ML20027A215

Amended Petition to Stop Northern Michigan Electric,Inc Sale of Part Interest in Facility

ML20027A215
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	02/01/1978
From:	Drake M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
Shared Package
ML20027A214	List: ML20027A209 ML20027A215 ML20027A216 ML20027A218
References
NUDOCS 7810270373
Download: ML20027A215 (6)

Text

_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l UNITED STATES UUCLEAR COMrldd10N SEfonE Tiit 4T0i:10 d,dETY aND LICENSING OAna

(

In the Matter of.

THs DEIROIT ADIS0H CUMPAIiY Docket 50-341 Amendment to Enrico Fermi II Construction Permit CPPit-87 Amended Petition of Nartha G. Drake My nace is Martha G. Drake, 230 Fa'irview, Petoskey, Mich. I am a member of Top O' Michigan, a retail rural electric cooperative, which with two other retail cooperatives, owns Northern Michigan Electric, Inc.; a whclesnle rurel electric cooperative that is bu'*ing a part interect in the Enrico Fermi 11 plant.- 'I am petitioning to stop this sals. .

• mendin.; 'he license of Detroit Edisen to include NME and b Wolverine Electric, Inc., brings up issues that are new and are

, different that those addressed in previous licensing situations that considered onl'y the original iicense for nuclear pl' ants. In view of the fact that.the privately owne'd utilities cannot finance their -

billion dellar nuclear plants and are seeking public monies voted by t

Congress for rural development to the extent of 35 billion makes these questions ~ timely and it is imperitive.that they,be answered. .

1. Can ownership or part ownership of a nuclear plant be -

transferred to an entity that hasn't been licensed to construct or own a nuclear plant?

2. Doec a member of a cooperative have standing to intervene when this cooperative buys into a nuclear plant? Is a cooneg Lve member's interest differ 4nt than that of a ratepayers?

3 Can public funds of a cooperative be invested in e privately

, -cwnec utility?

4. Con an agency of the U.S. government guarantee a loan being invested in a private corporation?

Wl027 0 973 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

50-341 5 Is it necessary to issue a new end timely Envi onnental Impact Utatement with a change of ownership with such a sale when factors cuch As imps,ct on local governments, -

health facilities, jobs, as a reruit of loss of taxes are considered?

6. Can funds voted by Congress for rural development '

• legally be in rested in c plant located in and serving the industrial heart of the state?

7. Does an auendment to a license to includa two new owners constitute a ' transfer',' sale', or 'ac' ques'd tion'?

E. . Is the Environmental Impact of a sale different that the .

Environmental Impact of the plant itself?

Petitioner is esking for standing in thi= case. In Feb'ble Sprin58

.Fprtland General Electric Co. et al v. I'roject Survival, CLI-76-27, p.613) it was ruled that ratepayers do,not have the,right to standing simply because. they are ratepayers. However, the distinction between a ratepayer and a cooperative member with equity in the cooperative is verv real. NMI exists only for cooperative members. It is fully owned by tlie ,three retail cooperatives. There is no other. equity in -

it. The members are the coop,erative. -

The r16 ht to standing, if based.on judical precedent, requires

' injury in fact' in ' zone of interest to be discussed.

e 19, 1978 Vnile petitioner ag5 v. (ss withag7 entg+g Judge A) Fox in his Jan.

decision in G77-364 CA, that the NRC rules' clearly state that Reg. .

50-91 10CIR " expressly states that in determining whether an amendment to a license will be issued the NRC muct be guided by the same considerations that govern the issuance of initial license" whtch ~

would include many issues, the zone of interest here appeared to have been narrowed to ' health and safety f and ' financial ability of coops' .

Petitioner ar5ues that all issues covered in original Jicensing Warinc together with waste disposal, reed for plant, wheth er

50-341 cc.nservntion has been - tried, etc., shotild be considered.

!!owev :r, in the two ' tones of interest' the pre-hearing was concerned with, petitioner contends that her family may be injured in fr.ct because:

1) Dr. William Taylor, testifying on nuclear wastes being.

1 .

stored in Nor thern Michigan, said.that .if this area (Northern Lower .

Michigan) enjoyed the benefits of . nuclear power,they sh'ould be willing to have the wastes stored there.

Northern Lower Michigan, the area served by NME, is the prime area under consideration for storage of nuclear wastes. Several counties voted about 10-1 against it. If we buy into this plant, we are more-

~

. apt to have the wastes stored in our area and may be exposed to ,

radiation as wastes are transported to the area and buried in it.

The 1977 Government Accounting Office study, Nuclear Enerev's

, Dilemma: Disuosinrr of Hazardous Radioactive Waste Safelv, . shows that the government has promi, sed more than they can deliver and does not

~

know how to dispose of wastes safely.

2) Daniel H. Drake, petitioner's son, has been edmitted to the University of Michigan Medical School for the fall of 1978. He will be living in Ann Arbor when the plant is scheduled to open. Ann Arbor is about 30 miles from Fermi II. He has some asthma and has been subjected to considerrble radiation from medical X. Rays and it could ,

be injurioun to his health to be exposed to more radiation. Dr.

Alice Stewart, the eminent 3ritish epidemiologist, in Friends of we E5rth, Jan. , 1978, say: 5 low-level radiation e ancer risk 'may be up to 20 times greater than currently accepted estimations.' If the (ERDA-Mancusso) study is valid, 'then clearly there is a serious

( health hazard for workers in the atenic industry and probably for the general public as well."

. =.. .- .

4 Drako

.- 50-341 i .

4

3) 3y buying into Fermi II on the Michi an E Fower Pool, the demand Big Rock nuclear plant is less than lo

~

on Big Rock is stimuisted.

miles from petitioners home. It emits 175,000 curies of radia. tion -

e..cyc.he owuaO -

a year. Buildin53 wood or coal plants in this area would not stimulate 1

demand on the pool .and therefore on Big Rock.- ,

In the opinion of Judge Fox in G77-36.4 supra p. 8,' attached, a -

case with the sase parties, "There'is no doubt tha't. plaintiffs here are within the class for whose especial benutit the statue w.ss enacted."

! He quotes from Crowther v. Seaborg, 312 F. Supp 1205,1216- (D. Colo.1970),

, 'it was the intent of Congress in passing the ( Atomic Energy) Act to pro'tect the. health of the class of which plaint'iffs are members, then whe n they allege disregard of. that interest, tLey ore perrons alleg.edly aggrieved or adversely affected wi. thin the meaning of the statue and have standin6 to sue.'

Judge Fox argues, p.9, supra, that plaintiffs have demonstrated .

injury in fact 'by alleging that as members of the purchasing cooperatives tlteir utility rates will increase owing to the interest payable by-

'he cooperatives on the loans they received to cover the cost of the purchase of 20% of Fermi II. .

This is ' injury in. fact' in the zone of interest of finanical ability of cooperatives to 'nter e into'this' sale. .

There is the. serious consideration that the cooperative may go bankrupt beceuse there is no provision for_th'em to recover their money if DE is not able to complete the financin5 of the plant.

Mr. Groves, Vi ce President of DE on the stand before the MFSC said that in the event the DE couldn't finance the rest of ' the plant, and it has been stalled since 1974 for lack of funds, the cooperatives could borrow more money and own a greater share. This is no solution

, e c, 50-341 as it would only hurden t:ie coops with a larger share of a ' lemon ' .

, There is no provision for them to get their money back in such a t

ense and it is hard to see how NME with a Kvoss income of only 312 plus million in 1975 can take on the interest on a debt of 3129 million (310 million a year) let alone the interest on a larger ,

amount. -

no accounting has been made to the cooperative member as to.

what this s_le will Co to their rates, which are already a high 6c a kwh. Already one .of their inrgest users (Boyne Country) is threate'ninf to build their own wind generating system. This sale could well

\ bankrupt the cooperative with just the interect payments and disrupt '

~

our supply of electricity. ,-

The NME area will certainly ba harmed by the loss of some. 34 million e year in property taxes, 500 construction jobs, and 100 operating J

r jobs that would have accrued to the NME area if. plan +.s. were built there instead,.

Petitioner contends that it is not the environmental effect of the plant but the environmental effect of the sale of the niant that

~

l we are considering and its impact with a new EIS is essential.

Should the above contentions not qualify j in the Boards opinion, -

this petEtioner for standing by right, the Pebble Springs decision states that discretionary standing my be granted. Six conditions govern this standing. -

) Fetitioner can assist in developing a sound record ,because she 1

has been involved the this cale for over a year anc has made presentations to the 3nards of Directors and has intervened before the Michigan Public Service Commission and before Judge

?cx' Co2rt.

,r -

\

____ ... . .. ~~ .--

~ ~ - - -

• * ' 6 Drr.ke 50-341 .

' In U.5132, litchigan Public Service Commission, Jud5e Sheridan

' in his ' Proposal f ar D( cision" said that "Mr. Drake. . . . raises quections'.. . .that are valid and necesscry cenciderstions that the Commiscion must face bcfore determining that this project is in the public interest." .

Petitioner boards is aarea.

in her coo perative member a,d has served on public .

She is an accountant and has recently .

receiv.:d an advanced degree that' included utility economics.

She has access to Innds to bring in witnesses and has contacted public service commissioners from nearby sta'tes and other-experts.

2) Plaintiff owns three pieces of property in the area but her interest lies with the well being of the area as a whole and of. the cooperative members who were not given a vote on this ,

purchase.

3)An order affecting this sole may affect the plaintiffs' source' of electricity and the health and ' safety of the area in which

( she lives.

~

4) Petitioner'knows of no other place where her interes+s will be protected. DE maint41ned in G77-364A that hearings before the 20 were the prop 2r place to bring our objections to the sale.

• here is no E.I.S. in Public Service Commission- hearings.

5) Petitioner will be represented.by CEE but she would like to h=.ve standing because she lives in the cooperative area, has been in U-bl82 and U-5408 and G77-364 whic'h CEE was not,. and '

~ can enter some deta from these caseo. Also she lives 250. miles i

fron th; man reprerenting CEE which makes communications difficult. -

6) Petitioners iparticipation will not prolong proceedings unduly because the legality ef this sale is being protested in the courts

' clouded'.

and until that is settled, the sale will be legally.

t Therefore, petitioner asks for standing to object to the sale

and to contributf to a sound record on the new~ questions that the participation of the REA cooperatives in a priv. ate utility' raises.

Because Ilichigan has been immobilized since Jan. 26 and I wac marroened 200 mile ' from ny home and' papers and the mails ~ have not brought the documents I need, I ask permission to add to this within 5 days if material I have sent for arrives and would add weight to my petition.

Respectfully, /

Feb. 1, 1973 Is_/ -

kL riartha G. Drake ,

_. -. -- - -