ML16343B068

Craft Combined Reply to DTE and NRC

ML16343B068
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	12/08/2016
From:	Collins J P Citizens Resistance at Fermi Two
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
50-341-LR, ASLBP 14-933-01-LR-BD01, ASLBP 16-951-01-LR-BD01, RAS 51496
Download: ML16343B068 (13)

Text

1 8 December 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-341-LR ) DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY ) NRC-2014-0109 ) (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2) ) NPF-43 ) License Renewal Application (LRA) ) ______________________________________________________________________________ CITIZENSSTAFF ANSWERS TO CRAFT CONSOLIDATED MOTIONS AND PROPOSED NEW CONTENTION Respectfully submitted by Jessie Pauline Collins Pro se filer for (CRAFT) 17397 Five Points Street Redford MI 48240 (313) 766.4311 jessiepauline@gmail.com David H. Schonberger has co-authored this Combined Reply and Proposed Contention 2 8 December 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) DTE ELECTRIC CO. ) Docket No. 50-341-LR (Fermi Nuclear Reactor, Unit 2) ) ) AND DTE LAWYERS OPPOSITION TO THE CRAFT MOTION TO REOPEN THE HEARING AND SUBMIT A NEW CONTENTION DTE filings against reopening the hearing and submitting a new contention regarding the proposed 20-year license extension for the aged Fermi 2 nuclear reactor. For the reasons set forth below, the Secretary of the Commission acted within its sound discretion when it halted the issuance of the 20-year license extension to DTE Electric Company, a subsidiary of DTE Energy, and should therefore allow the ALSB Hearing to be reopened and admit our new contention. CRAFT concurs with appreciation the Acting Secretary of the Commission for recognizing the legality of our Motion to Reopen the Hearing and present a new contention. NRC Staff filing continues to focus on the shortcoming of filing done by average citizens Motion to Reopen should also be denied because it is untimely and does not raise an stparagraph) We believe that not protecting citizens to the fullest extend is a grave environmental issue.

3 NRC Staff ad(page 11, footnote 48) CRAFT holds that the lack of providing KI to the public is a grave envi § 2.326(a)(1). However, instead of recognizing the seriousness of potassium iodide (KI) distribution, NRC Staff dismisses extension on November 9, 2016, and demonstrates bias again by recommending license extension two days ago, December 6, 2016, all this before the ASLB has had the opportunity to hear the merit of the argument. CRAFT takes issue with DTE characterization in staIbid) CRAFT filed within the deadline to file, criterion) We charge that DTE has no excuse for their failure to ensure the safety of the region by credit for KI in calculating the consequences of a severe accident. Because incorporating KI into WHEREFORE, CRAFT respectfully urges the Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners to same.

4 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 2.309(i) (NRC Staff Answer at 1), pro se Intervenor Resistance at Fermi 2 (CRAFT) respectfully submits this Combined Reply to portions of DTE and NRC Staff Answers to CRAFT Consolidated Motions and Proposed New Contention (Petition) in accordance with 10 CFR Parts 2.309, 2.326, and 2.323. Chronicled and docketed, the NRC Staff (Office of NRR Director) retreated from an unwelcome November 2016 announcement and indefinitely put on hold the planned issuance of a license renewal in this ew contention and motion to reopen this prematurely closed record. DTE Electric Company seeks a Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant operating license extension to allow continued operations until 2045. CRAFT continues to and related motions. In due course, this new pleading appears before the Commission. RESPONSE TO DTE and STAFF OBJECTIONS review and that CRAFT fails to raise a genuine dispute in large part because the Fermi 2 SAMA Answer at 2). adequacy of the Fermi 2 Emergency Plan and implementation, and therefore involves a matter that need not be examined as part of license renewal. Regarding characterizations, CRAFT contends that, in reality, DTE seeks to hide behind friendly regulatory processes and rules of procedure in order to earn an operating license renewal for a 5 s contention shows has serious deficiencies related to emergency incantations to the contrary should be resoundingly rejected. Furthermore, regarding characterizations, one striking theme revealed in this Reply Brief and throughout this license -border communities within the 50-mile radius of Fermi 2. As CRAFT has shown, DTE and the NRC Staff have not reasonably and fairly evaluated the environmental consequences of continued operations; as well, CRAFT has shown that relicensing would be inimical to public health and safety. Therefore, CRAFT contends that a fair reading of NEPA and AEA would settle this matter expeditiously in favor of CRAFT. and maintains with the Applicant extends to the environmental justice implications that a proper ER SAMA fails to discuss this environmental justice (EJ) contention which falls squarely within the scope of license renewal. In lieu of filing a complete Answer, DTE incorrectly categorizes all new contentions that allege an ER SAMA deficiency as inherently stale and void because such challenges supposedly could have been raised at the outset of the proceeding. (DTE Answer at 5). Yet, paradoxically, DTE 6 admits that KI input considerations in the Fermi 2 SAMA analysis were not disclosed to CRAFT until May 2015, (DTE Answer at 5). In any event, CRAFT explicitly pleaded that this new SAMA dispute is based on materially different and newly commencing regulations being implemented in Canada by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) pertaining to augmented KI distribution for EPZ communities as a Fukushima Lessons Learned mitigation program. The NRC Staff Answer (at In the Petition discussion on SAMA KI calculations, CRAFT shows that the SAMA analysis would surely be affected by considering KI coverage, and therefore, it is reasonable to assume that consequences for intra-EPZ internal populations with KI coverage would be less severe and costly than consequences for intra-EPZ internal populations without KI coverage. Therein rests e Petition based upon new and materially different information previously unavailable to the public. Importantly, regardless of the general parameters and sizes of U.S. versus Canadian EPZs e 10-mile Fermi EPZ, it -mile radius of international scope. While i may be conservative not to take credit for the KI program in the calculation of overall accident consequences in the SAMA analysis, it is not conservative, and it is in fact unreasonable modeling, to use a methodology that assumes a uniform implementation of KI and methodologies are warranted in this plant-specific, site-specific Fermi 2 SAMA analysis which proclaims to analyze a region of international scope. CRAFT argues that materially new 7 and different conditions exist within the region of SAMA analysis such that an alternative analysis would be more accurate and meaningful, particularly if the analysis could be viewed in subsections exposing demographic disparities of KI coverage indicating an environmental a genuine material changes are warranted for any SAMA analysis which fails to incorporate [reasonable] inputs and yield [ justice contention proffered in its new Petition, continues an Applicant pattern that previously led to an ASLB (Board) admission of a different CRAFT contention at the initial stage of this proceeding. (CRAFT Contention 8). Ironically, CRAFT Contention 8 is based, in part, on ous omission that DTE had failed to accurately consider the Canadian portion of its Fermi 2 SAMA analysis. Furthermore, the in-scope issue of environmental justice (EJ) under NEPA is an underlying aspect of not only this newly proposed SAMA EJ contention but also of another Board-admitted CRAFT contention from earlier in this proceeding. (CRAFT Contention 2 regarding the cross-border sovereign Walpole Island First Nation). Thus, much like CRAFT Contentions 2 and 8, warrants further review starting with oral argument before the Board. Regarding the timeliness requirements for FSEIS-based migrated contentions and more claim (DTE Answer at 5, n. 6) that closing the record effectively nullified and voided the 8 ative to the customary thirty-day between the opposing parties at the outset. It now appears that DTE has reneged before the end of the license renewal application process. The Commission disfavors the straying from strict practice and procedure as DTE has allowed itself to do. emature and unwarranted decision to terminate the proceeding and close the record in the first place. The attempt to stall and prevent the quick and complete implementation of Fukushima Lessons Learned. (DTE Answer at 6). The Commission should duly enable the full consideration of sed rather than erect overwhelmingly heavy procedural 2.323). pro se Petitioners in accordance with decades of case law. CRAFT provides a sufficient level of evidence to warrant nswer, the premise of which relies entirely on computer models and bare assertions in the form of input power plant operations and real events.

9 s a sound document which will assist in developing a sounder record and does not conflict with the restrictions set forth in 10 CFR Part 2.323. The NRC Staff nor blallustrate this point, a truly genuine new argument and base proffered in this Reply Brief would look something like the following legitimate evidence-based claims placed in front of the conclusion. Safety contention (Part 54): CRAFT contends that a disturbing pattern of Fermi 2 Plant Operating License Event (AMPs) intended to provide adequate protection and reasonable assurance of safe operations effectively manage age-related degradation for safety-related passive SSCs under Part 54 in order to ensure continued reliable safe operations is weak. Environmental contention (Part 51): Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews (CEQ Memo to U.S. NRC, et al., August 10 1, 2016). Moreover, while the Final SEIS does include a limited consideration of climate change impacts to the proposed project and to the affected environment and resources of concern, it does Guidance or by the Final CEQ Memorandum. CRAFT contends that although it is the NRC mply with NEPA given that NEPA applies to federal analysis under NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51 within the scope of a license renewal review. Therefore, to the extent that the original ER migrated through the FSEIS is equally deficient. Further review is warranted. CONCLUSION Concerning the argument that Intervenorssubstitute for the affidavit requirement. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-124, 6 AEC 358, 364 (1973) (Staff document raised significant safety issues on its face, so Appeal Board indicated that the affidavit requirement could be bypassed). Here, the documents cited by Intervenors do not require authentication, and neither the Staff nor DTE are making an issue about the substance of the evidence, choosing instead to make much about the supposed improper procedure which brings it into the record. A larger issue looms here than addressing the minutiae of procedure. If one looks past the arguing over lack of an affidavit from Intervenors, this matter is grave enough that the panel should sua sponte grant a hearing on the motion. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-738, 18 NRC 177, 188 n.17 (1983); Houston Lighting & Power 11 Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), LBP-85-19, 21 NRC 1707, 1723 (1985). The Board has broader responsibilities than do adversary parties, and the timeliness test of Vermont Yankee does not apply to the Board with the same force as it does to parties. Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1-4), LBP-78-2, 7 NRC 83, 85 (1978). At its essence, Intervenors have repeatedly sought for a simple, comparatively inexpensive step to be taken - provisions for the ready availability of potassium iodide for those inhabiting the relevant part of the emergency planning zone. DTE and the NRC Staff have hyped an inexpensive step which would have enormous potential humanitarian consequences (and indirectly, public health monetary savings) into a battle royal over SAMA. That is a diversion. The claimed conservatism of computerized assessment is being used to obscure the fact that the utility and Staff care vanishingly little that neighbors of the plant could readily become victims of it. Intervenors have established sufficient information. The Board need not search for evidence to support their case. Intervenors have submitted information which raises a serious safety issue. The Board must keep its broader responsibility in mind and grant a hearing on the motion, sua sponte. The public is essentially being told to swallow logarithms instead of pills, but only one can prevent a possibly life-threatening encounter with radioactive iodine. In conclusion, foConsolidated Motions and Request for a Hearing for a Proposed New Contention in this the scope of this license renewal proceeding, raises a genuine material dispute with the Fermi 2 ER SAMA analysis, is supported with sufficient specificity for a pro se Petitioner, and shows 12 ons Not Learned.

13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Secretary of the Commission In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-341 DTE Electric Company ) December 8, 2016 (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2) ) ) * * * *

• CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE REOPEN THE RECORD OF LICENSE RENEWAL PROCEEDING FOR FERMI UNIT 2 lectronic Information Exchange system this 8th day of December, 2016. This document is also being submitted as matter of courtesy to email addresses of NRC and DTE Attorneys and to the Hearing Docket Secretary Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by: /s/ Jessie Pauline Collins Pro se Counsel for Petitioners 17397 Five Points Street Redford, MI 48240313.766.4311 jessiepauline@gmail.com