ML20076A616

Petition to Intervene Re Proposed Facility.Intervention Sought on Basis of Health & Safety of Residents of Area Near Proposed Facility,Environ Concerns & Util Financial Qualifications

ML20076A616
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	10/09/1978
From:	Hiller D CITIZENS FOR ENERGY & EMPLOYMENT
To:
References
NUDOCS 7810240023
Download: ML20076A616 (10)

Text

. -

.~ . ~ ' , NF.C PUcuc anvrm n lOj 4l1C og  %

!E O C.T l 3 19 7 8 >3 UNITED STAIEa CF AMERICA O ,,,y NUCLEAR RIGULATORY ComISSION 3 ""h #

< In the Matter of ) 'N

..' DETROIT EDISCN COMPANY ) Docket No.40-341

)

Fermi 2 Plant )

Ns s_-

PETITION TO INTERVENE Petitioner. Citizens for Employment and Energy. hereinafter referred to as CZE, petitions to intervene in thic proceeding pursuant to Section 2.714 and other pertinent sections of the Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission's Rules of Practice , and states:

rm i  : I U

IDENTIFICATION OF PETITIONER AND ITS INTERE5T3 TO 3E AFFECTED Citizens for Enclovnent and Enerrv (CE3) 1

1. CEE is an unincorporated association cceprised of citi-zens and residents of Michigan, organizations whose memberships include residents of Michigan and residents of other states, and local units of government, all of whom are interested in the dis-semination of infer:ation and stimulation of public awareness and involvement in the study of nuclear power and alternate sources of safe electrical energy generating sources.

At least one member of CEE resides within one =ile of the Fermi 2 plant, other members residing at slightly greater

(~') distances. CEE also represents members residing in the service areas of the public power cooperatives that have purchased an interest in the proposed plant.

This petitioner has analyzed and studied, to the extant that information has been available, the proposed Fer=i 2 plant and is concerned, as set forth in more specific detail b.elow, that the construction and ot. eration of the Fermi 2 c. lant,will ~

result-in an unsafe'and inefficient exercise of the' use;;of f atonic -

energy; that it will create deleterious and adverse effects- ,

upon the City of Monroe , other parts of Lichigan and elsewhere; will contribute to and create adverse environmental effecis which '.

can be avoided; and will result in irretrievable and Erreversible ,

connitments of natural and other' resources, which, considsring ali of the alternatives and circumstances including the alleged need ,' -

for electrical power, would not be advantageous. ,

/

. .i. m:.1 :: we . /0.fl3.. *. . . . . ;

\ -

d

1.r a

T..slo

- r bTa m.^s a Dt F_.cs'

_ r _? v_ A.T.7_CT.rD _

3Y ACTION OF TiiZ CO?.QISSIOli t

2. 3ased ucon the interests and concerns of the petitioner identified in (Il above, one or more. cf the dir,ect interests of the petitioner will be adversely affected by the issuance of an operating license. These interests and how they may be affected are as follows:

(a) The economic interests of petitioner's members (particu-larly those residing near the plant) will be affected by the re-lease of radiation frem the plant through the following mechanisms:

(1) low-level radiation releases during normal plant operl ations (2) releases of radiation through accidents in the plant (3) releases,of radiation through industrial sabotage (4) releases of radiation through sabotage by outside s terrorists of the plant proper er sabotage of spent

_) fuel being transported from the plant (5) release of radiation through the tra-'portation of spen nuclear fuel from the plant through the surround-ing cc== unity. .

(b) Radiation releases as specified in (a) above will adversely affect the prcperty interests (both real and persoral) of peti- -

tiener's members residing near the plant.

(c) Radiation releases as specified in (a) above will ad-versely affect the health of petitioner's members (particularly those residing near the plant), resulting in medical bills and the shortening of their lifespans.

(d) The value of petitioner's members property will decrease throueh o the normal operations of the proposed plant's cooling sys- -

tem through the adverse weather conditions thus created in the area innediately surrounding the plant.

(^s (e) The econc=ic interests of those CEE nenbers who are rate-k-) payers of Ce:rcit Edison or the public power cooperatives who have purchased an interes; in the plant will be adversely affected due to the raise in rates that will be caused by operation (or inabil-ity to operate) of the proposed plant.

T_1 _T s m..y,

.1. ...u.tm

.- O ; C o c. . _- :.7.-m. _ m e -a 1

3 Under Sec. 2.71h petitioner is not required to frame 1 specific cententions until fifteen (15) days prior to the holding cf a special prehearin; conference er -he prehearing conference if '

no specia' prehearing conference is held. Although petitioner is '

listing certain contentions concerning the proposed plan; belcw, l i; reserves its right under 2.712 to add additional contentions or revise the cententions listed below within the time limits scecified in the section identified above.

1

-- . - .,v ,

Although one member of CEE may be concerned and involved with one of the following contentions more than another, all members share a common interest in the following contentions:

Health.and Safety: Icsues of Construction and Desirn 2 4 The following contentions and their' factual bases are supported by the direct and indirect knowledge of at least one member of CEE, who is and has been personally involved in the

construction of Fermi 2 since viork was begun.

(a) There has been an appalling lack of physical security at the construction site since the inception of construction. Given the need for extremely close quality control in the erection of a nuclear. plant,, this failing. could well lead to flaws in the struc-ture, through deliberate sabotage or unintentional injury to compo-nents.

(b) Quality control has been poor throughout the period of construction, inspections being limited for the most part to superficial surveys. i!orkers who were employed at the Davis-3 esse construction site during the lengthy shut-down at Fermi 2 were shocked at the laxity of quality control at Fermi 2 in O se comparison. '

(c) Just prior to the halt in construction at Fermi 2, there were widespread allegations among workers that Detroit Ed-ison had ordered a supervising engineer to destroy by burning two trailer-loads of documents, believed to be related to quality '

control and engineering.

(d)' Detroit Edison twice replaced the team of super-visors from the first general. contracter, Ralph M. Parsons Co. ,

then terminated its contract with Parsons and hired a second firm, because Parsons' employees refused to sacrifice quality control in order to expedite the construction schedule.

(e) Specific flaws in construction can be identified,

among them

(1) Excessive water in the reactor hole which caused the concrete base to crack severely, a problem purportedly remedied by patching.

(2) Hairline cracks in structural steel surrounding the dry well.

(3) The complete absence of any " fence post detection" to monitor the level of radiation at the perimeter of the site, l a fact admitted by Detroit Edison on the record at a public hearing at Cantrick High School.

(f) Further, there has been and remains very low = orale '

among the construction ivorkers , mady of whom believe:

(1) The plant will never be ready by 1980.

(2). Serious problems will manifest during start-up.

(3)' Dangerous flaws may exist due to poor quality centrol.

f

5 Detroit Edison has demonstrated that it is not technically -

qualified to supervise or control the construction of a major

(

l

.r, , 4 , :u__.-/, a _*<.-' _i n _ _- 1 "y o .=. v.'i h.

. *w..e e p c .e.. .a_1_13 cao-m.. ..3.,,_:_ e _ ,3_ y Fermi 1 estrophic consequences of a poorly built nuclear plant.

is widely recogniced as the paradign of nuclear blunders , and Edison's :denrce ?cwer Plant, the world's largest coal' fired

(

plant,'is now only five years into operation and already in need of major reconstruction on four of the plant's principal systens.

The long series of errors was not beyond Edison's control.

6. The design of the radiation nonitoring systen is insuf-ficient and ince:plete to adequately nonitor radiation both in normal operation of the proposed plant, as well as during those moments after a maximum hv.rothetical accident. De st. ite .

the fact that technology exists to install completely remote -

controlled and other sophisticated monitoring systems throughout the aro.ucsed .clant's of the r.iant's level site andand on the cerimeter site, .

and g cand above, Edison's design does not incor-porate adequate radiation acnitoring systems. '

7 The cenpenents and engineering of safeguards of the Ferni 2 clant will be exuosed to radiation that will lead to deterioratien of these ccaponents , and there is no assurance

~

that the integ-ity of these ccmponents er their systets will be maintained over the 40-year exr. ected life of the t. ror. csed plants. Difficulties at Palisades, Fermi 1, and other plants already demonstrate that ext.ected durabilita/ of r. arts is

~

highly inaccu ate. CEE contends that Edison has failed to

.trovide adec.uate t.rocedures for instection and ret.lacement .

of these critical components.

8. o_. k. =. s .ee. _

-a 3_..a.a'.o". .-+ o#

svoee. '.h. a. r. a. *. s _i .?. ,c __

' e .m. . .. _4 1._1 be subject to corrosion, taking it likely that an expensive ma,i,or overhaul will be necessary well before the expected .,

_, ..,. yo.g- _1 _2 _'s. c' eP.a. y-lan" _i a --'i r._i s".a.d . '. h. a. c u .-a. . . d_i "-

ficulties a: the Turkey ?cint and Sur v. ulans demonstrate w.. _t o. - o .,, -

f-9 Energency plans a.d procedures have not been ade-quately developed or entirely conceived with respect to an acci. dent which cculd require i==ediate0 evacuations of entire

. , . y.a, a- "t _i '.k. i .. a 1 F.n".,

. , . . . . _ _4 _1 a. "a' _i "mo c_' *.".e 4 m_i 0 lm.e . . S..h_is area includes such populcus areas as Detroit, Fort Huron, Sarnia (can.), I.I . Clemens, Rcchester, Troy, Roseville, Fontiac , Wallaceburg (Can. ) , '.iarren, St. Clair Shores ,

Erav en Plains , Clawson, L'adis on Heightc , Royal Cak, Center-

~

v . - a e 0 _3 n . e '. %' - d2 , _. a v e ~ _' s-

~

1 _4 . .m , :as. s's...o_., 0, _4 _ ....i . .3.' ._= m , .c -- _

~_~ .,

_: ._. a. T. o ..,._a, .:., c -1.. s. 7 w_ t ,f , T. s . . A 3% 1 a. , ..o e 1 t". - - e w. e . . . O. 2_1. , ..

• 4 7 _7 -bo w_w

.. O. s . . . _.

1_ _ . . , C c. 0- , ea .,.

_ . . ..w o- o 2, 0 o _4 . . . a. r. e_. . .f. , "...o r.w c e , ../ e a. , o . .,. ,

". 3, 7. , :_. . a m _ _-2. ,

.. _7 _7 3... .:_

O '.e. , v. y g _4 _1 .. ._. : ., r-'

o _1 a. d o , Ch_#o* , 7_' c'. *. .U. w* C '.'. ,

_4 . ~3 A A _4 . _ w . .

.w _a u .- e 1 1_ a, .- c a . ._.p. g oe -on,

.s a .. . , y u_l g e _4 . .. .o . . A

. 3_1. o .

,ig _bg

_..b.. , w e ,a . . =. I 3 =- a , _ o . . A .*. 3 =

=

e

. , . . .u..

,w : _ : ,, ,. . s 1

• i0 . a.e_: ...

... . ., 2.,o - 3 ,_.

ye.

w

_w

. . . a. a. <,a _4 _1 w a - : .7 4.s_.. . o.e sof.._o._ c e,

!=

a . o_r A .t..a _. ;_ w . ; . .,4,o...- 4 a a , =~a.a 4 o . . .w.a_3 . . , _. .._,fa 7

a _a _; s a _n ~~.a.a_ .... ..

-m

... I 1

I

1, .

adequate provisions for either facilities or personnel to treat radiation injuries or radiation-chemical injuries i which would result from a maximum hypothetical accident

or any other lesser accident, exclusively nuclear or in

< concert with an accident involving any of the other industrial sectors previously described in this petition. Edison has not adequately considered the future availability of the l services of hospital, ambulance, and public and private police. protection.in the numbers necessary to handle and adequately safeguard the public interest in the event of the aforementioned ,otential c accidents.

2

11. The Standards for Protection Against Radiation currently in force ,10 C . F.R. Part 20, are inadequate, illegal, and in contravention of the Atomic Energy Act.

Accordingly, any radioactive emissions to be discharged in any form from the Fermi 2 plant are different than what would be permissible by virtue of valid radiation standards promulgated pursuant to the obligations of the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act.

C, Some of the inherent deficiencies which result in the radiation standards' being illegal are: -

(a) The standards do not;take into account radiation doses which the public may recieive from sources other than a particular licensee of the Commission; and with respect to Edison, no procedure has been followed, or proposed, to abate the illegality of the standards; (b) The standards do not adequately take into account accumulatiens of emissions of radioactivity which may be

present as a result of continued emissions of radioactivity

, with respect to a licensee; and with respect to Edison, no procedure has been followed, or proposed, to abate the illegality of the stande.rds; r

(c) The standards do not adequately provide for differences

- in toleration of radiation in different human beings in different given locations; and with respect to Edison, no procedure has been follcwed, or proposed,.to abate the illegality of the standards; i

(d) The standards do not adequately provide for a tracing of emissions of radioactivity through all pathways l by which such radioactivity may be tr2'nsmitted to the ucc- -

ulation in a given area, as well as each pathway by Which it nay be transmitted in the eco-system in a given gou-graphical area; and with respect to Edison, no procedure has been followed, or proposed, to abate the' illegality of

, the standards.

I i

i t

5

r I

70. wa n, .--o y o

. . ~ oa d 3, _7 _s .e. . 43 d s 3 _4 e.,..g . - w 4 *o on.4+ . . ad.: a w _o n

..,w a.....asA ...2 4

...n ,. e . i 3.. a _4 % 1 a. .'w"_ _c ',,_4 o.^. la v a l s .

. . .4 _ ep w gl,a

s. - s. y _

n O.f%.e C t .. Y.-O . .*. . a _ % . . o .n. d a a..ww. O e- -. C o CO.

o .S.O.

. .".C e . .".8%.o O. N.o whO. _.

d

". .'. C o .nc a. .". . "' . _* ", .". # a C . v^ *_ o_# C = ". .E.' .. ". o w.i C.".".C _l -.i d e s s u"w h as

_ c, o , u, ..s 4 -- .di ..s. _1 3 7 .

Pw "y ". c ^.~a dure s _

c o a _4 ~- _,_3 7 , _ a_. . w . . . ;

e -

T A _4 m o n .. w .. ...s %aa  % . t., .r.. A s . . _ '.e. s .n. ~ o an wo, w n u.n. . AC. a..C a%a~ve w

%.f v

en *w

...e

+. w . . _

4 s ". a C w^ .7C s. . .*. .".'.. '. _i o r. y"h.e .". o"~a .".C .3 .-n a _ 4 -- . 4 . .a- r o..m/ c_e ..

-, a 4 a.n.n e., i d--a s w o S w e e .^w . -= d _#*cr. '.b..e "y' _ o ". _i n no~. a7_ c"e y _ "o '. -4 .o s .

1. ,_. ~ _4 2

. _m, n....,, , 4__# .w 4 a a+._i C . .s c _# Aeul__iCa..s

13. Detroit Idison lacks the a financial e abili*y to complete .

a ,4 .

_e _.n. a_4 .. r. ,. . _4 o_ _2 a e./: ,4.nc e _. %ws.w -ho _ i o1., o....4- ..e . .

(a) Ccnstrue:icn e on Fermi 2 was shut down for twc J 2. 2 ,- ae. o ,_. _. .a3. . - q...:._ .3-

. .w..u

. ., A 4 l' , a_ .s

%a ') C o ns w._ .C*: on .. 3a .. w

. o.a . a . .a~s d C .n._i j .ws - kr V_4w*.,e .ww o.#

su.e

v. me_a c. vo_

e sss:_ e..e ,.o.- . _4 .

_u

. i ~a r.e. .a

o. 3 1 a.. w , .

(c) a Detroit Idison is currently negotiating for a one

'j k..u..d_'_ a --.w4 'e ...w " ' ' . " _" a d -.i'- io r. do l' '-"- .1 o_.. # . "i ^ %. 'm' =. .a

. . . . - . .. .. _' ".-,~a _"s C e n-tral Sta es Pension Fu .d (cee The Monrce Ivening News, Saturday, '

Cet:bar 7, 1973, page 3-b).

14 Idison has given inadequate consideration to the lack of availability o# the proposed #uel, u"aniuu-235,

-233, thorius iso:cr. es , and clutonius isotopes , which it .

S

,' ' ' w a-a"d wh.i c". C=.~7 c cs~r .e.".ds ~~ ~* ~1 1 i

_e.

-l ~ ave wo usa - -.. .". ~a s e . .

n..n. t.. .c w o ,a,s m a. _: .,,. _.w.e . 2 p a. . . .

.p . C_ri w- C .". ~= .a.da- .. -h.a'. .

w.

7_.d ~* ~= o .". d.i d . .o ' s u'.# _i ^v_

i a. .n'v.1 v, cCrsicer :,u;ure aval_,act_,Ity an, - pric'.ng c: uranium supplies.

a Am u ,. w , e u. _2_. ,,

,._i ..e s u.~ . tid. > ... =.v a. s h. .o w . r d * = c .". 'w "ia'w U .9.;^ 3

..,.,, , A ;

e,,_

9. 2 . . . . . . %=_c~ . .. e = ca'.as. . a. ." a.. sy a. ..s _i v a. . %. ..e c o s .

. "ao~ , _ " e .C t, o .".a .n 'w # " 7 .#au~P_i^.i.. ,-

m. U. _o_) a 3 4 s C" *"_ *. . .1 "j a.

• C_.cs-1_* *. # .. 3 4 .".

1.1 ., 2. 32 je ,. - -_

wws. c e. ~i._s 9 q w wg d a i--4 u. n, . o A. .". ' A.s. -

.. 8.".". .w i 0, 0e0 '.=- .

_ w w, e 4 1%., ..,w 4.. .._C n 4 W e _1 _7 Uy __w.

4. a-4 n w..~ws .,. _ e'n r . . . w, d w

. _e n ,_ .t,., w )a _w .

. .w~, ^4N .')~; _1 %. . 4 . 1a73

_y r. e__ ..w.o . .o 3. , 4-w - 4e c ,.,.4 .e .7 4 .,s. a .1,/

h e., : .~. , a,, . . we : , ,_ 4.3

, wo.

. _l e *..: y21./ e. a,11 - y ar*. o _# 'w. ~a 'C al Cos*.

a_r w

w . o..~ _7 a,. g _. .,1 y. .: .n. w , 4 ..

w g +. g urg.e.4 em... a em _ .g1 .1o u.l d h.." v e '". a.". a. .".d o"s 1 .e.a _:_,,A2

_ . m. 4 .,. . ., _t _ _4 . .3 y

- _. _4C a.

• w o ^w".*.

.".uC* l%..g -

a a.".m .i .".d.u", .j'w"" wh ,i

. .i ^ h..

.... a n, . . g_ A.

• w .

. .<e .r o .e.w c r e 1 .g -e._ .c *. 4.e a,.  %., , , 'w _g

. - m.y y c ,, w y.4as. .

.. ..a' g g b. "y ."o %.. ' .a ..s'

, e 4 .e , d e.3.r A, '..,_w

... .4 ..w. . -

, e, .3._7 g_c . - ...

n  %.,r s . w.

. a _ . d o"...O S . .# c U '_) ^j "o ,

raayy .. - 7 .;.2 a. w.. _ c. = . %. 3. _4 . .3 , g _.-a ._ _: y y . A %,,s d 3 ... .- A .

e . .. - 2 r 3_ , 7

. ...y

,qw..* C e. .

,: _: 0, 7y, a n. o .n. _4 e C _3y r...: .e ..e  %. 3 3 _ , 3-2 a 3-.j . 1. . 33 "w _ .9. .,, ,0 _a s

7 3 _,,,. 4 c .

.w. , . 7 3. ,.:

__ .- ,7_.,_-

. _ ...a .m .

.. 3. . _s ,7 . , n . A.3. ..

a Cw .n.- _. w. .

.. ,. .4 ,.,. .. a_3 C o .

7.,.,2 , .

14w e,. r r mo, r.e. v. s . . A e. *. w . .n_ *. T C' : e. o.m. k.<e a ..r. w w v . . 4 4 3 *. s A.

-- . . %. ..e *.

...  : 1 7 e, .. .g e ,

_..b. 2 .n. o. v . -2 a .4 _

.s . C .e 4_-.:.

..y s . .. 3 a. .,,..,

y e . . a  ; d. 3 ",. ,.

• 1 0.,

_s . . . . w..

_ e .7 , ..f c_e n a_ 2. . 4.w c . . .. , p.3. - &g .e., _ w a 4.3..  ;.. _1,a . A. e , a...w 2 _- , _

w...a c . . _. . g , .... . ea . ,

,  %.e w e .

. m ._. ' ; .3;. c o. y .: .c.,1 ._

1ano. gy _ _3 1. w a,. _i .e. . .w.a. U. . : . cm .A c . a. c._. _: . .3-

~_2,. _:,.._.i . -..y-M. _ _4 . c,,..-_ _e,n._. w ,......c.

.- . a_4,-

l e: 3

_ w . . _ A e . .- c . .w~3 . . . . ...

_..m.. a.a.- .w..,.,._. o ..c.a . .4 ., .. _4 ._..y v-. . c. . :e ._w,.. .,l

.4 _1 _1

..w . . . . C .,. .

. ... _w3 t-J .

.,:a . .3 .,, ./

c e  :. _: ,

s >.

_ ' _ . ~ . a. . s.,.,.f.=

=s 4..s .

y a .e.4 1 .e.e a.

, , +

.. _ .=1..: g n. .w s. . .---

n. o o a .

. - - - - - - - - - - - ~ __ _ . . . _ _ . _ , _ , , _

CEE contends that the costs of building and operat-17.

ing fuel reprocessing plants have not been adequately con-sidered by Edison. Such plants , whether built by the power industry or by government, would represent a financial burden c on ratepayers and/or taxpayers , and thereby on members of

. CIE; even though such costs are h.idden, they are nevertheless real.

18. 2dison and NRC and Staff, in their consideration of economic advantages of erecting the proposed plant, have not adequately considered that since there are no major fuel reprocessing plants in operation and that since a ,

successful technical and economic future for such plants is in jeopardy, Edison may no- be able to purchase fuel when it needs it. Inability to purchase fuel would put an added burden on the taxpayers and ratepayers. It would, furthermore, likely result in an inability of Edison to meet its financial obligation. Furthem;cre, there is evidence that the several tried reprocessing technologies are unworkable or are uneconon-ical. Although 2dison and the NRC and Staff claim there will

, be a plutonium resale value from the spent fuel at the pro-posed plant, if reprocessing plants are not economically available there will be no way of recovering the plutonium.

19. The legality of the continued participation of Northern e Idichigan Electric Cooperative Inc. and 'elolverine Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Co-ops) is in serious d oubt for the reasons listed below in contentions 20-21. The imprepriety of the Co-opc' participation is cruc4 C for one or both of the follcwing reasenc: l i

(a) Since Edison alone is financially unable to complete Fermi 2 in accord with NRC Regulation and gen-eral principles of safe;y and prudent construction practices, the withdrawal of the Co-ops' support must preclude the O s- granting of an operating

,n license fcr Fermi 2. (NRC Regulation

_v u . 2 . .,. . aec. ;v.gf ( y.j.)

- , , -- -- u .

(b) '!ithout admi -ing the legality of the Co-ops' ownership, if such ownership is legal, then under the Atomic Energy Act and NRC Regulations , the Co-ops must satisfy all of the requirements for receiving an onerating license,. without regard to the pocition of 2dison. -

20. ghe Co'-ops are finincially unqualifie'd to participate in cons;ruction and opera icn of Fermi 2 as evidenced by:

(a) The nececsity of significant rate incraases to compen-sate for the absence of demand. -

(b) The lack o' - acial res ources to purchase outside power in the almost certain event of shutdown of Fermi 2 for re-pair and main;enance.

(c) The purchase agreement between Edison and the Cc-oce in- ~

adoquately pr ;oc s th3 Co-ops in the event of shu;down.

7 _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ -

r -- - ---- . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --

9. '. .

• e 7..v _i c . _..= .. .a'- _. T , ac '.

4., ' a o c- .we .". w ."-i'a.d b.se 'v.". a. 3 .- " _ a.'L Ilectrification Administra-ion (RIA) is inadequate and the subject of an action in Federal District Court on that issue. Drake v.

U.S.D.A., No. o77-o07-CA-7 (b.D. Mich. ) . While the mere presence of that action may not be sufficien; grounds for the denial of an operating license, NRC must examihe the =erits of the suit to deter-mine the likelihcod that the IIS will be found inadequate. The i=-

nact of such a decisien wculd be to take ille=eal the Co-o.os ' our-chase, which, so noted above, would require denial of the license.

3riefl", s the RIA's icr.act statement is inadec.uate for these reasons: .

(a) RZA relied almost wholly on NRC's IIS filed at the time of issuance of the construc tion precit. As noted bcicw, this state-

_ ... . ..:=.s ... _* . v._- d a. c u a '. . . ~...w.=. .. _" _* _' a. u' , a..d '. ._v. ' . ea. 4 .n om" '.+ . e y r . +^ _i o. o va., . .

nor u date the substance.

'(b) RIA viola. ed its cwn regulation, as set forth in 3u11e-

-i..

w- 70 .0 9. , 'e.. 77. 7.. , . = qu_i _ i.. .g., . io w _iC a., c" a drcaw T. .W . ".o d_ aa". w

'.vas a. v. = _ .re. =.y a.-=. d , _i . . v _i a. _' .=. . _i v~.'. a' .- . . ' F.t.,' as 1..*we"u, m. ^v e d ".'r ., .'ade*al .

cou-ts.

(c) Absolutely no alternate, and superior, sources of energr for the Co-ops ' service areas were considered b*a RIA, in defiance of the ercress recuirecents of NIpA. i (d) ^ RIA scudh: no con =ent from state of local units of govern- l nent in su. ite of the exe.ress ccamand of E.?A.

(e) RZA failed to censider the devastating;;. inpact of the out,-

flow of lccal dol'n s , the loss of pctential inflow of construction

, .,,aw..aww, e C,w, is w .b.

.w .w.

A

./..o v e ..,

. w..

c s s o _# a b.w . ... . 4 _., . .

4 c.. In .w

. w.6 8 Cg e* ..b.e . . . .e _wm, ,e_ a .

7. .=< . 4 w. o

_. . m. o. .n.  : I__ u , e.r. .m. S.=.*.-a 99.;

. *10.

. w9 a

h. .ac= _3._4 7 n r4w .o .p.AAwsca

. _ . %w.o c's - a.l, _4 {m.5 4 1. 4wetr ,, o .# g 1 =w e 3.n o e. 4.V s q a w w o _.. . a .G4_ .

9 z .1. 3 .. , _i .n. -wk. . o.

0..yive.n...e _

g oc,1 N. ,, , C '. a' 'w a 'w 3 . =,...'w

. _4 .' s d u ,, 1.1

_w a, *. . . . o. _. 4., . . . C.e 4,.-n,,.3 ma . . c# u, C Cns *.. dC *. 4 oe. n w m.. ._; w a m. A o ww w. 4

._c .s u,

am 4 ,  :: t.'., k w..a a qw a c. .q,us _. . . T_.o.

a o .g i. 'ne a- 7.4 c _1 a

. 3 A ' ha . a. cs "..i .-a. s. . . a- c _'

. , _. c_, .c e, v..o.a_m ,3 e. . .y _i _, yv _... . _ _4 ,r u ..

4 -w. .._ ,.4

..c . o a., 4 9_ -;. . . .r., %..a. . o . c ,_,yl_4 .. e ,.4 ..t _ . w.. w.. . .. . ./-_.o..-

mental Protection Act by not adequately considering the alternate and better uses to which the proposed construc-tien si;e at Fermi 2 could be used: for example, but not limited to, a ccal gasification and/or coal liquifaction j

a.. w , #,v

.o .4., #r

.a , s ". =. " , a.'. =. c .. *. .w .' ^. .=.. .. e l yo n" .= .- g =. . ..= *. ew*- -

. w..

g$ 7 A.t .w% .4 . .O. y .l w.3 9. w .

m c

• wc .= .=w.4. e .e. , v c. m..=.h

.. _I . c. A_ Cs. * *.1 .a1e,.9 C

~ #

_aga.47 #

w ..3 .4 A.

a guc. 21..

o.h, . ". .S. .tw p.a m- 4..*.e.Asco .g cm w.s . s A. .

ge.s .4. .g v 3 21. a-

4. .e. o. g ..% 4. .c..s _w .4 o .r.

4 . %. .

.y _ .... e._4 g .4.yg l .,y g a- . g .e g;, w. g y _w i A _4 .e.3_ w .w.g ew.s.s _ s.1

, . c *. a.- a.i a. *.. . . .,A 4.,4 e~a. .s .c c . 2, 3s. . o ,.

. A. .. .. .g a. s ~. 3c. ,l h, _4 . .e .

. s -.

ww - 4.o r

4 e

w .l.s p..w -oggw y .

_s g . .e.n e, - t .a.g-.-. .'e a g .4 1 4 ..g., T *.  %.,.

.. 2 .t.r.e. da w . r g g e .s. _' ~j C o e.. 4. A.3, we f eJ.= 4

- 0 1--*e . . .m 4 e

"*----c--- 4 w. - 1 ..e=2 s=

-o ** ** - ea aha "3i .Cw g

. - a 4_ 6 s

• sime m .' o .n._. s .ayy .w j. q 0 < 'q - -..*

1. mw *- o - - -

• me w4 C--- ,i ' . ,14 - + - ***-- -

uso wm.51 63Uswe - - - - - -

• y _ O . 4. .n.$_ -

-. u. w . .a3 _4 .a.n.-

A s. c.o.cu. g .1.y . v ,v . .a .4.w As. .w e d .w..s 3 .A.y,e_

..3

, g a- - .A_e A. 4ae ga ne

,i r

..,w 4 o u

..ja **- a 3 og ,a 2we*3 o .# #. s. . . a. ,....6 _ 4. e-* -- ,- L a'

• u.,4 ,4 . g l

---y 3 * ' ' * - - '

. .._3

, ,a.

• %w m . . ,.. e 7. # #e* m ' .e.=. a=..

C i.w-. 1 4 ** 2 . * . s...4 4

. w w.. .e.3,,. A. .

. ,.=g . m. a. e 4._*

. 3 _1 y_

25.NRC has inadequately considered the impact on the available jobs in the area of a coal liquefaction plant, which could supply process feed stocks to both petroleun and chenical plants which are located in the area.

26.NRC has not thoroughly analyzed the economics of 2.' coal-fired plants versus nuclear fuel plants. There is presented in the PSAR and Regulatory Reports inadequate analysis of the price of coal on-the-spot prices or long-tern prices, for the proposed plant.

27.NRC has not considered the beneficial effects of a coal liquefaction plant at the Fermi 2 site; a plant which -

could generate a feed stock for existing and future petroleus-based chemical and other petroleun-based industries.

28.NRC has not adequately considered such alternatives to guilding new power plants as letting industry provide its cwn energy source.and sell its excess power to Zdison.

3 29.DE's Invironmental Report, even if it were to be r/

(_ considered a proper discharge of the Connission's obligation '

under MIPA, is further deficient in coverage of the following point: the renoval of radioactive wastes; thernal effects; water supply; expanding the operations to generate electricity or stean in the proposed plant or attracting in close proxinity -

to the proposed plant additional users of steam or other heat available fron Ferni 2 via any other heat transferring node, which is now available or which may be available during the life of the Ferni 2 plant.

30. Because of the peculiar atmospheric conditions , which often prevail throughout the year in the Monroe area, adequate consideration pursuant to NEPA has not been given to the evaporation and fogging problems and other atmospheric effects which will occur as a result of the daily operation of the propcsed plant's cooling towers. Nor has adeouate considera-

~

- tion been given to the impact of this increased fogging on agricultural uses , boating safety, and the recreational availability of the lake. These considerations are ecuecially important, inasmuch as they affect Michigan's second larxest ~

industry, tourism.

.HEREFORE, Petitioner requests that a hearing be held on the appkication for an operating license and that it be permitted to intervene in the proceedings.

Respec; fully submitted on behalf of the Petitioner, Citizens for Inployment'and Energy, 6 l:~

David 1. Hiller Menbar, CZ2 1

r

.... e UNITED STATES OF MiERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

. DETROIT EDISON ) Docket No. 50-341

. Fermi Plant, Unit 2 ) .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE s I hereby certify that I have served copies of the foregoing doc- ,

unent entitled "?stition to Intervene" by deposit in the United States nail, fi_mt class this 9.th day of October, 1978 on the following:

Secretary of the Commission .y .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission S , a* / ,

p Washington, D.C. 20555

@ g

,Y

(> Atta: Docketing and Service Secticn N A ^g gsM .c 4*

-- op Executive Legal Director l .'$ 'h ,j * ~

-\ Q A-

$ gy, }

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 D -

Eugene B.. Thomas, Jr., Esq. E LeSceuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae e @g 1757 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Peter A. Marquardt, Esq.

The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 .. .

L) t

/ x. i n David Hiller On this 9th day cf October, 19N , be$ ore ne personally ap-peared David Hiller, to ne know to te the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledge-d that he execu-ted the same as his free act and dead. '

~

.~y ccamission expires: .

, // ,A s

+$I%? &.ud

$ . & F/ / 29 Date Notary Public l

l l

l