ML20027A519

Amended Petition to Intervene in Matter of Proc Re Subj Facil.Incl Identification of Petitioner & Its Interests to Be Affected,Interests Adversely Affected by Action of Comm & Statement of Contentions

ML20027A519
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	12/04/1978
From:	Maynard R CITIZENS FOR ENERGY & EMPLOYMENT
To:
Shared Package
ML20027A518	List: ML20027A517 ML20027A519
References
NUDOCS 7812130202
Download: ML20027A519 (8)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:i . c, g 's'.9' D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,/ e w 3 y (#.J[ 57 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO21ISEION q\\p g l [p T e ,ter of ) E' ISON COMPAT? ) Docket No. 50-3'+1 -t .e lan: ) 4II AMENDED PETITION TO INTERVINE. Petitioner, Citi cns for Employment and Energy hereirafter referred to as CEE, petitions to intervene in this proceeding pursuant to Section 2.711+ and other pertinent sections of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice, and states: i I IDENTIFICATION OF PETITIONER AND ITS IN*ERESTS TO BE A?".CTED Citizers for-Emulovment and Enerer (C~r ) i. CEE is an unincorporated association comprised of citi. zens and residents of Michigan, organizations whose =emberships include residents of Michigan and residents of other states, and . local units of gove. ent, all of whom are interested in the dis-semination of information and stimulation of public awareness and involvement in the study of nuclear power and alternate sources of safe electrical energy generating sources. At least one = ember of CEE resides within one mile of the Fersi 2 plant, other members residing at slightly greater distances. CEE also represents members residing in the service areas of the public power ceoperatives that have purchased an interest in the proposed plant. This petitioner has analyzed and studied, to the extant that information has been availablo, the proposed Fe:::i 2 plan; and is concerned, as set forth in more specific detail below, that the construction and operation of the Fermi 2 plant will result in an unsafe and inefficient exercise of the use of atomic energy; that it will create deleterious and adverse effects upon the City of Monroe, other parts of Michi.gan and elsewhere will contribute to and create adverse environ =en al effects which can be avoided; and win -=sult in i_ e;-ievable an:1 irreversible commi ments of natural and other resources, which, considering all of the alte:. natives and circu= stances including the aeged need for electrical power, would not be advantageous. N 8 I o I 3 OcRo z_ ,v

II I:ITIP.T.iTS ADVERSELY A??ICTID 3Y ACTICN OF THE CCtCIIS3!CN 2. 3ased u=on the interests and concerns of the petitioner identified in (I) above, one or more of the direct interests of the petitioner will be adversely affected by the issuance of an operating license. These interests and how they may be affected are as follows: larlythoseresidingneartheplant$etitioner'smembers(particu-(a) The econcaic interests of - will be affected by the re-lease of radiation from the plant through the following mechanisms: (1) low-level radiation releases during normal plant oper. ations (2) releases'of radiation through accidents in the plant (3) releases of radiation through industrial sabotage (4) releases of radiation through sabotage by outside terrorists of the plant proper ci sabotage of spent fuel being transported from the plant ( (5) release of radiation through the tra=sportation of spent nuclear fuel frem the plant throu6h the surround-ing community. (b) Radiation releases as~ specified in (a) above will adversely affect the property interests (both real and personal) of peti-tiener's members residing near the plant. verselyaffectthehealthof"$etpecifiedin(a)abovewillad-(c) Radiation releases as s tioner's members (-p icularly those residing near the plant,- resulting in medical bills and the shortening of their lifespans. (d) The value of petitioner's members property will decrease 'through the normal operations of the proposed plant's cooling sys-tem throu6h the. adverse weather conditions thus created in the area i==ediately surrounding the plant. (e) The economic interests of those CF"., members who are iste-c payers of Detroit Edison or the public power cooperatives who have purchased an interest in the plant will be adversely affected due to the raise in rates that will be caused by operation (or inabil-it/ to operate) of the proposed plant. III l 1 STATEL"" 0? C0tr?IN'" IONS 3 Under Sec. 2.714 Petitioner is not required to frame specific contentions un-*' "* " een (15) days prior to the holding of a spechl prehearing conference or the prehearing conference if no special prehearing. conference is held. Although petitioner is 'isting car ain contentions concerning the proposed plant below, i l it reserves its right under 2 714 to add additional contentices or revise the contentions listed below wi-#- -' e ti=e ll=its specified in the section identified above. 2 f

1 l l Although one member of CZZ =ay be concerned and involved. with one of the following contentions more than another, all l = embers share a ecc=on interest in the following contentions: i Health and Safetv Issues of Constraction and Desizn 4. The following contentions and their factual bases are supported by the direct and indirect knowledge of at least one member of CZZ, who is and has been personally involved h the constraction of Fermi 2 since work was begun. (a) There has been an appalling lack of physical security at the construction sita since the inception of construction. Given the need for extremely close quality control in the erection of a nuclear plant, this failing could well lead to flaws in the struc-ture, through deliberate sabotage or unintentional injury tooccupo-nents. (b) Quality control has been poor throughout the period. of construction, inspections being 18 :ted for the most part to superficial surreys. Workers who were employed at the Davis-Besse constraction site during the lengthy shut-down at Fermi 2 were shocked at the laxity of quality control at Fermi 2 in comparison.(c) Just prior to the halt in construction at Fermi 2, there were widespread allegations among workers that Detroit Ed-ison had ordered a supervising engineer to destroy by burning two trailer-loads of docu=ents, believed to be related to qualit/ control and engineering. (d) Detroit Edison twice replaced the taan of super-visors frem the first generalcoontracter, Ralph M. Parsons Co., then terminated its contract with Parsons and hired a second firs, because Parsons'. employees refused to sacrifice quality 3 control in order to expedite the constraction schedule. (e) Specific flaws in constraction can be identified, among them: (1) Excessive water in the reactor hole which caused the concrete base to crack severaly, a problem purportedly remedied by patching. (2) Kairline cracks in str2ctural steel sur-ourding the dr/ well. (3) The complete absence of any " fence post detection" to monitor the level of radiation at the peri =eter of the site, a fact ad=itted by Detroit Edison on the record at a public hearing at Cantrick High School. (f) Further, there has been and rs=ains ver/ low = orale a=ong the constraction workers, =any of whom believe: (1) The plant w never be ready by 1980. (2) Serious treblems will =anifest during star -up. (3) Dangerous flaws =ay exist due to poor quali y control., 3

5. The design of the radiation monitoring system is hsIfficient and incomplete to adequately monitor radiation both in normal operation of the proposed plant, as well as during those moments after a maximum hypothetical accident. Despite the fact that technology exists to install completely remote controlled and other sophisticated monitoring systems throughout the proposed plant's site and on the perimeter of the plant's site, and ground level and above, Edison's design does not incorporate adequate radiation monitoring systems. 6. Numerous components of the Fermi 2 plant will become exposed to radiation and to adverse physical conditions if it begins. operating which will change the physical properties of the materials over the 40 years of expected operation. Unex-pected deterioration of these components or their systems could threaten the operation and safeguards'of the plant. Difficulties at Palisades, Farmi 1, and other plants already demonstrate that expected durability of parts is highly inaccurate. CEE contends that Edison has failed to provide adequate procedures for inspection and replacement of these critical components. 7. The steam generator system of the Fermi 2 plant will be subject to unexpected corrosion, making it likely that an expensive major overhaul will be necessary well before the expected forty year life of the plant is finished. The current dimculties at the Turkey Point and Surry plants demonstrate this problem. 8. Emergency plans and procedures have not been ade-quately developed or entirely conceived with respect to an accident which could require immediate evacuations of entire towns within a 100-mile. radius of the Fermi 2 plant, including Detroit. In particular, CEE is concerned over whether there is a feasible escape route for the residents of the Stony pointe area which is adjacent to the Fermi 2 site. The only road leading to and from the area, Pointe Aux Peaux, lies very close to the reactor site. In case of an accident the residents would have to travel towards the accident before they could move away from it. c. With respect to the availability of sophisticated medical treatnent of radiation injuries, Edison has not made adequate provisions for either facilities or personnel to treat radiation injuries or radiation-chemical injuries which would result from a maximum hypothetical accident or any other lesser accident, exlusively nuclear or in concert with an accident involving any of the other industrial sectors pre-viously described in this petition. Edison has not adequately 4

considered the future availability of the services of hospital, ambulance, and public and private police protection in the numbers necessary to handle and adequately safeguard the public interest in the event of the aforementioned potential accidents. 10. Edison has not incorporated into the design of Fermi 2 solutions to many of the generic safety problems of boiling water reactors. These problems endanger CEE members and thousands of other citizens near the plant site. These problems were out-lined in NUREG-0410, "NRC Program for the Resolution of Generic Issues Related to Nuclear Power Plants," and include the problems associated with turbine missiles, monitoring within the pressure vessel, and common mode failures in the reactor scram systems, as well as the questionable effectiveness of containment sprays in a loss-of-coolant-accident, the possible failure of safety l systems in a loss-of-coolant-accident due to thermal shock, and the lack of adequate instrumentation to detect severe fuel fail-ures, and many cthers. The recent River Bend case has indicated ( that these problems must be addressed. Edison has not shown adequate solutions to these generic safety problems. 11. Edison has not proven that Permi 2 could withstand a serious flood or that it is constructed in an area which ensures that such a flood would not occur. 12.. The Standards for Protection Against Radiation cur-rently in force, 10 C.F.R. Part 20, are inadequate, illegal, and in contravention of the Atomic Energy Act. Accordingly, l any radioactive emissions to be discharged in any form from i the Permi 2 plant are different than what would be permissible by virtue of valid radiation standards promulgated pursuant to the obligations of the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act. CEE contends that several inherent deficiencies result from the inadequacies of the standards which in turn ( impact on the lives of CEE members. (a) The standards do not take into account rac ation doses which the public nay receive frcm sources other tha.n l i a particular licensee of the Ccemission: and with respect to Edison, no precedure has been followed, or proposed, to I abate the 47 legality of the istandards; (b) The standards do not adequately take into account I ~ iccumulations of emissions'of maicactivity which =ay be present as a result of conti-E e:nissions of radicactivity with respect to a licensem ?,rd wit respect to Edison, no procedure has been fcC a q. or proposed. to abate the i I egalit'f af the standap $i The standards do not adequate 17 provide for di "a ences (c) in tolcration of radiation in different hu=an ceings n different given locatices; and with respect to :.dison, no precedure has been followed, or propcsed, to acate the illegality of *he stan4-ds ; i 5

(d) The standards do not adequately provide for a tracing of emissions of radioactivity through all pathways by which such radioactivity may be transmitted to the pop-ulation in a given area, as well as each pathway by which it may be transmitted in the eco-system in a given geo-graphical area; and with respect to Edison, no procedure has been followed, or proposed, to abate the illegality of the standards. 13 The proposed plant is designed to emit radiation which would exceed maximun permissible concentration levels in the current radiation standards if one considers the reconcentration factor of certain radionuclides such as cesium-137, strontium-90, and iodine-131. No procedures by Edison have been undertaken to account for and abate this reconcentration phenomenon regarding many of the radionuclides to be emitted from the plan in normal operations. ( 14. The operation of Fermi 2 would entail the acceleration of the volume of radioactive poisons which would be released at all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. These would unques-tionably endanger the health and well-being of CEE members and citizens throughout the country. (a) The mining, milling, enrichment, and fabrication of the uranium to be used at Fermi 2 presents very serious health hazards that have been documented in recent NRC publica-tions and cases. In particular, evidence has indicated that the long-term effects of radon gas from mining and milling tailings may cause hundreds of thousands of deaths due to e cancer and genetic effects. These results appear irreversible should Fermi 2 be allowed to go into operation. (b) Recent evidence has indicated that routine " allowable" releases and common accidental releases of radioactive toxins will cause large numbers of concers in citizens living in the I area surrounding the plint. (c) The current plans for temporary storage on-site of used reactor fuel at Fermi 2 provide no guarantee of protection of CEE members and the general public from overstorage which could lead to safety problems or from the possibility of in-ternal or external sabotage. l (d) CEE contends that a method for effective storage of I high level and transuranic wastes has not ben demonstrated. This lack of a solution presents serious health and environ-mental concerns to CEE members and the general public, and does so for periods of hundreds of thousands of years. i l l l 6

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 15. CEE contends that Edison's planning has given in-adequate consideration to the future costs and the availability of the proposed fuel and other possible fuels. Several specific examples follow: (a) Adequate planning on the part of Edison would have she<n that uranium would in the future become scarce and ex-pensive (the cost is presently rising at a nearly exponential rate).(b) Edison has failed to consider the costs of and diffi-culties in obtaining other fuels, such as uranium-233, thorium isotopes and plutonium isotc;es at least one of which CEE contends will have to be used in the Fermi 2 plant. For example, the future of reprocessing plants in the U.S. is in jeopardy. (c) CEE contends that Edison has not considered that the necessity of importing expensive U-238 will further create an 7 outflow of American money to foreign lands, thereby making capital less available in the U.S. mad creating financial burdens on the American public. CEE further contends that uranium importation will not move the U.S. away from energy dependence on foreign interests. The implication of (a) and (b) above is that, in addi-tion to unexpected costs which will appear in our rates, CEE members and other Edison customers may in the future be affected by Edison's inability to fuel their nuclear plants (i.e. re-placement costs for electricity during shutdowns). 16. CEE contends that the NRC has failed to fulfill its own requirements regarding the sale of part of Fermi 2 to Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative, Inc., and Wolverine Electric Cooperative, Inc. According to the Atomic Energy Act and NRC Regulations the Co-ops must satisfy all of the re-t quirements for receiving an operating license without regard to the position of Edison. Therefore, CEE contends that the operating license for Fermi 2 should be withheld until the NRC performs its lawful duty. l 12. The Environmental I= pact Statement filed by the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) is inadequate and the subject of an action in Federal District Court on that issue. Drake v. U.S.D.A., No.67-GO7-CA-7 (W.D. Mich. ). While the mere presence of l that action may not be sufficient grounds for the denial of an i operating license, NRC must examine the =erits of the suit to deter-mine the likelihood that the EIS will be found inadequate. The im-pact of such a decision would be to make illegal the Co-ops ' pur-chase, which would require denial of the license. I i 7

3riefly, the REA's i= pact statement is inadequate for these reasons: (a) REA relied almost wholly on NRC's EIS filed at the time of issuance of the construction premit. As noted 'n.elcw, this state-ment was inadequate when filed, and RZA made no attempt to improve nor uudate the substance. lb) REA violated its cwn regulation, as set fort in 3ulle-tin 20-22, Part VIII, requiring notice of a draft EIS. No draft was ever prepared, in violation of NE?A as interpreted by federal d c o u-ts. (c) Absolutely no alternate, and superior, sources of energy for the.Co-ops' service areas were considered by ?.EA, in defiance of the ' express requirements of NEPA. (d) REA sought no comment from state of local units of govern-ment in spite of the express command of NEPA. (e) REA failed to consider the devastating:ci= pact of the out-flow of locat. dollars, the loss of potential inflow of construction investment, and the less of substantial taxable constructi's in the northern areas. Envirenmen*al Coneerns_ 13,r NRC has failed to address the avambility of alternatives to the Fermi 2 plant, in the Environmental Impact Statement filed at the ti=e of issuance of a construction permit and at all ti=es subsequent. In so doing, NRC has violated the requirements of *.he National Environmen.al Policy Act.

19. Because of the peculiar atmcapheric conditions, which often urevail throughout the year in the Monroe area, adequate consideration cursuant to NEPA has not been given to the evauoration and fogging problems and other a*mespherie effects which w" i occur as a result of the daily operation of the cronosed ulant's cooling towers.

Nor has adequate considera-tion been given to the impact of this incr3ased fogging on ~ agricultural uses, beating safety, and the recreaticnal availability of the M e. These considerations are espec:,. ally important, inasmuch as they affect Michigan's second largest industry, tourism. For the foregoing reasons. Petitioner resrectfully requests that a hearing be condue:ed6n the applica: ion for an operating license. and that CII be granted standing as an in:ervencr in the proceeding. ,7 .-t u, s.--, q ,a Rocer Maynard Member and Au:hcri:ed Represen:ame o f C 8

e UNITED STATES CF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) DETROIT EDISON ) Docket No. 50-341 Fermi Plant, Unit 2 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of the foregoing document entitled'" Amend 4d *

Petition to Intervene" by deposittin the United States mail, first class this 4th day of December, 197% on the following:

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn Docketing and Service Section Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [W g Washington, D.C. 20555 W A Dr~y /,# Eugene B. Thomas, Jr., Esq... Q 8/ g ['e h LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae 1757 N Street, N.W. Wahhington, D.C. 20036 , /j F ~~ Peter A. Marquardt, Esq.. The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 j),?ujr.& Wi Robert Maynard ~ On this % day of December, 1978, before me personally l appeared Robert Maynard, to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. My commission expires 'G e,, +f :( Ls, !O i f'Wk U u,~ p. xT.l.fh-Notary Public ~ Date My.~ r.

A L Mm W, 0 M 0.* w &, :===Jw nJ d& ,(CEE),9 (D. Q %. D M t&'A.fr M c.s sh & % % %$ w5gA b~+ W ,o. A. diel so n w & & C6'E o.&=3 ( } y c ec A A%. 0 % : n, a @ %. f. a d y to n w c e s 's ~l+ % w n M 62 ) . L A.w k s r~ ;,o M L w crJ/ k m & .h. '- o@( Q d CEE J 1: 14%4 &. W bjo"ww V it9m a: Ch & 2317pg u, esc. o ~ S A T ND p-1 A.sp : yL 1 4/,3S m d i f<, gy } r +

AFFIDAVIT OF INEtiST I, Jeffrey A. Alson, hereby depose and say-1. I reside at 772 Green, Bldg. 4, Ypsilanti, Michigan, E8197, within 35 miles of the proposec Fermi 2 plant. 2. 1 am a member of citizens for F.mployment and rnergy and desire that CEE represent my interests through intervention in any 14R0 proceeding relating to Fermi 2. 3 I adopt and support the statements of intenests and contentions delineated in CL:;'s amended Petition to intervene. Cate: Dec. E, 1978 'a gM G.C%v J'ffrey a. Alson Cn this kth day of vecember, 1978, before me personally appeared Jeffrey a. Alson, to =e known to be the. person descricec in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowlecged i that he executed the same as his free act and ceed. ny Cc==ission expires: i

• I.! !

-{Nii! h. '- l f f ~ Notary tuolic Late J g \\tD' fsA hh \\ L, a 4,s* n .e ;., $ gf / q. ..I ., s}}