ML19329D468

Petition for Leave to Intervene.Certificate of Svc & Affirmation of E Stebbins Encl

ML19329D468
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	06/02/1973
From:	Stebbins E NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION
To:
Shared Package
ML19329D465	List: ML19329D464 ML19329D468
References
NUDOCS 8003090099
Download: ML19329D468 (10)

Text

_ ._ _

,,,gg--- - q + -

[

-- ~- -

H!' ' yy , , . .

h' '

r s ,,

.* esD. c 'AlL. EEC. $O'S'

.M ,,.,"'" UNITID STATIS OF AMERICA In the matter k / ATOMIC MFEY COMMISSION

)

'lui,14 XI 14HSON CO. and Cl.rNhTAND ALKCTRIC ILLIWlNAT)NG CO. Docket $0-3h6 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station )

Operating License )

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVME; The Coalition for Safe Electric Power, on its own behalf and on behalf of its members, supporting individuals arri organizations, and thelpublic, hereby petitions the Atomic Energy Commission for leave to intervene in this matter, pursuant to the i Commission e s Regulations, and in particular 10 CPR Sec. 2.71h.

I IDINTIFICATIGN OF PETITIONERS AND THEIR INTEREST TO BE AFFECTED P6titioner, COALITION FOR SAFE ILECTRIC POWER (formerly Coalition for Safe Nuc lear Pcwer), is a non-profit unincorporated association of persons, corporations, groups and associations formed partially for the purpose of intervention in the Davis- ,

Besse Hearings. Tne Coalition's member groups are as follows:

CITIZENS FOR CLEAN AIR & WATER, INC., an environmental group of approximately 500 citizens with majority of membership in the greater Cleveland area, but with members throughout the state, organized in 1968 for purpose of fighting pollution and preservation of the natural environment.

ARFA COUNCILS ASSOCIATION, a group of numerous neighborhood associations in the Greater Cleveland Area, representing approximately 20,000 members, whose purpose is to poomote a strong and representative citizen action movement for maintenance and improvement of neighborhood life, which has included I concern and action on air and water pollution problems. Many of the Area Councils members own property in and use the western basin of Lake Erie as a recreational area for swin=ing, boating, and fishing.

OHIO CONSUMESS ASSOCIATION, an organization concerned about protection of consumers, which has a membership of approximately 50 consisting of about 50 per cent individual mmberships, and 50 per cent' organizational memberships j throughout the State.

COMMUNITY RIGHTS COUNCIL, organized for the purpose of promoting their personal i

rights as pertains to their general welfare and the exposition of any attempt l at encroachment of such rights, with a membarship of approximately 100 I

persons in the vicinity of Oak Harbor, and :.icluding persons residing at Sand Beach.

National Health Federation, Cleveland Chapter, an organization with approximanely 250 members concerned with maintaining the henith freedoms of our nations l people. ,

i 8003090099 6-1 l

OUTirdMIT ACTION fifGlP ON RMIi@.WNT (SAGE) a citizens organization of approximately 70 members in Berea, Middleburgh Hts., North Olmstead, Rocky River, and Olmstead Falls.

AVON LAKis TASK FORCE ON POLLUTION, an environmental group from that area l

(:ITJ'/.lH3 FOR A SAF810WiIONMENT, a citizens group from Lake County,100 members DAVID GiTLIN, M.D., Berea, Ohio l l

Mrs. Helen D. McCue, Mother, housewife and Chairwoman of Mothers March on j Pollution, North Olmstead, Ohio RE7. FARL H. CWNINGHAM, Ph.D., Cleveland, Ohio GEORGE KUNDTZ, Chesterland, Ohio EVELYN STEBBINS, Chainnan, Coalition for Safe Electric Power

2. The Coalition for Safe Electric Power also represents over 350 people who have supported the Coalition, residing in the following Counties in Ohio Cuyahoga, Ashtabula, Lorain, Geauga, Lake, Summit, Sandusky, Seneca, Ottawa, Lucas, Fulton, Mahoning, Stark, Ashland, Medina, Erie, Richland and Franklin.

3. The Coalition for Safe Electric Power includes among its members and msmber organiza-tions, persons who reside, own property, work, do business, pay taxes, and engage in recreation in or visit the Lake Erie Area in the immediate vicinity of the Davis Aesse Nuclear Power Plant. 'Ihe Coalitionta membership includes organizations representing conservation, scientific, academic, sportsments, fishennents, recreational, civic and environmental interests, with a total membership of thousands of people. Petitioner also asseits herein the, interests of all other persons similarly situated and o' the public in general.

h. Members of the Coalition live within the geographical area which would be most directly affected by the Davis-Besse Plant, and are concerned about and reliant upon Lake Erie as a source of drinking water, food, and recreation. Members of the Coalition are further concerned because they live in geographic proximity to the Davis Besse Plant and thus are in the target area of serious and adverse effects of radioactive releases .

and cooling tower emissions during operation of the plant.

5. Members who reside near the Davis-Besse Plant rely to a great extent upon natural resources, both land and water, which are used to produce food and agricultural products and wnich lie within the geographical area adversely affected by releases from the Davis-Besse plant.

6 Members of the Coalition are concerned that their mode of life will be drastically chang,d adversely as a result of construction and operation of the proposed plant without their having a voice in the planning and resolution of safety and environmental questions raised by this Petition.

II RESERVATIONS 7* For reference in preparing this Petitior.. petitioners have had access to the Applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report and Envirer -atal Reports on Construction License Stage.

These documents are not sufficient ton mable petitioners to set fortn the contentions deemed necessary to be raised by petitieners. Moreover, in the brief period of less than 30 days since publication of the notice of hearing, petitioners nata not yet had time to analyze these documente adequately.

I i

~

i

-3w Bo 8 The Atomic Energy Commission 8s notice of hearing, published April 30,1973, FR 10661, shows that:

(a) The Connaission has not yet decided whether it will issue an operating license to Applicants  ;

I (b) The following essential documents are not available: '

(1) Safety Evaluation prepared by the Directorate of I'. censing (2) Cnmmission's final detailed state'.aent on environmental considerations (3) Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards on the application for facility operating license (h) Proposed facility operating license

($) Technical specifications which will be attached to the proposed facility operating license

9. Petitioners object to the artitrary, capricious and prejudicial action of the Comission in requiring petitioners to raise contentions with respect to a license which the Comission has not determined whether to issue, and in the absence of essential documents required for meeting the Comission8s rule as to specificity of contentions.

10. Petitioners will be able to make more specific contentions after having received all of the information in the possession of Applicants and the Atomic Energy Commission as required under the provisions of the Freedcm of Infomation Act.

11 Petitioners hereby move for leave to amend this petition to intervene up to and in-cluding a date 30 days after the Atomic Energy Cnmmission and Applicants have produced for inspection all relevant documents, and after petitioners have had an opportunity to examine fully the draft detailed arri final environmental stateraent as yet un-prepared, but required to be prepared by the Regulatory Staff pursuant to the National

%vironmentel Policy Act, and after preparation of the Regulatory Staff Safety Evaluation with respect to this docket. Petitioners subnit that it is neither f&ir nor legally pemissible for the Comission to require, upon pain of losing substantial rights, preparatien of a final statement of specific contentions at a time when the Regulatory Staff has not yet taken a position through required documents in support er denial of the proposed operatinE license, or otherwise completed its statutory obligations.

PRELIMINARY STATDENT OF CCNTH;TIONS 12 Petitioners contest a positive finding by the Corzission or any Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board on the following issues:

(1) Whether there is reasonable assurance that the activities to be authorized by the operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public; (2) Whether there is reasonable assurance that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the regulations of the Co: mission; and (3) Whether thertc is reasonable assurance that the facility will operate in confomity with the application as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the Comission.

Petiticners also contest a negative findirg by the Cosission er any Atomic Safety and Licensing Board en the following issue:

' - . ~ , ' ,

-h-(h) whether issuance of tne license will be inimical to the commen defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Fotitioners contend that no such findings can be made because the appropriate pro-risions of the Atomic Etergy Act of 195h, as amended, and the appropriate rules and rer.ulatie.ns of the Comission have not been complied withiby the Applicants.

13. Pnt.itioners contend that there is insufficient knowledge or operating experience with pcoosurized water reactorn of tho siso and type of the proposed Davis-Desse llant to justify ;peration of this reacter at Oak Harbor, on IAke Erio, close to nearby population centers. Such operation represent a serious threat to the enviro:mmt, to the people of this area, to Lake Erie, to the fish and wildlife and to the public water supply of over 11 million people, and is a serious breacn of the Atomic Energy Conmissients own gaidelines on the siting of large nuclear reactors (10CFR Part 100 and TID 1h8hh).

I 1h. Petitioners contend that Applicants have failed to analyze the most severe credible '

{ accident for this reactor, which is failure of the reactor pressure vessel.

15. Petitioners centend the IFA set forth in the Davis-Besse FSAR assumes that the emergency core cooling system is of a size and capacity sufficient to prevent an uncontrolled meltdown of the majority of the nuclear fuel; whereas there is no such reasonable l assurance that the emergency core cooling syste can function as quickly as necessary

, or with the reliability that is deanded if such meltdown'is to be avoided.

I 16. Petitioacrs contend the MHA set forth in the Applicant's FSAR does not even approacth

the true maximum hypothetical accident that can be assumed for one of these reactors; namely, a meltdown of the entire fuel core, with subsequent breaching of the contain-i ment due to the penetratica of the melted fuel and subsequent interaction with ground-water, releasing radioactivity in qIantities many orders of magnitude above the ,

releases set forth in the FSAR. '

, 17. Petitioners contend the MHA set forth fa$1a to consider the generation of large ,

giantities of hydnogen gas within the contaiment after a loss-of-coolant accident, j and means for avoidance of a subsequent explosien that would rupture the contaiment i and release large quantities of radioactivity into the environment in an uncentahlled manner.

i 18 There has been no consideration of an accident, which is entirely possible, which coulo contaminate Lake Erio as a public water supply. Petitieners contend that evidence presented at the ECCS Hearings in Washington confirm possibility of such an accident and that such accident should have been considered.

19. The ccraponents and engineering of safeguards of the Davis-Besse Plant will be exposed to radiation, and Petitieners contend that this will lead to deterioration of these components, and there is no assurance that the integrity of these components or their systems will be taaintained over the expected life of the proposed plant. Also there is no assurance that there are adequate procedures for inspection and replacement of

, these critical componenta.

l 20 Petitioners contend that the quality control and quality assurance procedures and programs have been inadequate to assure that the Davis-Besse Plant has been constructed in confomance with design.

I 21 Petitioners contend that crucial inspection points have been passed over without a prcper inspection, and therefore materials of unknowt quality have been installed in the plant.

l l

l l

l. l l

??. Pntitionern contend that asergency plans and procedures have not been adequately developed or conceived withirespect to an accident which would require immediate evacuation in the vicinity of the plant, the schools in the area, and possibly the cities of Port Clinton, Sandusky, Toledo, Lorain, Greater ; Cleveland or Detzeit, 141 chigan. There has been no consideration of the fact that it could be imposcible to evacuate people, as evidenced by storma in that area.

23. Petitioners contend that the Applicant has not made adequate provisions for either facilities or personnel to treat radiation inguries or radiation-chemical injuries wh&ch would result from a maximum hypothetical accident or any other lesser accident.

2h. Petitioners contend that the meterological data for the Davis-Besse Plant is completely inadequate in that the use of Toledo Airport data is too far away from the site to be reliable in view of the severe storma that occur on the lake front, and the Toledo Airport is approximately 25 miles inland.

25. Petitioners contend that because of increasingly high levels of Lake Erie, the calcula-tiens for seiches ans wind-driven floods made by Applicent are incorrect, and there is a significant probability that porticns of Applicantis plant hatte not been built sufficaently high to avoid flooding under adverse weather conditions, and that storm damage has n9t been properly evaluated.

26 Petitioners contest a positive finding by the Commission or any Atomic Safety and Licensing board on the following issue:

(1) whether, in accordance with the requirenents of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the requirements of Appendb: D of 10 DFR Part 50, the operating license should be issued as preposed. i Petitioners contend that no such finding can be made because the appropriate provisions l of the National movironmental Policy Act of 1969 and the appropriate rules and regula-tions of the Comission have not been complied with by the Applicants for reasons  ;

enumerated in the contentions. 1 The National Environmental Policy Act requires the Federal Governme t to (1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generaticus; (2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and esthetically and culturaJay pleasing surroundings Petitioners contend that, as required by NEPA, the following have not been fully considered: i (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action (iii) alternatives to the proposed acticn (iv) the relationship between local short-tcrm uses of mants environment and the main-tenance and enhancement of long-term prouactivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implanented.

27. Petitioners contend that Applicants 8 biological preoperational monitoring program is inadequate and insufficient to provide a meaningful baseline for later comparison in czder to d etect the magnitude of adverse environmental effects from the operation of Applicants 8 plant.

l C -

-o-28 Peti.tioners contend that the radiological monitoring ara survm11ance programs planned by the Applicants are inadequate to protect the health and safety of the public.

79. Pet-1tioners contend that the radiclogical monitoring program planned by the applicants lo inadequate in that there is no connection between the Tarious elments of the aquatic food chain that will be sampled, and therefore the data will be essentially i meani ngless. i i

30. Petitioners contend that Applicantst radiological monitoring and surveillance program is further inadequate for a q11ck warning syste to water users in the event of an accidental release of gaseous or liquid radioactive waste products. ,

l

31. Petitioners contend that the Applicant's Envirormental Report is grossly inadequate I with respect to the calculation of the radiation doses to the people in that the cal-culations are not based en the doses received by the most! sensitive members of the .

population, namely the early embryo ,and fetus. j 1

32 Petitioners contend that the environmental reports are grossly inadequate in that they i fail to base the estimated radiation doses on the concentration in the most critical  !

organs of the individuals exposed, such as the pancreas, the pituitary gland ara other glandular organs vital to ' rowth, g development and nomal functicn of the body.

33. Petitioners contend that environmental reports are grossly inadequate in that they fail to consider the serious synergistic action of other air pollutants acting together with the radioactive waste discharges andgreatly aggravating their health effects as decn- )

strated both in the case of aMmal and hman studies. l l

3h. Petitioners conterd that in view of the associated rises in infant mortality from l opera. tion of nuclear power plants, that a primary concern for hman life and health requires the Applicants to demonstrate how both nomal and accidental radioactive waste releases from the Davis-Besse Plant can be held to sero, or so far below those experienced by other reactors as to provide assurance that such releases cannot detectably effect the health and lives of the most sensitive individuals in the exposed population.

35. Petitioners contend that the enviremental report is seriously deficient in that it uses an unacceptable measure of the projected health impact of radioactive releases in the form of " man-rems per year", which is inadequate for measuring the true distribution of the dose in the population and the resulting health effects on the most critical nembers of the population, namely the early embryo and fetus.

36 Petitioners contend that the environmental reports are grossly deficient in that tiiey neglect to consider the doses to the early embryo and . nfant from the release of short-lived isotopes other than I-131 of half-life less than 8 days, which can reach.

local censumers in the fera of milk and drinking vater in less than a day or two.

37. Petitioners contend that the Applicant and the Atomic Energy Commission have not carried out detailed analysis of the health-consequences of a lose-of-coolant accident followed by a core melt-down with the consequent release of a large fracticn of the fission products centained in the reactor core in the event that it should occur and therefore there is an inadequate evaluation of the true risks and benefits of nuclear vs. fossil fuel operation of the Davis-Besse Plant for the pupulation in the vicinity of the plant who may be affected.

36. Petitioners contend that environmental reports fail to discuss the hea'th effects of low-level radiation doses to the population of nearby areas, as fourA by a series of investigat,rs since Applicant's provisional construction pcmit was granted, including studies of Lave, DeGrcot and Tseng discussed within the last year at varicua AEC licensing hearings. These effects were observed at levels well below the present pemissible limits.

i h

- ~ ,

-- r.  !,

yj. N.i ttornr a n,,ntend tha t the ;,oopie 'of the crea would be req 11 red to bear the financial )

costs cor.nected with the additional medical care, provision of special teachinE '

facilities and the institutionalization of children born with serious genetic defects productd by the radioactive waste discharges from Applicants 8 plant. Such defects include blindness, deafness, mental retardation, crippling physical defomities and more subtle biochemical defects such as severeallergies, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis. None of these costs were recognized in the Applicant 8s Environ-  ;

mental Report in the discussion of the " man-rema dose to the population, even though '

l it is well established that for every additional infant that dies, there are sema two to three that show serious genetic defects.  ;

h0. Petitioners contend that construction and operation of the massive natural draft cooling tower as part of Applicants 8 nuclear plant will lead to adverse effects j not considered in environmental reports. 1 hl. Petitioners contend that the evaluation of benefit and risk in environmental reports is grossly inadequate. ,

h2 Petitioners contend that neither the Applicant 8s nor the Commission have made a com-petent analysis of the several alternatives to licensing the operation of Applicants 8 plant, nor have they given adequate . consideration to such alternatives.

i h3. Petitioners contend that the Applicants have failed to state in adequata detail how or whether the plant can be decommissioned.

hh. Petitioners contend that neither the Applicants nor the Commission have analysed the effects upon the envirornent (inclusing cost-benefit and risk-benefit censiderations) of the entire uranium fuel cycle as well as the production of fissle uranium by methods not presently developed such as the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor.

Petitioners conterd that Applicant 8s plant w211 be a major consumer of uranium fuel, and in conjunction with the other nuclear plants scheduled to begin operation in this country in the near future, will consume a major part of the entire domestic uranium fuel output of the United States. The Environmental damage caused by mining and I processing natural uranium into nuclear fuel is a significant adverse environmental effect which must be balanced against any positive benefit from the operation of Applicant's plant and the other nuclear plants located in Bhio and neighboring states. Petitioners contend that neither the Commission nor any Atomic Safety and Licensing Board can reach any valid decision with regard to issuing a license for.

this plant unless they take the adverse environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle into censideration in reaching their findings on envirormental matters.

Unless this aspect of the plant is made a part of the present operating license heanng, Petitioners contend that the Connission will be proceeding in violation of the provisions of the National Lnvirormental Policy Act of 1969 h5. Petitioners contend that Applicants 'have failed to demonstrate the need for this plant and have used outmoded and incorrect forecasting methodology in their projec-l tions of load demand.

l l h6 The total effect of all effluents (radioactive, heat, chemicals, dissolved solids i and suspended solide, and B.C.D.) to Lake Erie as a result of all operations of the Davis-Besse Plant (either alone or in combination with other pollutants) will add to l the pollution of Lake Erie, endanger fish, wildlife, spawning grounds, aquatic biota, l their habitat and supporting eco-system, recreational aspa:ts or water supplies.

Petitioners centend that these effects have not been properly considered in the envir- l cnmental reports. i h7. Petitioners contend that protection of the public frcm acts of terrorists or saboteurs at the Davis-Eesse Plant has not been adequately provided fora by the Applicants.

l l

l

s

-8 64 1etitir,nors cr;ntend that the transportation of radioactive wastes and spent fuel from t,tm pre,pr, sed Davis-Becce plant to their reyr ocessing erultimate burial ground would probably necessitate prasing through the highly congested transportation network and populatic n centers and .<ould present a hazard to public health and safety; and in the tamnnportation of such wastes by water, any accident would be catastrophic to the waters e,r Lako Krie and to the poople of the Lake's bordering territories, the States of Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan and the Dominion of Canada. Petitioners centend that Applicants fail to evaluate tho environmental consequences of a trans-portation accident causing the release of spent fuel elements. A conclusion that such accidents will not occur constitutes an arbitrary and capricious refusal to examine possible consequences of the proposed major federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act.

l CCNCLUSION AND RMUET FOR RELIF '

h9. Based on the foregoing, Petitioners respectfully request that they be p'rmitted to intervene as parties in them proceedings and that the opezating license requested I by the A plicants be denied for the reasons stated in this Petition. '

l I

/

[ ' '

• A l fy/J W 4 < Afh;%--

/Evelyn obins, Chairman Coali n for Safe Electric Power 9

4

x,**-.

v .

i~ AFFIRMATION l i

< J. I 1

I, Evelyn Stebbins, as the Chainnan of the Coalition for Safo Electric Power. I do hereby swear that the statements made in the foregoing Petition are true to the best_ of my knowledge and belief.

i i

l A

Brelyn Stebfins, Chainnan L/L

(

Coalition for Safe Electric Power 705 Elmwood; Road

l. Rocky River, Ohio Sworn to and subscribed before me this JMday of June,1973.

2  !

Y 17)b Ylej Notary Public SU L.'

l s t_L Notary Put.hc lor L3 ;na County My Commissica Expues Sept. 24,1973 a

i

s  ; w, ,-i.i tr 4 4 H j rkW &UllL.IE- --

I Cr~dTr'ICATE OF SERVICE I

I hereby certify that I have filed the original of the foregoing Petition for leave to Intervene, and have served true copies of same on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or airmail, this 4 day of June,1973: .

I Mr. Frank W. Karas Chief Public Proceedings Staff Office of the Secretary of the Commission '

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D, C., 205M i

Chief Hearing Counsel i Office of the General Counsel  !

U.S. Atomic Energy Coraission Washington, D. C., 20$$

Kr. Gerald Charnoff, Esq. i Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 910 17th Street NW l Washington, D. C. 20006

~

i n1 ,,1l Evelyn Stepins, Ubainnan Coalition for Safe XLectric Power l

y ,

9, #00:ETED

~; ty,y

".,' Jitr- ,

11 n.. .' .

• N?].s

\=Q.3 .37 i

,M N [75b '

I k -

'