ML20066E305
| ML20066E305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1982 |
| From: | Minock J CITIZENS FOR ENERGY & EMPLOYMENT, MINOCK, J. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20066E303 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211150035 | |
| Download: ML20066E305 (9) | |
Text
.
N t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED Tit!?O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'82 N0'110 A11 :04 c--
u...
^'r.
.A-In the Matter of:
3 THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY Docket No. 50-241 (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power (Operating License)
Plant, Unit 2)
CITIZENS FOR ' EMPLOYMENT AND ENERGY EXCEPTIONS TO INITIAL DECISION T
The Citizens for Employment and Energy.hereby appeal the Initial Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued October 29, 1982, and take the following exceptions to that decision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.762:
b 1.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that the allegations in Contention 4 (a), concerning the physical security at the plant site during construction,~are not-supported by the evidence (Initial Decision, p.
6, paragraph 11).
2.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that none of the allegations in Contention 4 (a) were linked to the present condition of the reactor (Initial Decision, pp.
6-7, paragraph 11).
3.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that none of the additional allegations presented under Contention 4 (b), concerning the quality 8211150035 821108 O,DR ADOCK 05000341 P
assurance program, form an adequate basis for a present concern about the safety of Fermi 2 (Initial Decision, p.
13, paragraph 20).
4.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that the testimony shows no factual basis exists for any of the additional allegations concern-ing Contention 4 (b) (Initial Decision, p. 13, f
T paragraph 20).
/
5.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that
,/
the testimony by Applicants and NRC staff shows that the Applicants' inspection program was adequate during the early stages of construction (Initial Decision, p. 14, paragraph 21).
6.
CEE tak'es exception to the ASLB's finding that Contention 4 (b) is without merit (Initial Decision, p. 14, paragraph 21).
7.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that there is no basis in fact for the alle'gation that required permanent quality assurance re-cords have been lost, or destroyed by fire (Initial Decision, p.
17, paragraph 26).
8.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that Contention 4 (c) is without merit (-Initial Decision, p. 17, paragraph 26).
9.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that there is no credible evidence that the Parsons l
2 t
Company was dismissed for reasons related to quality assurance or quality control (Initial Decision, p.
20, paragraph 29).
10.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that Contention 4 (d) is without merit (Initial Decision, p.
20, paragraph 29).
11.
CEE takes e'xception to the ASLB's finding that the testimony by the Applicants and the NRC staff shows that Edison has satisfactorily re-paired cracks in the base of the reactor building and that the cracks do not amount to flaws in the construction of Fermi 2 (Initial Decision, p.
22, paragraph 35).
12.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding thEt g
the evidence does not support CEE's allegation of a construction flaw in the base of the reac-tor building (Initial Decision, p. 22, para-graph 35).
13.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that the testimony of the Applicants and the NRC staff shows that Edison satisfactorily repaired the cracks in the structural steel surrounding l
the drywell (Initial Decision, p. 23, paragraph 39).
l l
14.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that there is no credible evidence to support CEE's l
s allegations concerning cracks in the base of the reaccor building or cracks in the struc-tural steel surrounding the drywell (Initial Decision, p. 24, paragraph 40).
15.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that Contention 4 (e) is without merit (Initial Decision, p. 24, paragraph 40).
h l6.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that the testimony of Applicants and staff on evacu-4 ation time in the Stony Point area is reason-able and convincing (Initial Decision, p.
29, paragraph 48).
17.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that the entire ~ population of Stony Point could be v
evacuated along Pointe Aux Peaux Ro'ad within 1-1/2 to 2-1/2. hours (Initial Decision, p. 30, paragraph 48).
18.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that such evacuation times are acceptable (Initial Decision, p.
30, paragraph 48).
19.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that the matters raised by Ms. Madsen and by CEE (including-but not limited to:
handicapped persons transportation, notification of the hearing. impaired, Edison's authority to start the siren, and the Governor's response time) a
I do not fall under Contention 8 - whether there is a feasible escape route from Stony Point (Initial Decision, p.
30, paragraph 50).
20.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that the need to drive toward the reactor does not make Pointe Aux Peaux Road infeasible as an evacuation route (Initial Decision, p. 33, paragraph 53).,
21.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that it is likely that most of the residents would i
have left Stony Point before a re' ease occurred l
(Initial Decision, p. 35, paragraph 55).
22.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that the use of Pointe Aux Peaux Road as an evacua-b tion route creates only a negligible increase in the total risk to residents of Stony Point (Initial Decision, p. 36, paragraph 56).
23.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that the increase in risk does not justify building a road leading away from Ste f Point toward the West (Initial Decision, p.
36, paragraph 56).
24.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that the testimony by the Applicants and the Staff establishes that vehicles departing Stony Point during,an evacuation can be accomodated by Pointe Aux Peaux Road and that the feasibility 4
s of this road as an evacuation route is not impaired by the necessity of evacuation to-ward the reactor (Initial Decision, p. 36, paragraph 57).
25.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that if Monroe County were or should have been aware earlier, then the County's stated reasons for 1
failure to file on time cannot be accepted (Initial Decision, p.
39, paragraph 61).
26.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that i
there was not " good cause" for Monroe County's delay in interviewing (Initial Decision, p. 42, paragraph 67).
27.
CEE takss' exception to the ASLB's finding that the County has'made no showing as to why review by FEMA or the,NRC staff would not be adequate to protect th.e County's interest (Initial Decision, p.
43, paragraph 73).
28.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that the County offered no factual support for its assertion that it would assist in developing a sound record to allow intervention (Initial Decision,-p. 46, paragraph 74).
29.
CEE takes exc.eption to the ASLB's finding that elementary fairness requires that CEE be es-topped from raising issues important to the D
J
N t
safety of Monroe County residents (Initial Decision, p.
50, paragraph 81).
30.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that CEE has failed to show that there is new and significant information, which if available to the Board and parties would materially affect the decision (Initial Decision, p. 50, para-graph 82).
31.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that none of the allegations of Contention 4 are T(i'itial Decision, supported by evidence of record n
- p. 51, paragraph 85).
32.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that every matter raised in Contention 4 has been b
satisfactorily resolved (Initial Decision, p. 51, paragraph 85).
33.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that the evidence d'f record shows-~that Pointe Aux Peaux Road is feasible for evacuating persons from Stony Point (Initial Decision, p. 51, para-graph 86).
34.
CEE takes exception to the ASLB's finding that with respect to matters alleged by Contentions 4 and 8, ther.e is reasonable assurance that this facility can be operated without endangering the health and safety of the public, and that the l
I
s facility has been constructed and will be operated in accordance with the Commission's regulations.
(Initial Decision, p. 52, para-graph 87).
Respectfully submi ed:
/
-)
~
$n f&'
}
J n R. Minock 3
ttorney for CEE 305 Mapleridge Ann Arbor, MI 48103 s'
Dated:
November 8, 1982.
s M
e e
e o
e e
- >-,u,
-.-.-,wn
-,7,
_n.,,
s t
U^LKETED gre-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS32 NOV 10 A11:04 bb rtIC '
In the Matter of
)
cp$d$di !4j & SERvlCE D
4
)
Y DETROIT EDISON
)
Docket No.'50 3"41
)
(Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant,
)
Unit 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, i
I, John R. Minock, attorney for intervenor Citizens for Employment and Energy in the above captioned matter, hereby
\\
certify that I have served the following persons with CEE's EXCEPTIONS TO INITIAL DECISION and CONSENT TO SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL-by depositing them in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
b Docketing and Service Section Harry Voight, Esq.
Office of the Secretary LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
&McRae Washington, D.C.
20555 1333 New Hampshire Ave. N.W.
Suite 1100
. Colleen Woodhead, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Office of the Executive Legal Director Peter A. Marquardt, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Detroit Edison Co.
Washington, D.C.
20555 2000 Second Ave.
Detroit, MI 48226 Paul Braunlich, Esq.
19 East First St.
Monroe, MI 48161 f..'
Chairperson, Atomic._ Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission b
[00 (
Washington, D.C.
20555,
John R. Minock
/httorneyforCEE
,