ML19329D414

Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power Amended Petition to Intervene.Petition Should Be Granted.Petition Encl

ML19329D414
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	04/16/1973
From:	Stebbins E COALITION FOR SAFE NUCLEAR POWER
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19329D415	List: ML19329D414 ML19329D419 ML19329D422 ML19329D426
References
NUDOCS 8003060791
Download: ML19329D414 (7)

Text

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.

.. - 4

.

'

% UNITE STATE OF AMERICA pp y... . p, .. g

\ ATOMIC ENMOY C0f0 FISSION P" ' E ' ' #' 5b ' 3 7

BIFORE THE ATOMIC BAFEN A13 LICEScNG E0ARD h b 7 9 IN THS 11TTER OFr ) I

\ h... ED1 SON CO. and

(,1,.,7F1AfD c1ECTRIC IILUMINATIN Dockot No. 50-3h6

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power St.

.

AMDOED PETITION TO INTERVEE

.

The Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power, in confomity with the Boani

. '- /.

g Ordor of March 30, 1973, but not intendin8 to waive its objection to being again required to secure interrenor status in these proceedings, hereby submits the following statanent of interest in the proccodings and its supplemental list of contentions:

1. The Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power is composed of numerous conservation and environmentally oriented groups both incorporated and unincorporated, ard concerned individuals. Its manbership organizatima and their interoat in the temination of Construction Permit No.

CPPR 80 are fully documented in the ASLB hearing record of December 8-10, 1970, and the original intervention petition filod in those initial procoodings.

.

2. The Coalition, by reason o'r its mcnbor organizations, has a spocial conservational interest in the protection of the natural resources and marsh, ecosystan of Westorn Lake Erio. They will suffer injury in

.

fact to this intoraat from the operation of the Davis-Desse Nucloor Power Station by ronson of the plant 8s anticipated radiological and non-radiological air and water borno caissions ard by ranson of possiblo f

! unanticipated releases of radiological emissicna in excess of 10 CPR 20 limitations. 800306079/ g,,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

2

3. The Coalition further asserts-its interest as a privato attorney general in sooking adequate and comploto implomontation of the 4

requ.iromonts of the National hvironmental Policy Act of 1969, as that interoct rolatos to the final Environmental Inpact Statoment issued by the Directorato of Licensing and modo the subject matter of those proceedi ngs. In support of this public interest, the Coalition states that the Final Enviremontal Statanent constitutes an arbitrary and capracious refusal to comply with censideratien of alternatives as required by Section 102(2)(c) 111 of the National Enviroraontal Policy Act of 1969, in that the " staff 8' has failed and refused to consider the alternative of conservation.of energy within tho applicant 8s service areas so as to obviato the need for tho 872 FM additional capacity of the Davis-Besse plant. In other words, all alternatives to construction of this plante have not been considerod, including but not limitod to conservation of energy and underground siting.

h. The Coalition further esserts as a private attorney general, that the omission of the Ehvironmental Conserquences of nC1 css Mino" accidents is a breach of the Commission 8s NEFA responsibilities of substantive project ovaluation. The Environmental consequences of a malt down of the fuel core, total failure of the emergency core coolant n;mton, broach of the centaimont' vossal and emission of over 75% of gaseous radioactive wastos should bo documented and projectod in order to e emply with the HIPA full' disclosuro procedural requirements.

Potitioner contends that the Staff ts Environsontal Stata:ent is insuf- '

ficient because it fails to analyze the envirormental impact of accidants involving a broach of containmont and doposition of fission products in the range frcm 2 x 107 Ci to 1 x 109 C1. Presumably the Staff is taking guidance: fren the Septmber 1,1971 Annox to Appendix D which says of such accidents:

l l

)

-

3 1

-

.  !

"Their consequences could be sovere. Ilowever, the probability g f their occurrence is ao anall that their environmental risk tremely low. Defense in depth (multiple physical k  % iers), quality' assurance for design, manufacturo, and

\

9 ~

poration, continued surv411ance and teating, and conservative design are all applied to provide and maintain the roquired high decree of assurance that potential accidents in this class g are, and will remain, sufficiently remote in probability that tho environmontal risk is extremely 1cw. For these reascns,

% it is not nocessary to discuss such events in applicants 8 Enviromental Reporta."

Petitioner contends that this Annex has not been adopted as a Ccmission regulation and therefore has no force. Petitioner further contends that the language of it clearly applisa only to applicant's J:hvirornental iteports, and does not absolve the Staff from fulfilling its duties under the National Enviremontal Policy Act. Petitioner furtnemore c allengos the trut) of the quotation not forth above. The defenso in dopth concept has never been danonstrated to have any baaia in fact, and the assertions containod within the quotation concerning the icw probability of major accidents ar's purely speculativo and totally incking in any evidentiary basis. Petitioner contends that the Cor:: mission has admitted its lacti of knowledge by comissioning Professor Norman Rasmussen of MIT to make a probability assessmont of major reactor accidents.

Petitioner notes that in its August h,1972 lettor to the Joint Oct:mittee on A comic Energy, the Cornicsien caid:

"fhe present state of knowledge probably will not permit a ccmplete analysis of low-probability accidents in nuclear plants with the precision that would be desirable."

"It may turn out after further rosearch that it is impossible to make such assessments with aufficient precision to be usoful.

In this ovent a longer term effort on the probabilitics of accident-causing events would be requirod."

,

Petitioner contends that tho probability of a Class 9 acoident is in the range of 1 x 10-2 per reactor po'r hear to 1 x 10-3 por reactor por year.

Therefore the Staff should includo envircraontal impact analyses of this i class of accidents in its Etiviremental Statment, and the failure to

-

!

9  !

D\

• g h

,; . The Coalition asserts ao a privnte attorney general that there

.

b~  %

nau been no conoideration of an accident, which is entirely possible, which could contaminate Lake Erie as a public water supply. In Nuclear deactor Safety: An Evaluation of New Evidence, July,1971, the Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated the conserquences of a loss of coolant accident for a 650 Mw roacter, which is considerably smaller than

,

Davis-ucaso. They state:

" .... it is not at all impossible to breach the containment vessels.n uA release that involves primarily highly volatile or gaseous materials is more likely than one that involves dispersal of substantial solid material as a smoke or dust, although the lattor may certainly occur. The volatile and gaseous radio-active materials are the halogons and noble gases and include the Ienens, Kryptons, bromines, Iodines and Strontiums and comprise some 20% of the fission product inventory."

"Somo idea of the ha::ardous nature of the materials involved comos from recognizing that the Strontium-90 inventory in the reactor we are considering is sufficient to contaminate more than 1000 cubic miles of water in excess of pomitted AEC tolerance levels."

In testifying at the State of Ohio hearing on the Davis-Besse Plant, held in July,1971, Dr. Daniel Ford of the Union of Concerned Scientists

-

(page176) stated:

"The deposition of the matorials frem fallout in Lake Erie, the release of the Strontium 90 when the massivo fual would bo entombed below earth, it would surely be continuously releasing for many-tons of years a large amount cf activity into Lako Erie. As I indicated, the calculation that we had made here as to how Bront a volumo of water the Strontium in a hactor would contaminato, it would contaminate over the Atomic Energy Cocaissionis maximum

,

control recommendations a thousand cubic miles of water, which I boliove is scmething like twenty-fivo percent inoro than tho volume of Lako Erio, so it is an evidence of a consequenco of the failure of the emergency cooling syst It is core ralated in a very clear

-

way with the dotomination tha ould be called upon to make on the impact of this plant on water quality."

Therefore, the Staff should havo included envircnmental impact analysos of this accident possibility "ard its environmental effect on Lake Erie, and the failure to do ao is a violation of NEPA.

-- - -. . . -- -

9

'

e\ \ h .

5 g 6. The Coalition further asserts as a private attorney general that the AEC rhvironmental Report has not properly evaluated all possible stona damage and the enviromental consequances thereof, such as having the cooling tower lost due to stoms, floodinC of the area, or dar. age to buildings. The high lake levels and severe lake stoms make these events distinctly possible. Sorte of the recent stems in the area l Indicate that there would be difficulty in reaching the site of the

reactor even 'if the reactor itself should not be flooded. Therefore, tho Staff should have included environmental impact analyses of possible storm damage, and failure to do so is a violation of NEFA.

7. The Coalition further asaerta as a private attomey general that thoro has been no evaluation of the affect of using Flutonium as a fuel in the Davis-Ecase Reactor instsad of Uranium. It is evident from an article in the 711 Street Journal, . March 2,1973, page h, ,

"!!uclear Plant to Use Plutonium Fuel Ends in its own Reactor n , that the nuclear industry is planning to substitute plutonium for uranium in order to save fuol costa. The Big Rock Point plant near Charlevois, Itichigan, will be the first plant to be so : loaded, as stated, large scale

~

production of plutonium fuel rods will require special plants, expected to go into commercial operation in 1977. Therefore, the Staff should

.>

include environmental impact analyses hf the alternate use of plutonium ,

and the environmental ccnsequences thereof, and the failure to do so is  !

'l a violction of NEPA. -

8. The Coalition furtha5 asserts as a private attornoy general, that the proposed Environmental Monitoring dystem violatos the National l Ehvironmental Policy Act of 19d9, ~in that th's "staffn recommands con-1 -

l tinuation of the construction pemit (major federal action) without the ,

! 1

[ roquisite prior knowledge needed to perfom the substantivo balanoing

! .

1

- mm areAlmawas

.

6

• -

9. The Coalition further asserta, as a privato attorney general, that sections 5.9.1 through 5.9.5 of the Final Statement fail to ovaluate the environmental consequences of a transportation accident cauaing the releaa,e of radiation frca spent fuel clemento, A conclusion that auch accidents will not occur constitutes an arbitrary and capr$cious refusal to examine possible consequences of the proposed major federal

,

action under the NEA.

hMEREORE, the Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power prays that it be granted intervention status and be, pomitted to present evidence upon its allegations and otherwise participate as a Tarty in these proceedings.

i

_

A1}

&}8 O u%

[Yvelyn S,Jebbind, Cdairman

.

Coaliti5n for Safe Nuclear Power I, Evelyn Stebbins, being first duly deposed and sworn, dopose and say that I have read the above and it is true to the best of my knowledgo. .

0 (),170 _

-

NALi 5llhm '

+

Evelyn Splfbina SWOMI TO BEORE HE and subscribed in my presence this

&day . ,

of April,1973.

,

,

Y6

'

9 Y tu <6 1 ,' NORA E HJbd c h

H r. , ~ ! o t.tmtir.

' .

D - .J hetary Pte .c Ise Cayst.r6 s Cernfy .

~~ '

.' s, ' ., ,

'

My Comm. nun Lawns Sept. 24,1973

."

- p '.

-

,

I a

. . - -. .h.