ML19291B583
| ML19291B583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1976 |
| From: | Johnsrud J Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911080618 | |
| Download: ML19291B583 (9) | |
Text
..
.y I
4,.
6.-
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REULATCRY CCMiISSICU In the matter of Docket No. 50-289 Metropolitan Edison Company Jersey Central Power and Licht Company Pennsylvania Electric Company
,a Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I 8
+
N*
t
$1S
- q:.
N9 j
p
'I opIh E
A O
PETITION FCR INTERVENTICH The Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, an unincorporated organization of individuals and groups of individuals, on behalf of its members do hereby petition the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for leave to intervene in this proceeding. The authority for this request is granted in the Atomic Energy Act of 195h, as amended, Part 2 71h of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and decisions 73-1776,73-1867,7h-1385,and 7h-1586 of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
1.
The Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power is a non-profit public interest organization composed of individuals and groups of individuals who i
share a concern about the purpose, magnitude, and direction of the civilian nuclear power program. Members of the Coalition live in the vicinity of Three Mile Island I.
The names of the co-executive directors, the authorized representative of the Coalition before the Commission, and five members who live within approximately 20 miles of Three Mile Island I are listed below.
1 1.
Judith H. Johnsrud h33 Orlando Drive, State College, Pennsylvania
}Q} }2h 2.
George L. Boomsma R.D. 1, Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania S
\\
79110806 M j
s
'D %fP o C
D W n
d M.-
3 Chaunch Kopford, Authorized Representative before the Commission 2576 stead street, York, Pennsylvania
- h. Mary V. Southard 351h Walnut Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 5.
John J. Simon 603 Cascade Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsyl*ania 6.
Linda (Mrs. Donald) Fortna R. D. 1, Dauphin, Pennsylvania 7
Chuck Gassert 832 East Chocolate Ave.,
Hershey, Pennsylvania 8.
Hans and Rhoda Hercher 21 Westmont Bldg.
Briarerest Gardens, Hershey, PA 17033 The mcabers who live in the nei;hborhood of Three Mile Island I feel that the operation of this facility poses an undue threat to their lives and material possessions. Due to the recent decisions of the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 73-1776, 73-1867, 7h-1385, and 7h-1586, those members, and the Coalition as a whole, feel the continued operation of Three Mile Island I is illegal because the construction pemit for the facility was icsued without proper consideration of the
" alternative" of energy conservation, with its effect on the cost-bonefit analysis, and without proper consideration of the yet unsolved, and possibly unsolvable, problem of radioactive waste disposal. This petition is based en the contention that there are defects in the cost-benefit analysis used by the Applicant to justify construction and operation of Three Mile Island I and approved by the Comission.
."'i.:n 2.
The Petitioners (the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power and
{
its members) contend that the cost-benefit analysis of the Applicant and the e
Commission is faulty because the recipients of the " costs" and ubenefits" have not been properly identified. It is claimed that the sale of electricity by.
e 9
1583 327
s t
3-the Applicant constitutes the primary benefit of the facility, with the customers receiving the benefit and, therefore, being the beneficiaries of the plant. No reading of a dictionary defihition of either " benefit" or
" beneficiary" can produce such a meaning as applied by the Applicant or the Comission. The true beneficiaries of a nuclear power plant are stockholders vno receive profits (if any) due to the plant's operation. Thus, the only true benefits from the operation of a nuclear power plant are the dividfends paid out by a utility as a result of the operation of the power plant.
Furthermore, the " costs" are underestimated by the refusal of the Applicant and the Commission to determine the actual radiation doses delivered to real people from the entire fuel cycle.
3 Petitioners contend that tho stated costs,of nuclear power by the Applicant and the Commission assume catastrophic accident-free operation of
.A nuclear power plants. Such an assumption is at odds with the r evised conclusions of "The Reactor Safety Study," WASH-lh00, better known as the i
Rasmussen Report, and with Section 170(b) of the Atomic Energy Act. The U.S.
Cocareas, with the passage of the 1975 amendments to the Price-Anderson Act.
has acknowledged that there may be more than one nuclear accident requiring payments under the Price-Anderson Act in one year. Cost-benefit analysis of I
nuclear power plants should include the costs of accidents.
h.
Petitioners contend that the cost-benefit analysis of the Applicant and the Coc: mission assumes a virtually infinite supply of relatively low cost
" yellow cake," or U 038 In reality, the U.S. is now grossly overcommitted as far as the "known" and " estimated" reserves of the U)Og are concerned.
(
The fuel requirements for the 238 nuclear reactors operable, being built e
or planned (ERDA News Release, July 28,1976), with a capacity of 237,000 Ka*(e)
T583 328-
m
.h.-
tens of U 06 for their 30 year lifetimen at a 0.55 will require 1,159,000 3
capacity factor. The total estimated reserves of U 08 are 6h0,000 tons of 3
mineable U 0. (EFI)A News Relcase, April 2,1976). Neither the Applicant 33 nor the Comission has yet faced the problem of either very high U 08 prices--
3 as $100 to $1,000 per pound of U 08 -- or a simple unavailability of U 08 3
3 Nor has the enomous environmental impact, net energy cost, and dollar cost of mining low grade coals, shales, granites, or even sea-water for uraniun been acknowledged by the Comission or the Applicant. Petitioners contend that availability of fuel and energy and environmental costs of its extraction are an integral part of the nuclear fuel cycle and therefore must be included in a full and proper cost-benefit analysis of this reactor.
- 5. Petitioners contend that the rate structure of the Applicant is a promotional rate structure designed to increase the consumption of electricity by offering declining rates for increased consumption. Such a rate structure minimizes the poscibility and practicality of worthwhile energy conservation efforts. Petitioners contend that a flat rate structure--one price for all levels of consumption and for all customers--or a declining block r ate atmeture would make conservation a viable and practical alternative to Three Mile Island I.
i 6.
The petitioners contend that the Commission has been totally negligent in its handling of the problem of radioactive wastes in the grantinC of a constraction permit for Three Mile Island I.
As a result, it has been iapossible to determine accurately the costs of electricity generated by nuclear plants because the costs of solidification of spent fuel reprocess-
.Ij ing waste solutions and* storage of solidified wastes were ignored or grossly a
underestimated. Estimates of the costs of solidifying and disposing of wastes 1583 329 1
O
-S-from the Nuclear Fuel Services range from a low of $67,000 per year per 1000 K4(e) plant to $36,000,000 per year per 1000 Kd(e) plant. (See
" Alternative Processes for Managing Existing Commercial High-Level Radioactive Wastes," NUREG-00h3). While the $67,000 figure may represent an insignificant addition to the annual reactor operation costs, the figure of $36,000,000 could easily double the annual opersting costs. If past experience for estimating costs by the AEC/NRG can serve as a guido, the high figure may prove to be the low. Such costs should be included in the cost-benefit analysis.
7.
Petitioners contend that the Applicant, with the active support of the Commission, has falsified cost-benefit analyses by using unrealistic capacity factors'.(0.80) to justify Three Mile Island I.
As a result, the customers were charged more because the react 6r w as not able to produce as much electricity as promised, frequently requiring the Applicant to purchase power. However, by the reasoning of the Commission, this extra charge would be construed as an added benefit, since the s ale of electricity constitutes the benefit. Petitioners contend that the Applicant and the Commission have, with other utilitics, conspired to further mislead the public by the use of the unit called " maximum dependable spacity."
8.
Petitioners contend that the cost-benefit analysis of Three Mile Island I has been biased in f avor of nuclear power by greatly underestimating spent fuel reprocessing costs and by the Commission offering a credit for recovered plutonium. Since there has not yet been any successful, econcmical, and ccm-plete reprocessing of reacter wastes to the solid stage, costs must be largely unknown. Since the r ecycling of plutocium is not presently a com:.ercial reality, the offering of a plutonium credit for yet unrecovered plutonium which may not be r ecycled is premature.
1583 330 1
3-
...._....l 4
9 Petitioners therefore contend that, due to the above unresolved f
issues regarding complianes with Sec.102 of the National Environmental Policy Act by the Comission, the construction permit for Three Mile Island I should be rescinded immediately and const-.2ction and operation halted pendinC resumption of public hearings and resolution of these matters.
- 10. Petitioners further request the Commission to grant financial assistance to the intervonors under De authority of Sec.102 of the National Environmental Policy Act. Petitioners have made similar requests in the past, and have met only with denial or delay. Petitioners call the attention of the Comnission to the recent court decision, York Committee for a Safe Environment, et al., vs. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, No. 7h-1923, and the comments therein regarding public interest litigants. Petitioners request the amount necessary in order to meet legal, tecnnical and procedural expensen et% wise not available.
I e
a 8
. I 4
. 88 4
0 1583 331 e
1 1
x
s I
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of Docket No. 50-289 and 50-320 Metropolitan Edison Company Jersey Central Power and Light Company g
Pennsylvania Electric Company 4
three Mile Island Nuc1 car Generating Station, Units I and II 8
il
\\'),
'E p# s#
J CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9
4 g
A I, Judith H. Johnarud, Co-Executive Director of the Environmental Coalition of Nuclear Power, hereby certify that the original and twenty (20) copies of the PETITION FOR INTERVENTION of the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, together with supporting affidavits, ha,vy been sent by United States Mail, First Class, postage prepaid on this & day of August, 1976, to:
Secretary of the Com:nission 1
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ysshington, D.C. 20555 i
Attention: Chief, Public Proceedings j
Branch
/..s U/ d l d d
/
/
Judith H. Johnsrud Single copies have been sent to:
Public Document Room U.S.N.R.C.
1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555
'l f
Office of the General Council, Regulation U.S.N.R.C.
Washington, D.C. 20555 1583 332 6
4 1
~
UNITED STATES OF AlIRICA NL* CLEAR FIGL'LATORY C0li:!ISS10::
In the !!atter of
)
)
12TKOFOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,
)
Docket No.(s) 50-320-ET AL.
)
)
(Three Mile Island Unit No. 2)
')
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) upon each person designated on the official service. list complied by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and
' Regulations.
w Dated at Washington, D.C. this 4/d day of d ;/ /
197
/
Office /df / he Secretary of the Corpfission t
/
1.583.333
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1;UCLEAF. F20C ATCL' CC 0!ISSIO:!
In the Matter of
)
)
-METR ^T3LITAN EDISON COMPANY. ET AL.
).Wacket No. 50-320 -OL
)
(Three Mile Island Unit No. 2)
)
~
SERVICE LIST Edward Luton, Esq.
Dr. Chauncet R. Kepford Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Citizens for a Safe Environment &
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ycrk Cocnittee for a Safe Environment Washington, D. C. 20555 2586 Broad Street York, Pernsylvania 17404 Mr. Gus cave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Honorable Karin W. Carter U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co--ission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C.
20555 Office of Enforcement Depart =ent of Environmental Rescurces Dr. Ernest O. Salo 709 Health and Welfare Bu11d1ng Professor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Fisheries Research Institute, WH-10 College of Fisheries
' Lawrence Sager, Esq.
University of Washington Eager and Sager Associates Seattle, Washington 98195 45 High Street Pottstevn, Pennsylvania 19464 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts, Trowbridge Government Publication Section State Library of Pennsylvania 910 17th Street, N. W.
Education Building, Box 1601 Washington, D. C.
20006 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126 Stuart Treby, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 1583 334
U'1ITED STATES NUCLEAR REULATORY COMMISSICti In the matter of Docket No. 50-289 Metropolitan Edison Company Jersey Central Power and Light Company Pennsylvania Electric Company Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I PETITION FCR INTERVaiTION The Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, an unincorporated organization of individuals and groups of individuals, on behalf of its members do hereby petition the U.S. Nuclear Regu?atory Commission for leave to intervene in this proceeding. The authority for this request is granted in the Atomic Energy Act of 195h, as amended, Part 2.71h of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and decisions 73-1776, 73-1867, 7h-1385, and 7h-1586 of the United Str tes Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
a 1.
The Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power is a non-profit public interest organization composed of individuals and groups of individuals who ande a concern about the purpose, magnitude, and direetion of the civilian nuclear power program. Members of the Coalition live in the vicinity of Three Mile Island I.
The names of tne co-executive directors, the authorized representative of tne Coalition before the Conmission, and five members who live within approximately 20 miles of Three Mile Island I are listed below.
1.
Judith H. Johnsrud h33 Orlando Drive, State College, Pennsylvania 2.
George L. Boomsma R.D.1, Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania j}8}}
2 3 ChaunchKepford,AuthorizedRepresentatJ.vebeforetheCommission 2576 Broad Street, York, Pennsylvania b. Mary V. Southard 351h Walnut Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 5-John J. Simon 603 Cascade Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 6. Linda (Mrs. l onald) Fortna R. D. 1, Daaphin, Pennsylvania 7. Chuck Gassert 832 East Chocolate Ave., Hershey, Pennsylvania d. Hans and Rhoda Hercher 21 Westmont Bldg. Briarerest Gardens, Hershey, PA 17033 T..e members who live in tne neighborhood of Three Mile Island I feel that the operation of this facility poses an undue threat to their lives and material possessions. Due to tne recent decisions of the United States Coart of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 73-1776, 73-1867, 7h-1385, and 7h-15c6, these members, and the Coalition as a whole, feel the continued operation of Three Mile Island I is illegal because the construction pemit for the facility was issued without proper consideration of the " alternative" of energy conservation, with its effect on the cost-benefit analysis, and without proper consideration of the yet unsolved, and possibly ~ unsolvable, problem of racioactive waste disposal. Tnis petitien is bised on the contention that there are defects in the cost-benefit analysis used by the Applicant to justify construction and operation of Three Mile Island I and approved by the Commission. 2. The Petitioners (the invironmental Coalition on Nuclear Power and its members) contend tnat the cost-benefit analysis of the Applicant and the Commission is faalty because the recipient 1 of the " costs" and " benefits" have not been properly identified. It is claimed that the sale of electricity by 1583 336
3-tha ' Applicant constitutes the primary benefit of the facility, with tha customers receiving tne oenefit and, therefore, being the benefici&ri;c of tne plant. No reacinc of a dictionary defihition of either "banefit" or " beneficiary" can produce such a meaning as applied by the Applicant or the Cont.ission. The trae ceneficiaries of a nuclear power plant are stockholders wnc receive profits (if any) due to the plant's operation. Thus, the only true benefits from the operation of a nuclear power plant are the dividiends paid oat by a utility as a result of tne operation of the power plant. Furthermore, the " costs" are underestimated by the refusal of the Applicant and the Commission to determine the actual radiation doses delivered to real people from the entire fuel cycle. 3 Petitioners contend tnat the stated costs of nuclear power by the Applicant and the Commissian assume catastrophic accident-free operation of naclear power plants. Such an assur.ption is at odds with the r evised conclusions of "Tne Reactor Safety Study," WASH-lh00, better known as the Rasmussen Report, and with Section 170(b) of the Atomic Energy Act. The U.S. Congress, with the passage of the 1975 amendments to the Price-Anderson Act, has acknowledged that there may be more than one nuclear accident requiring payments under tne Price-Anderson Act in one year. Cost-benefit analysis of nuclear power plants should include the costs of accidents. h. Petitioners contend tnat the cost-benefit analysis of the Applicant and the Commission a sumes a virtually infinite supply of relatively low cost " yellow cake," or U 038 In reality, the U.S. is now grossly overcommitted as far as the "kn:wn" anc " estimated" reserves of the U 03 3 are concerned. The fuel requirements for the 238 nuclear reactors operable, being built or planned (ERDA News Release, July 26, 1976), with a capacity cf 237,000 MW(e) 1583 337
-h. tons of U 08 for their 30 year lifetimes at a 0.55 will require 1,159,000 3 capacity factor. The total estimated reserves of U 08 are 6h0,000 tons of 3 mineable U 0g. (EEDA News Relcase, April 2, 1976). Neither the Applicant 3 nor the Commission has yet faceo the problem of either very high U 08 prices-- 3 as $100 to $1,000 per pound of U 08 -- or a simple unavailability of U 08-3 3 Nor has the enormous environmental impact, net energy cost, and dollar cost of mining low grade coals, shales, granites, or emen sea-water for uranium been acknowledged by the Commissicn or the Applicant. Petitioners contend that availability of fuel and energy and environmental costs of its extraction are an integral part of the nuclear fuel cycle and therefore must be included in a full and proper cost-benefit analysis of this reactor. 5 Petitioners contend that the rate structure of the Applicant is a. promotional rate structure designed to increase the consumption of electricity by offering declining rates for increased consumption. Such a rate structure minimizes the possibility and practicality of worthwhile energy conservation efforts. Petitioners contend that a flat rate structure--one price for all levels of consumption and for all customers--or a d eclining block r ate structure would make conservation a viable and practical alternative to Three Mile Island I. 6. Tne petitioners contend that the Commission has been totally negli ent in its handling of the problem of radioactive wastes in the granting E of a construction permit for Three Mile Island I. As a result, it has been igo.sible to determine accurately the costs of electricity generated by nuclear plant,s because the costs of solidification of spent fuel reprocess-ing waste solutions and storage of solidified wastes were ignored or grossly underestimated. Estimates of the costs of solidifying and disposing of vastes 1583 338 frem the Nuclear Fuel Services range from a low of 467,000 per year per 1C00 W(e) plant to $36,000,000 per year per 1000 W(e) plant. (See " Alternative Processes for Managing Existing Commercial High-Level Radioactive Wastes," NUP1G-00h3). While the $67,000 figure may represent an insignificant addition to the annual reactor operation costs, the figure of $36,000,000 could easily double the annual operating costs. If past experience for estimating costs by the AEC/NRG can serve as a guide, the high figure may prove to be the low. Such costs should be included in the cost-benefit analysis. 7. Petitioners contend that the Applicant, with the active support of the Comnission, has f alsified cost-benefit analyses by using unrealistic capacity factors (0.80) to justify Three Mile Island I. As a result, the customers were charged more because the reactor w as not able to produce as much electricity as promised, frequently requiring the Applicant to purchase power. However, by the reasoning of the Commission, this extra charge would be construed as an adaed benefit, since the s ale of electricity constitutes the benefit. Petitioners contend that the Applicant and the Commission have, with other utilities, conspired to further mislead the public by the use of the unit called " maximum dependable capacity." 8. Petitioners contend that the cost-benefit analysis of Three Mile Island I has been biased in f avor of nuclear power by greatly underestimating spent fuel reprocessing costs and by the Commission offering a credit for recovered plutonium. Since there has not yet been any successful, economical, and com-plete reprocessing of reactor wastes to the solid stage, costs must be largely unkncwn. Since the r ecycling of plutonium is not presently a corr.ercial reality, the o::ering of a plutonium credit for yet unrecovered plutonium which may not be r ecycled is premature. 1583 339
9 Petitioners therefore contend that, due to the above unresolved issues regarding compliance with Sec.102 of the National Environmental Policy Act by the Commission, the construction permit for Three Mile Island I should be rescinded immediately and construction and operation halted pending resumption of public hearings and resolution of these matters. 10. Petitioners further request the Commission to grant financial assistance to the intervenors under the authority of Sec. 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act. Petitioners have made similar requests in the past, and have met only with denial or delay. Petitioners call the attention of the Commission to the recent court decision, York Comnittee for a Safe Environment, et al., vs. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 7h-1923, ar4 the comments therein regarding public interest litigants. Petitioners request the amount necessary in order to reet legal, tecnnical and procedural expenses otherwise not available. 1583 340}}