from TMI-1. Radioactive plumes pose substantial risk for distances far in excess of 10 miles. Adequate detection and monitoring capability is not presently planned to assess or predict risk to health and safety of persons in the path of plumes, nor is a mechanism available to inform them of the danger to which they would be exposed. It is further contended that emergency plans must be upgraded accordingly before restart of TMI-1.

Basis Published reports of studies conducted by several agencies; recent study at Princeton University. Petitioner requires additional time to complete analysis of literature, including WASH 740 & Rev.,

Brookhaven Report.

7. It is coatended that TMI-1 should not open until an assessment is made of the " nuclear environment" of the petitioner and family, their domestic animals and livestock. TM1-1 is included in that environment as well as reactors at Peach Bottos and Salem.

Basist Reactor-site criteria based on Technical Information Bulletin 14844, March 23, 1962 does not acknowledge evidence accumulated to date, including lowering of threshold of acceptable dosec, accident at TMI-2. and subsequent lack of monitoring radiation in Chester County, history of incidents of off-site radiation releases from Peach Bottom and Sales, both prior to and since the accident at TMI-2.

10CyR100.11 (b)(3) rules that the c o mb in e.d routine releases from more than one reactor at a single site cannot erceed the maximum allowable releases, implying acknowledgement for the total radiation dose to the environment. Given plumes and prevailinL NW winds, radiation releases from TMI-2 as well as routine and incident off-site releases from TMI-l con-stitute part of the " nuclear environment" for petitioner and family.

Nature of occupatio2 of petitioner and family as farm operators, recreation as gardeners, horse-riders, campers and increased susceptabilit of children to radiation hazards is basis for consideration of this contention.

8.It is contended that IMI-1 should not reopen until the management of radwaste has been totally resolved.

Basis: The acceptability of radvaste has altered since TMI-2 accident.

The states of S. Carolina and Washington have each refused to accept rad-waste f ro m TMI-2. The state of Ohio has refused passage of radvaste.

Provision for radwaste from TMI-l may have to be made within the state of Pennsylvania.

Rural areas and underdeveloped arose are threatened as " suitable sites.

Petitioner has had personal experience with radwaste disposa:

Licenses response for restart offers no proposals for radwaste d- sosal.

9. It is contended that TMI-1 should not open because the p e r. ' tion of the hazard of so-generating electric power has threatened the 7,alth and safety of petitioner and family.

Basis: Unable to make judgements with reasonable assurance concerning future of our farm and farm business due to unpredictable perception of our customers of the opening of TMI-1. Several customers severed business relation with petitioner's farm following and because of IMI-2 accident.

Seversi members of petitioner's family possess physical characteristics which predispose their increased susceptability to radiation bazard above average.

Concern of petitioner relative to food supply has resulted in restriccio of milk and other foods in diet, including products from Lancaster County farms.

The lack of acknowledgement by NRC and licensee of the safety and health hazard that the opening of TMI-l can pose for petitioner and family has placed burden of intervention without financial or legal resources, therefore creating a physical stress that is detrimental to petitioner's and family's health and safety.

This contention should not be interpreted as " psychological stress" since the " perception" is an educated opinion based on scientific evidence and statistical analysis that nuclear accidents are predicted and assured, that information flow and emergency procedures are not existent for petitioner and family and that the state of tse science of nuclear physics includes " unknowns". The resulting perception of decreased safety has altered the s le e p in g , eating and physical state, therefore the health of getitioner and family.

. 4

10. It is contended that no basis exista to assume that NRC and licensee will expeditiously and honestly inform the public of the existence of radiation releases or impending crises which endanger the health and safety of the petitioner and family. It is contended that representatives of licensee and NRC who interface with the public must be subject to crimi-nel prosecution for speaking falsely if the truth is to be expected. It is further contended that until imprisonment and fines can be imposed on representatives who deceive, distort, lie or are negligent in their res-ponsibility to keep the public informed of potential danger to their healti and safety, restart of TMI-1 cannot begin.

Basis: Th e public record of TMI-2 accident.

Operating history of all other commercial nuclear reactors and the public record of related information flow to the public.

Personal experience with NRC Reg. I staff.

NUREG 0578

11. It is contended that licensee should have its license to operate TMI-1 revoked permanently.

There are two bases for this contention:

1. It is implicit in the enabling legislation which provides thst a utility may function as a monopoly, under suitable regulatory consttiie' and in the public interest, that the utility must make its best effote to provide service at the lowest reasonable cost. Since electricity derived from nuclest sources is, and always has been, more costly than electricity derived f rom other available sources, the licensee has violated the condi-tions under which it is required to operate and should not be allowed to resume its posture of violation.

2. The people of the United States are guaranteed by elementary legal principle the right to the opportunity for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This fundamental right is violated by licensee if it willfully causes an unconsenting life to be taken. Since a substantial body of expert opinion has developed which contends that routine plant emissions will cause the premature death of at least one human at any nuclear generating station, the re-opening of TMI-1 poses an ethical question as well as the basis for criminal procedings grounded in the most elementary principles of federal law.

12. Restatenant of contention J11. -

Basis: The licensee war vtllfully negligent in selection, training and testing of operating personnel of TMI-2 prior to and during the time of the TMI-2 accident. The Itcenses did not previde adequate radiation equipment in good repair. The licensee willfully concealed the full and complete nature of the events at TMI-2 subsequent to the accident on March 28, 1979. The licensee had made no provision for the safety and welfare of petitioner and family, their livestock and farm. These arose of incompetence and others of the licensee and their operators and management threatened the heal-S and safety of petitioner and family.

(NUREG-0600,0578, 10CFR55,20,50, Reg. Guide 1.101 Me t-Ed Re spon se ts Restart)

Respectfully submitted, Marjorie M. Aamodt

!'"3 052

• 5 Addition:

Petitioner requests financial assistance from the Commission.

The cost of the exodus of petitioner and family due to the TMI-2 accident and the effect on farm business were considerable. Petitioner feels compelled to protect those interest and health and safety of self and family at considerable expenditure of time and money.

Respectfully.

.. ,8 ,~

. 'IL ._ - ff ! . .i L J /

Marjorie M. Tamodt

," 3 053

. s- -

• t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p y;57 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5- OcI2 51373 * "

In the Matter of M .-. 7"*'"

M METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY /

g ,

(Three Mila Island Muclear Station. Unit No. 1) Docket i 50 288 I hereby certify that single copies of PETITION FOR INTERVENTION OF MARJORIE M. AANODT, R. D. 15, Coatesville. Fa. have been served upon the following by United States mail, postage prepaid, on the 22nd of October, 1979:

Ivan W. Smith. Esquire George F. Trowbridge. Esquire Chairman. Atomic Safety and Shaw. PLttman. Potts, and Licensing Board Panel Trowbridge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1800 M Street. N.W.

Commission WashLngton D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20555 Secretary of the Commission Coursel for NRC Staf f U.S. Nuclear R9 sulatory Office of the ExecutLve Legal Commisstea Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ATINs DocketLng and Service Commission Section Washington D.C. 20555 Theodore A. Adler. Esquire Steven C Sholly Widoff. Reager Selkowitt.

304 C. Market St. and Adler Mechanicsburg. Pa. 17055 P.O. Box 1547 Holly S. Keck Harrisburg PA -17105 ANGRY Frieda Berryhill 245 W. Phtladelphia Street 2610 Grendon Drive York. PA 17404 WLimington, Delaware 19808 Robert Q. Pollard Dr. Chauncey Kepford Chesapeake Energy A11 Lance ECNP 609 Montpelier Street 433 Orlando Avenue Baltimore, MD 21218 . State College PA 16801 Marvin 1. Lewis Jordan D. Cc ningham. EsquLre 6504 Bradford Terrace Fox. Farr, and Cunningham Philadelphia. PA 19149 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg PA 17110 Karir. P. Sheldon. Esquire (PANE)

Shelden. Harmon, Rotsman, and Weiss In response to two telephone 1725 I Street. N.W. **9"*8C8 to Pick up petition:

Suite 506 Jack cuerin Washington. D.C. 20006 Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station Ellyn P. Weiss. Esquire (UCS) Three Mile Island, p.,

"heldon. Harmon. Roisman, and ,n,eiss 1725 I Street. N.W.

Suite 506 Washington. D.C. 20006 Karin W. Carter. Esquire Assistant Attorney General Commonwealth of Pennsylvanta 505 ExecutLve House P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg. PA 17120 j no7