ML19339C728

Petition to Intervene Alleging Adverse Psychological & Economic Consequences.Questions Met Ed Financial Capability to Comply W/Technical & Design Changes.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19339C728
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	09/12/1979
From:	Mcgaughin K THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8011190208
Download: ML19339C728 (8)

Text

._

fCf.[ l ?, Yl ?f 1

.. f , &

0,\

/

e

'0A? y.

i j

g[ FJ * $74 > (

UNITED STATES OF AMERJCA .,

Ld. c .,....,. 2/

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION \r., . . . ....

i -TR; f, 'N' N_ #'

SU l 6 y.,

• f.s In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, )

Unit No.1) )

PETITON FOR INTERVENTION CF _THREE MILE ISLAND v.'.ERT, INCORPORATED Petitioner, Three Mile Island Alert, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as TMIA), seeks intervention as a party in this proceeding, and respectfully represents that:

TMIA is a non-profit corporation, with cffices at 315 Peffer Street, Harris-burg, Pennsylvania,17102. The members of TMIA reside in Dauphin, Cumberland, and Iort counties, of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Three M!Ie Island Nucicar Generating Station and its TMI Unit No.1, in particular, is located within twenty miles of the homes of every member of TMIA.

On March 28, 1979, an accident of unprecedented proportions occurred at the TMI nudear facility. As a result of that accident, large amounts of radiation were released into the local environment and the very real fear of a core melt down existed for at least four days. Many members d TMIA were forced to flee their 1

homes, and others experienced a period of mental anxiety and distress of an extra-1i ordinary magnitude, which continues to this day.

' 5 9,0 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS I

PO11190#O 4,- POOR QUAUTY PAGES -

lh

l Because of this experience, ntIA is concerned about the environmental, health, and economic consequences of reopening TMI Unit No.1. TMIA believea and asserts that the reopening of TMI Unit No. I will increase the detrimental health effects already suffered by its members and by the general population. It is further asserted that the economy of the area within twenty miles of the plant will be adversely affected by the reopening of TMI Unit No.1. Finally, it is asserted that the licensee, Metropolitan Edison Company (hereinafter Met-Ed), is incapable of safely operating TMI Unit No. I and that the past history of continual regulatory violations by Met-Ed should bar it from operating TMI Unit No.1.

Accordingly, Petitioner sets forth its contentions as follows:

1. TM1A contends that the reopening of Unit No. I will adversely affect the mental and physical health of its members and of the general population within twenty miles of the plant. It is contended that these people have been exposed to higher than normal levels of radiation because of the accident at TMI Unit No. 2 and that the low-level releases that will occur if Unit No.1 is reopened, when combined with the high-level releases already experienced, will cause increased rates of cancer, birth defects, spontaneous abortions, and other adverse health consequences to the general population living within twenty miles of the plant.

In addition, fear generated by the accident at TMI Unit No. 2, caused mental 111-ness, in varying degrees, to many people within the area of the plant. It is con-  ;

tended, therefore, that the reopening of Unit No. I will increase the anxiety and 1

2-i

fear of persons living within the area of the plant and wiu cause long-term emotional damage. It is contended that the potential for additional adverse health effects if Unit No.1 is reopened is of such sufficient magnitude as to make the reopening of Unit No. I an unreasonable and unacceptable risk to the public health and safoty of the general population living within twenty miles of the plant.

2. TMIA contends that the additional low-level radiological discharges from Unit No.1, in addition to those high-level discharges that have and will be dis-charged as a result of the TMI No. 2 accident, will have a significant hdverse affect on watcr quality in the Susquehanna River. Therefore, it is contended that no consideration be given to reopening Unit No.1 until TMI Unit No. 2 is completely decontaminated and the diects of this decontamination on the water quality near the plant has been thoroughly analyzed.

3. Because of the accident at TMI No. 2. it is contended that new businesses have been unwilling to relocate in areas near the plant, and both businesses and governmental agencies have curtailed or canceled planned meetings and conven-tions in the area. It is contended that additional adverse economic consequence;.

will befall the Central Pennsylvania area if Unit No. I is reopened and that no j analysis has been done that adequately and honestly accounts for these effects.

It is contended that the economic consequences of reopening Unit No.1 outweigh l the benefits that will be obtained by its reopening.

4. It is centended that if Unit No.1 is reopened there will be considerable civil disruption in the aree surrounding the plant. I.ocal and State authorities are l

l

l .

I l

not presently equipped to deal with the types of civil disruptions that may very well occur. It is contended that the additional costs which will have to be incurred by the State and by the local municipalities involved in order to deal with the civil disruptions have not been evaluated at all. Furthermore, it is contended that this disruption, added to a crippled No. 2 reactor that will be contaminated with highly radicactive material for years to come, is an unreasonable and unacceptable cost not outweighed by the benefits of reopening Unit No.1

5. It la contended that Met-Ed has negligently, and on occasion, willfully viclated NRC regulations concerning the safe operatiert of both Units 1 and 2, in that it has deferred necessary maintenance ar.d repairs in order to minimize reactor downtime, to the detriment of the integrity of the nuclear facility itself. Conse-quen'ly, it is contended that Met-Ed is incapable of safely operating TML No. I and that its operating license should be revoked permanently.

6. It is contended that Met-Ed does not have the ability nor the resources to adequately train its personnel to safely operate the Unit No. I plant. The recent events at Unit No. 2 have severely strained the financial base of Met-Ed, causing widespread layoffs of personnel employed by the company. Since recent analyses indicate that the type of B & W designed reactor in operation at Unit No. I requires a larger number of trained operating personnel than that which is required for other nuclear generating facilities, these cutbacks, and future cutbeks that may occur, demonstrate the continuing inability of Met-Ed to safely operate Unit No.1, l

7. It is contended that the licensee will be unable to deal with a serious accident if one should occur at Unit No.1, while decontamination continues at 1 l

Unit No. 2. The Unit No. 2 containment building an'd' vessel today house in excess of half a million gallons of highly contaminated wastewater, and another 250,000 gallons in auxiliary storage buildings on the island. There is still no plan that has been accepted by the NRC which will result in the safe decontamination of Unit No. 2. Presently, there is no approved timetable for the safe decontamination cf Unit No. 2. It is contended that the wastewater storage capability of Unit No.1, if an accident were to occur, would be insufficient, since a large portion of this cap'. city may ultimately be committed to the safe decontamination of Unit No. 2.

Furtlurmore, even if no accident should occur at Unit No.1, there is a possibility of an accident occurring at Unit No. 2 during decontamination which would result in Qo diversion of all Unit No. l's storage capacity te Unit No. 2, thereby leaving Unit No. I unable to cope with any type of accident that would produce abnormal amounts of radioactive wastewater. If an accident cf the magnitude cf that which occurred at Unit No. 2 were to occur at Unit No.1, wastewater storage facilities at Unit No. 2 would have to be borrowed, just as Unit No.1 facilities have been borrowed to deal with the accident p Unit No. 2. Since there is presently insuffi-cient storage capacity on the island to deal with a Unit No. 2 accident at Unit No.1, it is an unreasonable and unacceptable risk to the public health and safety to reopen Unit No. I until Unit No. 2 has been safely decontaminated.

8. It is contended that tha decision to reopen Unit No.1, in light of what has occurrod at Unit No. 2, is a significant federal action that will affect the

.~

environment. Accordingly, it is contended that an environmental impact statement must be prepared prior to any decision by the NRC to reopen Unit No.1

9. It is contended that Met-Ed does not have the financial capability to:

(1) comply with technical changes that may be demanded as a result of the accident at Unit No. 2, and (2) comply with regulations of the NRC requiring the expenditure of additional sums cf money either for mandated design changes or changes in the financial protection requirements of 10 CFR Part 140.

10. It is contended that the customers of Met-Ed are presently receiving uniziterrupted and adequate electric power and that the reopening of Unit No.1is

- unnecessary for the future electricity needs of Met-Ed's customers,

11. It is contended that even if power is needed to meet the future needs of Met-Ed customers that Unit No. I be converted to a coal-fired plant. It is con-tended that the environmental, health and safety costs d reopening Unit No. I as a nuclear facility outweigh the cost of converting the facility to a coal-fired plant.

12. In the Commission Order of July 2,1979, the NRC stated that it

' presently lacks the requisite reasonable assurance that the . . 11censee's Three Mile Island Unit No.1 facility . . . can be operated without endangering the health and safety of the public." It is contended, therefore, that the burden 1

of proving that the reopening of Unit No. I will not endanger the health and j safety of the public rests with Met-Ed. It is further contended, therefore, that l

, 1

. l l

the presumption that Met-Ed cannot operate Unit No I without endangering the health and safety of the public can only be overcome by presenting clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

Pursuant to the NRC's Order of August 9,1979, intervenors have been adviced that contentions dealing with psychological distress and other conten-tions unrolated to radiation exposure will require briefing "as part of the conten-tion procecs set out in the Commission's regulations." The contentions herein that are not related to radiation exposure are broadly related to psychological dbtrern and econcmic consequences. It is submitted that both these contentions

- are mandated considerations under the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA Saction 102 does not contain an exhaustive list of these environmental concerns thr.t are to be considered. Rather, tho aim cf NEPA is to go t 2 yond purely

" environmental" considerations, such as air and water pollution, and to consider the quality of life, including the mental and economic health of the community.

S e Trinity Episcopal School Corp. v. Romney, 387 F.Supp.1044 (D.C. N.Y.

197 0 : Town of Groton v. Laird, 353 F.Supp. 344 (D.C. Conn.1972); 7_ackson

{,ounty Mo. v. Jones, 571 F.2d 1004 (C.A. Mo.1978) . McDowell v. Schlesinger, 404 F.Supp. 221 (D.C. Mo.1975) .

It is for these reasons, that the NRC and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board clearly have Jurisdiction to consider the contentions raised herein.

Respectfully submitted, l

1% d . ,, S 'ts\ ' D heA Mailino Address: Kathy McC ' chin,' Authorized R,epresentative 23 South 21st Street for T ree Mile Island Alett, Inc.

Itrrisburg, PA 17104

]O J.~. ~.. ~j

> _ a

~ .

1

. j e *

'\

%*M s" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g _

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S

? E?  ::: w.: l'.1978 > $

, %v fi In the Matter d ) 4  ?

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

)

(Three E!ila Island Nuclear Statk3n, )

Unit No.1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Petition For Intervention Of Three Mlle

!aland Alert, Incorporated," in the above,:aptioned matter, have been served on the fcilowing by deposit in the United States mail, first-class, this 12th day of Septsaber,1979:

Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

.i , .

• A,_ ,, .\

4-  ;

U_t w.a Vn_,-

L2.y :.':C:n;tiin. Autherisoci Representative  !

for Th@ Mile Island Alert, Inc. l I

D ecj D

e Ju WJ 3

kI-$

t =

.