ML19340A282

Preliminary Statement Re Proposed Findings & Conclusion in Opposition to Applicants' Findings.Issuance of CP for Facility Will Be Inimical to Common Defense Security,Health & Safety of Public.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19340A282
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	03/05/1971
From:	Lau G AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
References
NUDOCS 8003050683
Download: ML19340A282 (7)

Text

-.._ . _ .

b e ,-

'# " IU(1LI N;i. .u ;;

.m 4 00CKEiEo 500. & UIIL, tac, 3D 3%

USAEG

'93 MAR 51971 * {2 ogjfgyg UNITED STATES OF AhERICA l

C> wu /

typ._ ATOMIC ENERGT C0f4 MISSION 4 d-S~ 7/,

ca \ to In the Matter of Q Docket No. 50-346

)

THE TOLEDO EDISON COL:PANY ) PROPOSED FINaINGS AND AND THE CLEVELAID ELECTIC )- CONCLUSION IN OPPOSITION

ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) TO APPLICANTS FIF ING&

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power ) [ f. , i t -- .

~

Station) i

)

)

s k' gy, O s g ,y'O d(l l

i

. . PRELIMINARY STATELIENT c

i. . < 9 AA 4

l 3' I, Glenn Lau, reserve the right to alter or add to proposal in view of the notion before the Atomic Safety and 1

Licensing Appeal Board, requesting a three week delay. As nc decision has yet been handed down, I therefore, at this L

time, cannot give a full review.

I have not been allowed to complete my cross-examination and a s a result cannot make a final analysis on an incomplete testimony. The cross-examination and direct testimony denied me wou.1d have proved negligence by Applicant and show in-sufficient research regarding " engineered" safeguards, techinques and suitability of site selection and provided the Board with I

enough evidence to deny the Applicant their permit for con-struction.

It is also absurb to suggest the intervenors can adequately make detailed studies of the testimony as it is not readily available to us. We cannot be expected to sit for hour after hour in.a public library going through the testimony. It is l%

= -

. 00305o .

./

l i

=

o .

a L

l l

l important to note that I was not given the PSAR reports witil t

the last week in January and was expected to bring in my witnesses and have them Go to a library and gleen whatever material they could in the few hours the library was open.

'#e have been under great inconvience throughout this whole I

proceedings inasmuch as very little time has been allotted the intervenors to prepare, research and present their points of protest to this Eonstrosity being shoved down the citizens i

throats in the name of progress.

l l

Being allowed fifteen minutes to appear anywhere, and then having to forfeit my right to continue cross-examination or bring any further witnesses is not justice in any man's courtl .

SITE CONSIDERATIONS No consideration was given as to weather conditions in this area, especially severe snowstorms and flooding conditions. As

-was stated by the'regulartory staff, they had no idea these conditions even existed.

l The metecrological studies were not complete at the 20 ft.

level for the " warmer months" (Tr pp 659). -As stated, "Therefore, no furtner on-site meteorological observations need be made to t

assure that. the site is' acceptable for the Davis-Besse facility.

(Tr pp 660).

However, (Tr pp701) by Mr. Markee, states; "The basis of the analysis of these data nas based on, that tne atmospneric

' diffusion. values for absoluta condition, state value 95 per cent of, the time, and this should be based on on-site data for at

. - - ..- m . . .

-m ._ _ . _ . _ -

A least one year of record. (underline added).

The Applicant has not presented to us one year of record.

But the Applicant will provide at least otto year or datn at the operating license stage of review."

In Part 100.10 (a) 2, meteorological conditions at the site and surrounding area should be considered'.

This is to be used in determinin6 suitability of a site for a reactor prior to construction. Proper consideration has not been given in preliminary studies and a permit should not be issued prior to a complete one year evaluation, not 6 months l now and 6 months a year or two later.

l It might be pointed out here, cross-examination of witnesses for the Applicant concerning this portion of testimony was not made.

l Svacuation Testimony from eleven witnesses attestin6 to Lne severity of storms occurring in this area, which 19 very unique in respect to l other parts of this county, proved beyond any doubt that no studies were made in respect to this problem.

No thought or testimony was given as to a feasible evacuation plan or the health and welfare of the people in the area of the low population zone.

The impossibility of evacuation of areas located not only at Sand Beach, just north of the site, but also in areas to the south and northwest was clearly demonstrated. (Tr pp 2053-2106).

l

d ..--..-m. A g

Feasibility of evacuation must be snown prior to selection of a reactor site. The Applic: tnt definitely han not uhown feasibility. '

The a6encies referred to for evacuation assistance are not equipped nor do they have adequate techniques to handle such an evacuation. The equipment that is available is not heavy enough to do the job. As testified to, this equipment ,

has a tendency to creak down under stress (Tr pp 2058).

The Ottawa County Engineer testified "with proper notificatidn" the area could be evacuated. However, on cross-examination he admitted hc did not Know what a low-population zone was and no credibility can be given to his statement.

RADI0 ACTIVE EFFLUENTS Cross-examination was not completed reSarding this portion of my petition for intervention. No conclusion can be reached.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 1969 The conditions of NEPA have clearly been violated in these hearings. One cannot assume the position of God, and deceide

! 1 how and when laws that are passed by congress and signed by the l t

President are to be in effect.

Tne Toledo 3dison and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company have had more than sufficient time to prepare cuul comply with the rules and regulations set forth in NEPA. On l tnis besis alone, a permit for construction should be denied them.

l

Again as this was not an issue that could be brought out in the Davis-Besse hearings, then the full impact of the catastrophic effect this could have on the environment was never allowed to be exposed.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

l. Giving c'redit to unproven " engineered safeguards" in place of exclusion and low population zone dis-tances is an erroneous assumption on the part of the AEC and the Applicant.

2. Insufficient metecrological studies prior to con-struction permit being granted is in clear violation of 10 CPR part 100.

3. In view of the limited croos-examination, the technical qualifications of the Applicant to design and construct the proposed facility has not been proved. -

4. The issuance of a construction permit for the Davis-Besse plant will be ininical to the common defense, security, health and safety of the public.

Respe tfully s mi ed, f

Glenn H. IIau

. , , . . . ~

~

00:,xET (W,:CER ER00. & Dill. FAC. T0-3%

CERTIFIC ATE OF GERVICE I herby cerify that I have this 5th day of !.' arch, 1971 forwarded copies of the foregoing to Mr. Wilson 3nyder. It is my understanding he will forward this on to I~r. Charnoff, Attorney for Applicant, to Mr. Englehardt of the AEC Regulatory Staff. Other copies will be made by us and sent to l'r. Baron, l Attorney for the Coalition in Cleveland and to Mrs. Bleicher, l Attorney for Life in Bowling Green.

\ '

l l G1enn H. Lau l

t en cP Q

! ( DOCXifEJ N\

l

}

9-USAEC -

l MAR 51971

• d2 i

' Oft:et af 'M *ecrt'an htas freetts i 9 kri '. /

j GTD

. 4, W

e l

I I

9

- . . . . . . . - ~ = ,w..

--- *- * + - - * * **e

'N*] * * * .* * * "