ML24264A003
| ML24264A003 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/2024 |
| From: | Blind A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57109, 50-255-LA-3, ASLBP 24-986-01-LA-BD01 | |
| Download: ML24264A003 (0) | |
Text
September 19, 2024 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 1
8
Subject:
Supplemental Filing to Strengthen Standing of Petitioners in NRC Docket No. 50-255-LA-3
Dear Members of the Licensing Board,
This supplemental filing provides additional support for the standing of homeowner petitioners residing full or part time, within the Ten-Mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for the Palisades Nuclear Plant. These petitioners face direct, substantial risks due to the proximity of their homes to the Palisades Nuclear Plant, and I am submitting this to strengthen the legal and factual basis for their standing in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d).
Additional Argument for Standing of Homeowners within the Ten-Mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ)
Homeowners within the ten-mile EPZ are exposed to specific, significant risks due to their proximity to the Palisades Nuclear Plant. These risks include the potential for radiological exposure, economic losses, and mandatory evacuation in the event of a nuclear emergency. Below, I outline the legal and factual basis supporting their standing:
September 19, 2024 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 2
8
- 1. Proximity and Direct Risk of Harm The ten-mile EPZ is a federally established zone, recognized by NRC regulations, which represents an area of increased risk for those residing close to nuclear facilities. Residents within the EPZ face the following risks:
Radiation exposure: In the event of a General Emergency, residents within the EPZ are at immediate risk of exposure to airborne radioactive particles.
This poses serious health risks such as Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS) and an increased risk of cancer, particularly thyroid cancer.
Environmental contamination: Radioactive fallout can contaminate soil, water, and buildings, leading to long-term health risks from external radiation (groundshine) and internal radiation (through the inhalation or ingestion of contaminated water or food).
The petitioners are not merely concerned members of the public but are individuals directly at risk due to their close proximity to the Palisades Nuclear plant. This makes them part of the most vulnerable population in the event of entry into the Palisades Emergency Plan, far more at risk than individuals living outside the EPZ.
September 19, 2024 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 3
8
- 2. Regulatory Recognition of Harm in the EPZ The establishment of the ten-mile EPZ by federal agencies, including the NRC and FEMA, acknowledges the heightened risk faced by residents within this zone:
Emergency planning: The EPZ requires specialized emergency planning that includes evacuation protocols, sheltering, and notification systems to ensure residents can take immediate protective action in the event of a nuclear emergency.
Potassium Iodide (KI) distribution: The provision of KI to residents within the EPZ to block radioactive iodine absorption further underscores the distinct and serious risks faced by those living in the area.
This federal recognition of vulnerability demonstrates that homeowners in the EPZ have a direct, legally recognized interest in the plants safety and operational status.
- 3. Evacuation Requirements: FEMA and State of Michigans Role FEMA plays a central role in coordinating evacuation plans for nuclear plants, working with the NRC to ensure public safety in the event of a
September 19, 2024 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 4
8 radiological release. Under federal law, FEMA mandates evacuation for residents within the EPZ as part of the emergency response.
The State of Michigan has established legal obligations under its Emergency Management Act and Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) program to evacuate residents within the EPZ during a nuclear emergency. These evacuation orders are mandatory, not voluntary, and aim to protect the public from the risks posed by radiological exposure.
These mandatory evacuation protocols present clear harm to homeowners, disrupting daily life, imposing economic burdens, and potentially resulting in long-term displacement.
- 4. Harm through Exposure and Economic Impact Homeowners within the EPZ face long-term risks beyond immediate radiation exposure, including:
Economic losses: Property values within the EPZ are vulnerable to devaluation due to the perceived risks associated with the plants operations.
Long-term displacement: In cases of severe contamination, residents could face prolonged or permanent displacement.
September 19, 2024 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 5
8
- 5. Historical Precedents of Evacuation and Harm The risk of evacuation is not theoretical, as evidenced by historical nuclear incidents:
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster (2011): The evacuation zone extended over 12 miles, displacing more than 150,000 people, many of whom have not been able to return home due to contamination. The social, emotional, and financial toll of this displacement was immense.
Three Mile Island Incident (1979): Even in less severe incidents, precautionary evacuations within five miles of the plant occurred, emphasizing the seriousness with which these protocols are enacted to protect public health.
- 6. Case Law Supporting Evacuation and Public Safety Measures Several court cases reinforce the standing of individuals living near nuclear plants when it comes to issues of public safety:
Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir.
1984): This case recognized the importance of public participation in
September 19, 2024 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 6
8 NRC decisions, especially in situations where the health and safety of nearby residents are at stake.
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (1983): This case emphasized that NRC decisions must prioritize public safety, which aligns with the petitioners concerns about the potential harm posed by the Palisades Nuclear Plant.
- 7. Statutory and Regulatory Framework Supporting Standing 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E requires that emergency plans specifically address evacuation and sheltering for residents within the EPZ, further reinforcing the heightened risks faced by homeowners.
The Price-Anderson Act also recognizes the reality of potential harm by providing compensation mechanisms for individuals affected by a nuclear incident, including property damage and personal injury. This statutory framework confirms that those living within the EPZ face a real and credible threat to their health and property, underscoring their standing in this case.
September 19, 2024 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 7
8
==
Conclusion:==
Homeowners within the ten-mile EPZ face unique and legally recognized risks due to their proximity to the Palisades Nuclear Plant. These risks include radiation exposure, economic losses, and mandatory evacuation during a nuclear emergency.
The argument that "no harm" has been shown is clearly unsupported, as the potential for harm is both credible and recognized by federal law and regulations.
Given these substantial and unique risks, the petitioners have a legitimate interest in the safety and operational status of the Palisades Nuclear Plant, justifying their standing under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d).
I respectfully request that this additional argument be considered alongside the original petition submitted on September 9, 2024.
Sincerely, Alan Blind Representative for the Joint Petitioners
September 19, 2024 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 8
8 Supplemental Submission Declaration, Petitioner Standing