ML20126F529

Petition to Intervene in Licensing Proceeding & Request for Hearing.Proof of Svc Encl

ML20126F529
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	03/05/1981
From:	Lodge T, Wilt D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, LODGE, T.J., WILT, D.D.
To:
Shared Package
ML20126F524	List: ML20126F520 ML20126F529
References
NUDOCS 8103180626
Download: ML20126F529 (9)

Text

'

t

%l 9 5 THE NUCLT.AR 4.C"LATORY C0tCIS. ION UNITED STATES OF !.:: ERICA I:s THE MATTER OT: Docket Numbers 50 440

}  !

)30-441 Cleveland :;1ectric 111uminating Co., et al Petition for Leave,to .

Perry Naclear Power Plant ) I"E'f"'"'

)

@g "I l scu/

Units 1 and 2

)

s Application for Facility ) '

Operating Licenses / 000 D\~

g MAR 161981 > $

cme, af t*e W C /

Deosung & semcs h 1. Now come the followings fo ksach h Sunf1 ver Alliance, Inc. Jenny Steindam Northshore Alert Harold steindas Evelyn Stebbins Les Gerlosky Richard Laring Margaret Cerlosky p David Nash William Brotzman Gail Caduff Nash Grand River L:inery Linda Qualls Cumings homsted Park Corp.

David Qualls Toledo Coalition for safe Energy ,

Citizens for aafe Energy

• and petition the Commission to grant them leave to intervene in the captioned matter pursuant to 10 CFR 2.714 and to set this matter down for public hearing.

In support of their petition, the above petitioners make the following representations as to themselves; their righta to be made parties in this procuecing; tne u.ture of their property, financial and other interests in this proceeding and the effects that any order issued in thth proceeding will have on your petitioners 8 interest.

1 IDENTITY OF PETITIONERS

2. The Sunflover Alliance Inc. is a non-profit Ohio Corporation made up of and controlled by residents of Ohio who live and work and own property in Lake and Aahtabula Counties, Ohio. These areas are within a 1 to 50 mile radius of cne rerry piant. as residents or tnw geogsaphical area immediately surrounding the Perry plant, their economic, social, ,

political and psychological interests are impacted and effected by the potential operation of the Perry plant. Further, the members of the

.,unflouer Alliance are directly affected by the safe operation of the

. i ,y.o unw r u

,. s u nrum w. Petr ..nt. 1.ccr mem5cr c f tS unflo er A!!!cnce, In:. is dire:ti, concerne' :n' nr.s an inten st .? a ac t i vi t v

...m . . . . .

• O , b 8103180 g

which effects the econor.ic vitality of tais area or .tich in any way lessens the value of their property. !)e eperation of t e Perry plant, if permitted, vill directly anc insediately ispect on Lake and r.sntabula Countica and the ability of these areaa to co=pete effectively witn otter areas of the nation f or economic development. If the oeeratioe of en.

Perry plant lessens the coececitive acility of Late anc ashtacula '

Coonties for economic development, tnis will redace the value cf treir property and reduce their aoility to locate jobs and support treir ,

families and therselves.

3. Thus, the inpact of any order promulgatec in this croceeding will affect the memoership of tne Sunflower Alliance in torna of their economic, social, psfchological and political interests.

l

4. The borthonore Alert is an unincorporated association of 1 8 i individuals residing in Cuyahoga, Lake, Aantabula, Portage and Samnit j Counties Ohio unich are within a radius of 1 to 50 niles of the Perry {

plant. Members of the Northshore Alert osn real property in the affected area; are employed in the af fected area and are raising their f aa 11es within the affected area. Parts of this five suunty ar.., also suown as toe mestern asserve, have a rich and unique historical heritage going back to the northwest territory. This co::sination of unique historical heritage; strong natural resource base; economic diversity; political stability sake tnw *estern Reserve the strong backbone of t e l

' united States. Members of the Northshore Alert, tho live and wert and I

own property in tais area, have an !=portant interest in the economic and safe operation of the Perry plant. If th6 operation of the Perry plant lessens the competitive aoility of the L estern Reserve f or i

economic development, this v111 recuce the value et toets property and reduce their ability to locate jobs and support their families and

)

I themselves. It is also a well known fact that this area of the state of i

i l

Ohio pays into the federal treasury note ttan it receives back th tre form of federal prograss. Thus, any adverse economic impact on this area caused by the inef ficient or unsafe operation of the Perry plant w!!!

hlb 5 FAN.HE%NFH l = s asntnerw. al.co adversiv 1 sact the nat!cr. as a . cole.

, ."% W -4 a l ._u _. . . ..

l

.g.

5. The Toledo Coalition for aafe Energy is an unincorporated association of individuals living in northwest Ohio. Their intervention vould permit individuals residing in the northern third of the state of Ohio to have their vital interests protected. horthwest Ohio, too, is part of the midwest industrial belt of this Country. The Toledo Edison Co, one of the applicants, is based in this area. Obviously Toledo Edison believes that it will somehoe benefit with this partnership rich the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. in a plant not in its geographical terri tory. Jince Toledo Edison is investing capital into the Perry plant, it is obviously affecting its service area and the area in which Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy is based. The adverse impact to Toledo Coalition for safe Energy is the f act that the capital invested by the Toledo l Edison Co sill not be available for useful purposes in the service area of the Toledo Ldison Co. This will adversely affect the members of the ,

Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy because the drain of capital from the area will lessen the ability of northsest Ohio to attract economic development. Thus, members of the Toledo Coalition for aafe Energy are vitally interested in the safe and economic operation of the Perry plant and have an interest to protect by intervention.

6. Evelyn Stebbins and Richard ering are individuals and residents of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. David Nash, Cail Caduf f Nash, Linda Qualls, David Qualls, Jenny Steindam, Harold Steindam, .es Gerlosky, Margaret Cerlosky and .1111am Brottman are all individual.s who reside either in Madison, Ohio or in Geneva. Ohio all within a ten mile radius of the plant. Grand River t inery and Cumings homsted Park Corp. are businesses located within a ten mile radius of the plant. Citizens for aafe Energy is a membership based orgaatzation with members living, working and owning property in Cuyahoga and E~ke Counties, Ohio all vithin the af fected area. These individuals and businesses who own property and operate businesses within the affected area are vitally interested in the safe, economic and professional operation of the Perry plant and their lives and property sill be affected by any order entered in this proceedings.

stow n utma n 11 Fi?.ST GROUND of !?.i!WENTION

• x As or.une m.

~,27.7,f7."*; 7. Petitioners restate all enat is alleged in paragraphs 1

~~ -- tnrough o nerein.

e w-- n v- -

g -w w 3

4.

8. Petitioners allege that the emergency and evacuation plans for the subject facilities are fatally defective in numerous respects including but not limited to inadequacy of notification plans;-

deficiencies in radiation exposure measurement techniques, insufficient practical workability; no agreement with local response organizations as to cost and implimentation of plans and inadequate notification of and information to media and residents within the ten (10) and fif ty (50) mile radil.

U III SECX)MD GROUND OF INTERVENTION c i i

9. Petitioners restate all that is alleged in paragraphs one through eight herein. I

{J t 6 10. Petitioners allege that the Applicants have not demonstrated I l

" i that they have the financial capability of completing Units 1 and 2;  ;

P that they lack the financial capability of operating Units 1 and 2;  !

D '

f that they lack the financial capability of decommisionning the facilities F

i and protecting the facilities after decommisatonning.

I IV THIRD CMOUND OF INTERVENTION

11. Petitioners restate all that is alleged in paragraphs one through ten herein.

1 i

12. Petitioners allege that the licensure of Perry Units land p 2 to operate will cause them and their members, as the case may be,.

! irreparable harm on the ground that the forecasted net energy demand of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co and the other applicants (herein.

P af ter referred to as " Applicants") for the coming two to eight* years does not justify licensure at this time.

13. There is considerable dispute on the issue of net energy h demand forecasts by Ohio utility companies . including Applicants, as t

,e demonstrated by the fact that Applicants have revised their ten year j i

electricity demand forecasta downtard by approximately 25* between their i L l 1978 and 1979 projections. This of course occurred after Applicants i

[ i were granted a construction license. A 1980 study by the United states General Accounting Qffice found that the national grouth rate in w row Av. n Es%Lr u electrict1

• demand may range as lov as 2.$7. per year through 1998.

n VAsutkai in.

.. m.

. . . . . . .c

.2 a .e t.e e M M544. MGh d W a..a., , . am em

, + s' --,mee ~ ~ - - ---~ -+

1 A 1980 analysis commissioned by the Ohio Office of Consumers' Counsel concludes that Ohio utilities, including Applicants, have greatly and historically overprojected estimates for net energy demand.

For Applicants, the Consumers' Counsel study reveals that the 1978

'986 gros th rates forecast may actually be overestimated Wrom 23; to more tr.an 100%. .

V FOURTH CROUND OT INTERVENTION

14. Petitioners restate all that is alleged in paragraphs 1 through 13 herein.

r

15. Petitioners allege that there is insufficient consideration i

I in the draft environmental statement for the subject facilities of '

I alternative energy possibilities including but not limited to industrial cogeneration and conservation in all sectors of electrical usage. I Petitioners further allege that adequate consideration of said altern- l i

atives could formulate the basis for a long range plan which, if implemented, vould completely obviate the need for operating licensure '

i of the Perry units at this time.

V1 FIFTH CROUND OF INTERVENTION

16. Petitioners r& state all that is alleged in paragraohs 1 through 15 herein.

17. Petitioners allege that the draft environmental statement i

for the subject facilities fails to adequately set forth and consider energy management options available to the co-owners of said facilities.

These inadequately considered possibilities include the implementation of load management plans; the use of innovative rate structures which encourage conservation and or equalization of usage by time of day and improved power exchange capabilities with utilities in otuus region. of tne state or unto and other counties which periodically have excess  ;

productive capacity.

{

i VII sir!H CROUND OF INTERVENTION

18. Petitioners restate all that is alleged in paragraphs 1 through 17 herein.

"TG4^' "'N"'

=sasprHHrm. 19. Petitioners allege enat there nas been totalay inaueyu.tv e,.....s.

I t

h b

.o.

consto. 61on, eitner in cne environmental impact statement documents -

or tne application for license or in the Final safety Analysis Report, of the health, safety and environmental effects of a possible major radiation release accident in the spent fuel storage pond contemplated I for usage at the facilities. Petitioners allege that this inadequate consideration impacts on the of f site emergency plans'and preparations, endangers the health and safety.of residents for a very large radius

~

.rouno 6ue plant, and is fatally defective to any serious consideration -

of licensure at this time.

VIII SLT!NTF CROUND OF INTERVENTION *

" 20. Petitioners rescate all that is alleged in paragraphs 1 ,

through 19 herein. ->

~

21. Petitioners allege that there is insufficient documentation l of the ability of the containment structures of said f acilities to safely inhibit a hydrogen explosion of the magnituee'and type which i occurred at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 near Harrisburg,' Pennsylvania ,

and of which the Commission is aware. Petitioners further allege that Licensing of the subject f acilities to emic certain minimal amounts of i radiation is inadequate to ensure the health and safety of persona, I animals and vegetation near the plant, including your petitioners herein.

14 EICHTH CaDUND OF INTERVENTION ~i

22. Petitioners restate all that is alleged in paragraphs 1 [

through 21 herein.

23. Petitioners allege that the tandem licensing of Units 1 and ,

2 is improper and contrary to the safvty considerations set forth in  !

I the nuclear energy policy established by Congress. Unic 2 is not ,

anticipated to be completed until May 1, 1987, if ever. This is more j than six years from now. To permit Unit 2 to be licensed for facility

{

operation at this time sill run afoul of safety considerations and economic policy considerations of both the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Polciy Act. It is entirely conceivable that events during the ensuing six years will coviate the need for Unit 2.

i mTADI A N H E5%1 F H LaCh Unit must be licensed on its een unique set of facts. '

s s ssncunem.

." M4$ #..' sb

. .g V sw wuw w.. .. t

. . m.

w n ~ ~ * - ww , ee w r , r-m----wwe,r"-.--e,.-~- wn , e~~u--e e ---->w-+ -,.rwm -r.-we **~v w

--,--o-,e --- - v

_ - .. . . , ... . . - _ . - _. - - . . .. x .

b

?

7..

e i NTNTH CHOUND OF INTERVENTION q-24 Petitioners restate all that is alleged in paragraphs 1 through 23 herein.

23. Petitioners allege that Applicants have demonstrated 5 throughout the construction process their inability to comply with the Quality Assurance Program established by both the Co=P.ission and ;be

• Applicants. Applicants construction practices, as demonstrated in the Commission's own inspection reports, are totally inexcusable. ,

Petitioners allege that Applicants have not constructed Perry in

- accordance with applicable standards and that there are the following but by no means the only deficiencies i f A) that the General Electric reactors, being used at Perry,  !

have developed cracking at the primary coolant nozzles.  !

Thus, the safety of these reactors are currently under-going investigation. . ,

i B) that Perry is built on a geological fault and that the I i plant has not been built to earthquake standards. i C) that this plant uses baf fles in the cooling tosere made of asbestos; that during operation of the reactor the i asbestos will flake causing asbestos to leak into the I air or otherwise interfere with the safe operation of j the plant. ,

D) that Perry is being built in an area with a high water table; that as a consequence of this the concrete being

• poured into the ground is porous which will require- ,

that water be pumped from the concrece; that the contain- +

ment floor is being built on this type of concrete construction; that this technique is not a proven construction technique.

I Petitioners further allege that Applicants have wholly failed to operate f i

Davis-Bessie in a professional, economic and efficient manner as demonstrated by the Commissions own reporta. Pet'itioners allege that t

there is no reason to believe that Applicant's will operate Perry in the public interest either.

A1 TEhTH CROUND OF ffCERV!h710N t

26. Petitioners restate all that is alleged in paragraphs 1 i r through 25.  !

27. Petitioners allege that the application of Applicant i

f ails to adequately address the decommissioning process; has f ailed to satisfactorily to set forth what vill happen to Perry plant once [

• cGMAN HthMth its useful life has expired; has f ailed to estabit sh satisf actority a13NDERht48

.. ~ .

.,.....s.

...,-,-s-.

4 *w- V T

I I

. - - . , . -; .. _ - --- . - - - . . _ ~

e e

.s.  !

financial protection to protect the public during the decorsissioning j ,

) .

process. -l P

e

' HTedLFORI, Petitioners respectfully request that this honorable ,

s Cor.nission grant them the following relief forthwiths A) that Petitioners be granted leave to intervene on all ,  ;

i the grcunds as stated herein;

3) that this matter be set for such pre. adjudicatory and j.

b adjudicatory proceedings as the Comunission shall see fit all with l 5 leave of Petitioners to participate as full parties herein; C) that a hearing be granted to Petitioners with full participation!  ;

by the Petitioners prior to the licensure of Perry Units 1 and 2; D) that by way of adjudicatory relief, after a full hearing, ,

that this Coenission deny operating licensure of Perry Units 1 and 2.

p p

i I

.~, f h,/P .

paniel D. 111. Esq. ,

Attorney for Petitioners

, 7301 Chippewa M. ,

Brecksv111e, Chio 44141  !

! (216) 526 2330 l

Terry Lodge,Jvsq.'  ;

Attorney forJetittsvers  :

915 f.pitzer Bldg.  !

Toledo, Ohio 43604 (419) 25 % 5058 I,

i ,

i t

P

• Lt,$f A N H LMI J' M  !

h s A% Drntd ste, e*sess es s .u ,

e NO "' 5 P LJ Edos#4ey

.ee s i

i

?

. + - - . -- -,-.-.,,,m_._,. __, , , , , , , . . , , , _ , , _m., . . . , , , , , , _ . . , , ,

__ _ j

2 l

e 4 I Proof of service The undersigned attorney for Petitioners does hereby certify ttat on the O$ day of rarch, 1981 he sent a true copy of the Petition for Leave to intervene, by regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to tru f ollowing s Lxecutive Legal Director United atates Nuclear kegulatory Commission Lashington, D.C. 20555 i

Cerald Charnof f, Esq.

a b aw, Pittman, Potts and Trewbridge ,

1800 M Ltreet K'd basnington, D.C. 20036 l

l h,JD/s ,sW -

ante! D. 11t , E sq . j

/ Attorney for Petitioners 7301 Chippewa Rd.

Brecksv111e, Ohio 44141 (216) 526-2330 l

t t

l l

l 1

l '

l

• LLMAN H E5%I F W n\AND1HHfkb om m me -

4" . . G E

• 4 4 ,64 J es t u s men. e,so mw ..ee ee.4,

%Dh e l