ML20006B136
| ML20006B136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1990 |
| From: | Gillespie F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006B134 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9001310503 | |
| Download: ML20006B136 (3) | |
Text
,
t 4.
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY BIG ROCK POINT PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-155 RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 62.206 Notice is hereby given that a petition dated November 11, 1989, filed by Mrs. Jo Anne Bier Beemon on beh:1f of the Concerned Citizens for the Charlevoix 4
Area, Charlevoix, Michigan, has requested that the Commission take' action to-require Consumers Power Company to meet all current NRC design and safety criteria for the Big Rock Point Plant located near Charlevoix, Michigan.
The petition alleges that the NRC and Consumers Power Company, in corroboration, l
have improperly used cost / benefit criteria in the following instances in regard to the Big Rock Point Plant grandfathering, probabilistic risk assessment, application of the as-low-as-reasonably-achievable standard, authorization of the experimental status of the facility, and low societal risk - to defer the implementation of current NRC safety criteria, thus resulting in indefensibly large radioactive emissions from the Big Rock Point-Plant.
The request is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 62.206 of the Commission's regulations.
As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this request within a reasonable time.
?
A 4
9001310503 900124 PDR ADOCK 05000155' P
~2-A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the Commission's
~
Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY Com ISSION U.
N i
Frank P. Gillespie, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
-t Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24th day of January 1990.
f l-l l
q Consumers Power Company Big Rock Point Plant cc:
Mr. Thomas A. McNish, Secretary Mr. Kenneth W. Berry Consumers Power Company Director, Nuclear Licensing 212 West Michigan Avenue Consumers Power Company Jackson, Michigan 49201 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 Judd L. Bacon. Esquire Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue
' Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Thomas W. E1 ward Plant Manager Big Rock Point Plant 10269 U.S. 31 North Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Mr. Walter Hufford County Commissioner 114 Belevedere Avenue Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Office of the Governor Room 1 - Capitol Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 Region 61 Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Rocsevelt Road i
Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
.?
Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section Office Division of Radiological Health P. O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.esident Inspector Office Big Rock Point Plant 10253 U.S. 31 North Charlevoix, Michigan 49720
=
~
d I-o e
4 e
,... - ~..,
j H
e NOVEMBER 11, 1989 i
In loving memory of Nick, on his 21st birthday.
-1 Chairman, Nuclear Reactor Regulation I
Attention: Kenneth Carre Oparating Reactors Branch No. 2 i
Wschington, D.C. 20555 l
/
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206, The Concerned Citizens for the Charlevoix Area petition.the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N.R.C.) to immediately order Consumers Power Company (CPCo) to update and retrofit "
ths Big Rock Point Nuclear Facility to meet' current safety'desigr. and radioactive-effluent criteria. We ask that the N.R.C. prohibit ~ continued operation until such time as these objectives are met.
The N.R.C.-and Consumers Power Company, in corroboration, have-used cost / benefit criteria embodied in vehicles: 1)Grandfathering;
- 2) Probabilistic Risk Assessment; 3) ALARA, As Low As is Reasonably Achievable; 4) Experimental Status; and 5) Low Societal Risk,.to defer implementation of current safety criteria,.resulting in indefensibly j
large radioactive emissions from the Big. Rock Point Facility.
On August 4, 1987, the United States Court of Appeals held that the N.R.C. cannot consider cost in setting.and enforcing general safety standards for nuclear facilities.
As citizens of Charlevoix, we are outraged at the Nuclear l
Regulatory Commission and Consumers Powers' disregard for the health and i
wall-being of the citizens of Charlevoix, Petoskey, Harbor Springs, Baaver Island, Boyne City, and the surrounding areas.
- 1. BIG ROCK WAS SECOND IN THE NATION IN TOTAL RADIATION' RELEASED TO'THE ENVIRONMENT IN 1986. The average 900 Megawatt reactor released 4,520 curies to the environment. Big Rock Nuclear _ Facility, at 75 Megawatts, released 76,700 curies, almost 20 times the national cverage. If we~are to calculate radiation release per megawatt, Big Rock releases radiation into the: environment atta rate 200 times the national average. In the past, Big Rock's record is even more sordid. In 1971, Big Rock released over 280,000 curies. In 1972, it released 258,000 curies. Prior to 1970, releases were much higher because of experimental. cladding defects.
O, m. -, - -
- g ns
~
me
': PAGE 2 In evaluating the Big Rock Radwaste'(Radioactive Waste)
System, the N.R.C. stated, "The staff performed a cost / benefit analysis to determine if additional radwaste equipment could be added to the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems of plants that could, f or a f avorable cost / benefit ratio, reduce the radiation dose to the population reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor, using the interim value of $1,000 per total body man-rem and per man-thyroid-rem. Based on the foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the rad-waste treatment systems installed at'the Big Rock Point Plant are capable of reducing releases of radioactive materials ~1n liquid and gaseous effluents to "As Low As is Resonably Achievable Levels." (ALARA)
(See " Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Regulation of the Big Rock Point Plant Waste Treatment Systems," May 19811 and "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, Annual Report," Vol. 7, pg. 1, Tables 1 and 6., Nov. 1988.)
This decision must be reversed in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision.
- 2. WORKERS AT THE BIG ROCK FACILITY RECEIVED MORE RADIATION EXPOSURE PER UNIT OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCED THAN ANY WORKERS IN THE UNITED i
STATES IN 1985, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NEBRASKA'S COOPER PLANT; FIVE TIMES THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.
- 3. BIG ROCK WAS THE REACTOR WITH THE HIGHEST OPEPATING AND MAINTENANCE COST IN 1987.
- 4. BIG ROCK CONTRIBUTES ONLY l TO 1 1/2% TO CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S TOTAL GRID. CONSUMERS POWER HAS A 20 TO 30% POWERGRID EXCESS.
- 5. BIG ROCK HAS NEVER BEEN THE SUBJECT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY, AS ORDERED BY THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969.
Consumers Power has not complied, citing "grandfathering," and 4
" cost-effectiveness."
- 6. THE BIG ROCK PLANT OPERATES IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TODAY'S MINIMAL-SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.
A. The Big Rock Containment is unshielded. Under pressure from the N.R.C. to implement shielding, Consumer's officials replied,
" Based on these results, (the Big Rock Probabilistic Risk Assessment) a philosophical position has been developed relative to the reactor shielding at Big Rock Point." NUREG 0570 Requirement 2.213 states that nuclear power plants must shut down immediately in the event of complete loss of a safety function. Shielding is critical to protection of workers, as well as the public.
B. Big Rock is designed to vent radiation continuous 1v. Today's nuclear plants are fined thousands of dollars'if vents are inadvertantly left open. Big Rock must vent so that operators can have access to vital areas of the plant. For many years these containment isolation valves had a failure rate.of 25%.
(See Appendix IV to the PRA at 3.3)
C. Radwaste (radioactive waste) systems are anticuated and obso -
lete. Batches of liquid radioactive waste are routinely released into Lake Michigan. When radioactivity levels are too high, water is pumped from Lake Michigan and used to dilute the batches.
e
\\
'PAGE 3 i
l t
D. Due to shielding and capacity, the liquid radwaste systems would be of limited usefulness in accidents which generate laroe quantities of high activity in water. In August of 1981, in response to oral interrogatories, Big Rock expert Charles Axtell stated, "It's a well-known fact that this plant is not equipped 4
R to handle an accident where large quantities of water are generated."
E. Off-gas systems are not capable of bringing gaseous effluents to I
within industry norms.
F. In 1976, Big Rock was given a lifetime exemption from meeting-the N.R.C.'s current safety standards. This decision must be-re-viewed.
G. Big Rock's exemptions from T.M.I. NUREGs and Systematic Evalu-ation Program topics must be reevaluated.
- 7. THE USE OF PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT IS GROUNDED IN COST / BENEFIT ANALYSIS, AND SHOULD BE USED WITH CAUTION; CONCLUSIONS MUST BE RE-EXAMINED.
A. In 1981, Consumers Power Company submitted the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant Probabilistic Risk Assessment Main Report to the N.R.C. At 1.0 Executive Summary 1.1, Motivation for Perfor-mance of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Consumers Power Co.
argued, "The small size of Big Rock Point limits the capital which can be economically spent on plant modifications. Regula-tory requirements imposed on nuclear plants on a generic basis after the accident at Three Mile Island make continued operation of Big Rock Point an unattractive alternative from an economic perspective." At 1.3 Objectives of the PRA, Consumers Power j
asserted, "There were two major objectives of the Big Rock Point 1
PRA. The first was to quantify the risk to the public from-operation of BRP. The second objective-was to define those design and procedural modifications to BRP which are most cost-effective from the standpoint'of risk reduction." Consumers Power Co.
calculated that the maximum recommended expenditure to totally eliminate the remaining risk from Big Rock was approximately
$70,000 to eliminate public health risk and $600,000 to eliminate the risk associated with normal worker exposure. To reach this-conclusion, CPCo used plant-specific data and WASH-1400 estimates of property loss and latent fatalities, and the proposal in NUREG-0739 that a latent fatality is valued at $1 million dollars, and an estimate-that property damage associated ~with accidents is valued at approximately 25% of the acute fatality loss.
B. Consumers Power Company's assertion that the sum of $670,000 would totally eliminate the public risk from the Big Rock Facility, does not appear to be supported by other Company studies. Common sense tells us-this figure is. absurd.
- 1. At the March 29, 1960 hearing for the Big Rock Construction Permit, Consumers Power experts testified that in the event of an accident, "It is conceivable that the general population in a small area near the plant might have to be evacuated for.a short period-(up to several months) as a result of ground contamination. Monitoring and possible confiscation of crops and milk might have to be resorted to over an area of up-to about two square miles."
(Page 103 at 3.)
' IPAGE' 4
- 2. In the Big Rock PRA, pages 117-138, Consumers Power experts calculate that Big Rock has a high core damage probability 2
(meltdown) of 9.8x10-4 per year.
- 3. Big Rock has a high degree of core damage events which produce very large releases of radiation.
- 4. The probability at which one or more fatalities would occur i
for Big Rock Point is approximately a factor of six higher than for the average plant analyzed in the Reactor Safety Study.
B. CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY HAS CITED " LOW. POPULATION AREA" AND " REMOTE SITING" AS INCENTIVE TO DEFER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS CLAIMING " LOW.
SOCIETAL RISK."(See PRA and Applicant Correspondence, Feb. 22,.1980)
This is the industry's rationalization for continued operation in remote areas in spite on non-conformance to safety regulations. In cost / benefit terms, this means that the lives of a few people in a rural area are not worth as much,-in nuclear safety leverage, as the lives of many people in a high population area, in the calculation of cost / benefit of nuclear plant safety requirements. This is a j
clear violation of the civil rights of all citizens ~in rural America having the misfortune to live in close proximity to a commercial nuclear facility. The same safety considerations should be afforded people living in low population areas as.those afforded individuals living in high population areas.
l
- 9. THE GROUND UPON WHICH BIG ROCK WAS BUILT IS SACRED INDIAN LAND, AND THE USE AND CONTAMINATION OF THE LAND BY: CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY VIOLATES INDIAN TREATIES.
i
- 10. THE PRODUCT OF NUCLEAR FISSION IS NUCLEAR WASTE. The energy produced is used, and gone. Nuclear waste, the most deadly poison-known to-us, remains deadly for hundreds and thousands of years.
There is no suitable answer to the radioactive waste problem.
A.
This is a technical problem, not a political one, as the nuclear l
industry would have us believe. All nuclear waste dumps have I
leaked. There are no success stories. Michigan is now.being told we must accept " low level" waste from six other-states. This is l
clearly ludicrous. The nuclear. industry leaves a trail of contamination in its wake. There are tons and tons of radioactive e
i tailings; there are' contaminated ~ nuclear-sites, and buildings, and vehicles, and tools,:and cities, and counties, and beautiful little tourist towns.
- 11. THE GREATEST DANGER IS TO CHILDREN. There is no safe level of i
radiation. Radiation damages the basic building block of life, the cell. Children are most susceptible because they are' growing and changing.
A. A damaged cell can cause cancer, birth defects, genetic damage, and other health problems.
B. A 1972 Canadian Atomic Energy study showed low levels of radi-ation cause cell membrane damage harmful to the immune system.
y
=.v.
+ -,
v.
--y...
,,-.._s.---%,,
e v
.,wr---
PAGE 5
)
i C. Radiation damages the cells of all living thingst from the i
dmoeba to human beinos. Radiation can alter the genetic code in viruses and bacteria and create new diseases in people and all living things. The nuclear industry is playing life and death games with the human race.
)
D. Studies showing l'ow birth weights, high cancer rates, and any i
other abnormal health statistics in the population around nuclear plants and nuclear dumps, and around the Bio Rock
{
Facility in particular, must be re-examined in coniunction with an Environmental Impact Study as ordered by the National Environmental Act of 1969.
For the above stated reasons, The Concerned Citizens for the Charlevoix Area ask the N.R.C. to immediately order Consumers Power Company to update and retrofit the Big Rock Nuclear Facility to meet current safety
~~
design criteria in accordance with the August 4, 1987 decision of the United States Court of Appeals, which stated that the N.R.C.
cannot consider cost in setting and enforcing general safety standards for nuclear facilities.
Each of Us is given a Gift of Time i
on this beautiful Earth, And with this Gift comes a Sacred Responsibility r
to the Children of Today and all the Tomorrows.
We must Preserve and Protect our Mother Earth, that They may Live.
l l
l L
e.
Jo Anne Bier Beemon l 75 %
G l(.
CTi-48:ac President Concerned Citizens for the Charlevoix Area l
Charlevoix, MI 49720
.)
STATE OF FJCHIGAN COUNTY OF CHARIETOIX Acknowledged before me this 16th day of Novenber,1989,/
by Jo Anne Bier n, President, Concerned Citizens for the Charlevoix Area.
U I7C U L Q (/f. sNM A
/
/
m umm expimau6-2-90 D3"3' MN' ? *W"9 2
rd A'.*
p u,,,
f.
i NRC Rulemaking Change Ordered l Cost Can 't Be Considered in Setting Safety Regulations, Court Says.l i
4 M*1N,,,,
in a challenge to a new NRC rule on another example of the court hold.
backfitting, or retrohtting, brought ing the line against some of the ex-by the Union of Concerned Scien-cesses of this administration,in par =l The Nuclear Regulatory Com -
mission cannot consider cost in set-tists. Any change in a nuclear plant ticular, the efforts to weaken the I after approval of the facihty's con, standards of protecting the public in
- ting and enforcing general safety struction permit is considered back. ' the process oflowermg costs of the ;.
standards for nuclear facihties, the fitting or retrofitting.
nuclear industry,"
U.S. Court of Appeats held yester.
The rule allowed the commission William H. Briggs Jr., NRC solic g' day, overturning 1985 NRC proce-to use cost benefit analyses in set. itor, said the commission beheved g:
dures for determining plants need* ting any new general safety rules the decision was narrowly drawn, but '
'i ing improvements to meet new and in determining whether oper-basically upheld the process the com,
standards.
ating nuclear facihties would have mission had established on retrofit f' The decision, considered a vic ' to be updated, or retrofitted.
ting. '
tory for nuclear safety groups, is At the same time, the rule stated
l will be surprised if the decision '
the second major defeat in a week that cost should not be considered in has any Draconian impact on any for the Reagan administration's re-providing
- adequate protection." The thing," Briggs said.
gulatory reform program, which court said the rule was confusing' and Weiss said it was unclear how required cost benefit analyses to be described it as an " exemplar of sm-many decasions on retrofitting the j a part of the rulemaking on many biguity and vagueness; indeed, we NRC made using the new rule be :
aafety questions.
suspect that the commission de-f cause the regulations for imple ;
in a unanimous decision last signed the rule to achieve this very mentingit required the cost benefit
(
week, the full D.C. Circuit court result."
analyses to be performed early in e; 1 ruled that the Environmental Pro- /The commission must determine the process. "We don't know how 's tection Agency can consider only heahh,not cost or technologicalfeafthe content of the adequate-protec
- many were tossed out before they $
tion standard without reference to sibility,in setting permissible emis' v5fi$nuTeosts; the commission ever reached the point of formal $
f sions standards for toxic substances, must then apply that standard to The court's decision may prohibit >
consideration," Weiss said..
g "We hold that the [NRC) may not individual applicants and licensees the NRC from approving a proposal i take economic costs into account in notwithstanding any pleas of pov-to change its emergency planning
[
fulfilling its statutory mandate to erty," Mikva said.
ruling that is also based on a cost-ensure adequate protection of the Costs can only be taken into ac-benefit rationale, Weiss said. The public health and safety," Judge count in deciding whether to re. proposal would exempt the Shore p Abner J. Mikva said yesterday, quire additional protection, above ham nuclear facility on Long Islcnd a writing for the threejudge panel, and beyond the statute's
- adequate-and the Seabrook plant in New i He was joined by Judge Harry T.
protection
- level, the court said.
Hampshire from the requirement l Edwards, andjudge Stephen F. Wil.
Ellyn R. Weiss, an attorney for that states have emergency plansin !
llams concurred.The decision came the scientists' group, said, "I'his is effect before plants open.
I p/
2 1
.