ML19273B024
| ML19273B024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1979 |
| From: | Frothingham D, Rorem B, Rorem R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902010319 | |
| Download: ML19273B024 (7) | |
Text
e bTf"/M J,4,y O d
--s
- i. c-
~J g v.w
- b v
.. '3,1
/y/
Q-
.c s.
t.
,,.r..' ~6~',t
\\
,N
,,,C E UN#
.. d.
s c...,
.fpt
,,... f. '*a
' (pp I
,s4,
- t**] g s:mgm.paa
.3.t
- t... _
'DV..V.T.O,"T.M'-
.4
.lu C +ue p p ;CLi.t.n u..=
omrp
.s x
,I y% #
y n
n
(*.~'
s,
. ~.
q In the Matter of
,A
- g#/.
,Q,+Y CC:!C.'"4EALTH EDISCN CCMPA:fY
)
^ "caket Mcs. S*'I 50-h56
)
3"1 50-L3 7 (oraiduced ?Iuclear Feuer
)
S tatien)
)
License to Cperate p e.. 7 y ~.I :. P. : o...:.
10 r..1m. :_a s.
.C.
1_.
_._c Indi riduals who live within 20 miles cf the 3raiduced
.luelear Pcwer plant, and wne are acting in their cwn behslf, and the Sailly Alliance-Illinois, en its cwn behalf and that of its members, hereby petitien the !;uclear.egulatcry Ccemissicn ('EC) fer leave to intervene in the abcve =atter pursuant to Cection 2.71h cf tbc :EC's ?.ules of Practice.
Identificatien of Petiticners A.
Individuals Bridget Little 3.crem and ?,alch ?cre,.;r. live and T n preperty in the village of.'.
ex, fcur (b; niles scuth of the pcuer statien, and work within 25 miles of the statien.
Phillip L. Zediker and Carcle Zediker live and cur property and work in Kankakee, ahcut 20 miles frcm the pcwer staticn.
Dianne Frcthingnam lives and cwns property in Stelle, about 10 miles from the pcwer station.
7Soyy3g
2 3.
Sailly Alliance-Illinois The Sailly Alliance-Illinois is an organicatien concerned with protecting the pu'clic frem the envirenrental and safety hacards of nuclear energy. A substantial number of menbers live or werk within 30 miles of the Eraidweed Muclear Statien. Sece of the individuals petitioning for interventien are also members of the Sailly Alliance; Bridget Rcrem is amcng these.
Interests To Ee Affected The cetitioners are ccncerned that the producticn, stcrage, and transportation of spent fuel will subject then and the general public to expcsure to radicactive waste products which can affect their health and safety and that cf the envircnment; in addition, threats will be pesed by the plant follcuing decc=missicning. Several petitienerc 1rie close enough to the plant c worry accut their prcperty value s, as well. The petitioners are aisc ccncerned with the ecenemica cf cperaticn and decem-issicning cf :ne plant; ney feel ccsts are prchibitive, Inc that.he apclicant needs ::
take cre responsibility for insurance ecs s.
Cen ten tie ns 1.
Acplicant has not submitted sufficient data tc shcw the 1 ng-term effe ets upcn the cermunity and envircement of
3 prcblera concerning spent fuel.
(a) Applicant has net disclcsed exactly hcw many spent fuel rods will be stcred en the site.
(b) Applicant has failed to state a location fer Icng-term stcrage of spen t fuel reds.
(c) There being no lcng-tern sclution to final storage of spent fuel, the stcrage pcol at 3raidwced wculd probably remain filled tc capacity for icnger than allcwed for in Amplicant's environrental statements.
(d) Applicant has not disclosed the mechanics cf rencv-ing the spent fuel frem the site.
2.
Applicant has not subnitted sufficient data dealing with waste prcducts frcm reacter ecclant and other "lcw-level" waste products.
(a) While applicant has stated that final dispcsal will be in an "authcrized lccatien," applicant has nct been speci-fic encugh abcut exact locaticn nor has applicant shcwn willingness to accept restensibility fcr problems connected with long-tern stcrage of these waste products.
(b) There is insuf#icient in ferma ti :n as to the reen-anics cf rer.cyal frcm and trancpertatica frer the 3raidwced site as regards heal-h and safety of wcrkars sed the ccrrunity.
J.
Applicant has failed te disclcse icng-tern effe ets en the area of decenrissicnin of the plant.
h (a) Applicant has not stated the rechanics cf clant de c cerissicning.
(b) There is insufficient infer atica given detailing heal-h and safety facters during the decermissicning pericd.
(c) There is insufficient infernaticn given relevant to leng-term effects en the environrent and the ecmmunity of a decenmissicned plant.
h.
Applicant has f ailed tc take respencibility fcr educating the public abcut the possibility of and precedures fcilcuing a less-of-ccolant accident.
(a) The Civil Osfense systens of surrcunding tcwns have no evacuation precedures fcil: wing a less-cf-ccclant accident.
(b) The " disaster" plaas of area hospitals do not include the pessibility of having to treat large nunber: cf perects fer radiation expcsure. They are not, in fact, ec;2ipped te deal with even a small-ccale accident invciving execcure cf workers to large doses of raciation.
(c)
- n the event of necessary evacuaticn snd radiati:n opesure, a larger :utside area acculd be equipped to de al wi-h avacuees; fcr example, hecpitals as far away as ?lecringten-
- creal and Champaign-Jrbana shculd be prepared fer such an accid e n t.
The respctsibility for edu:stien of the area en such at-ters shculd fall uren the applicant.
5 4
5.
Applicant has failed to substantiate the econonic feas-ability of the Eraidwccd Nuclear Statien.
(a) Applicant has not shewn sufficient need for ecuer generated by the plant.
(b)
If the ar. cunt of pcuer is not necessary, there will be an unjustifiable raise in electric rates.
(c) Applicant has f ailed tc give creper attentien to the :csts cf deccmmissicning the plant.
(d) Applicant has f ailed to detail the costs cf waste disposal and of long-term storage. The toxicity of waste prcducts requires that they be isclated frcm the environtent fer a nuch lenger pericd of time than that for which the applicant has accepted respcnsibility.
(e) In environnental statements, the applicant censid-ered the financial less to the area of agricultural products for ene year, which was inadequate. Mer should the less be li7ited to the expected lifetire of the plant; less should be :alculated fcr whatever peried cf time the deccerissicned plant re-ains upcn the site, and fer such time until the applicant resteres the farnland to its criginal conditi:n.
(f)
Petiticcers feel that the applicant is not accepting recrensibility fer such damage as mi.? t c ur due tc a less-h cf-ccclant accident. While responsibility is limited by the Pri:e-Anderace Act, petiticners feel that this is inadequats and that applicant snculd be ready to bear a larger financial
6 burden of responsibility.
Conclusien For these reasons, petitioners urge that the applicant's request fer license to cperate not te granted.
Respeetfu117, W 'd 06 D /EdC( W W W r -
EriogwLittle Roren Eraiduced Are a Cc-crcinater, Bailly hj
/
Ralpn.lcreni Jr.
q Ym
~~ ']As-CL G Dianne. Frotningnan
-s
.,. f-Phillip L. Zeciker v
Carole Zec;<er C ATD:
January 11, 1779
e a
E Ccpies of this petitien have 'ceen sent to the follcwing parties:
Secretary of the Ocm:nissien Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc=tission
'4ashingten D.C. 20$55 Executive Legal Director
'J.3. Nuclear Regulatcry Occissicn
'4ashingten D.C. 20935 Jchn '4. Ecwe, Esq.
.<C Isham, Lincoln and Seale f ( C M,.\\ - '-
- s 73;/
Cne First Natienal Plaza Chicago IL 60690 f.Q
~
M g
n
,e + g
,y
/
-,,/ g
%