ML20102A481
| ML20102A481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1984 |
| From: | Muscarella G AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#185-438 OL, TRAN-841219, NUDOCS 8502080404 | |
| Download: ML20102A481 (4) | |
Text
_ __.
-3O Cb pea uTc:UMete l
Pt03. & UTIL m.. U..,M E OL--
i i
- ctrt'r Cedar View Fara 501 Hancock Road E
85 FE9 -7 A9:10 North Wales PA 19454 December 19, 1984 l
)
Mrs. Helen He i Chairinen'.
Nuclear ReguIs
- Cogdission Hearings g gyED F g g gl6 t
U.S. Nuclear Regu sit' ry Commission o
i Washington,-D.C. 20555
_RE:
EVACUATION PLANNING AT LIMERICK Paul Bartle,. Chairman of the Montgomery County Commissioners, )
in a letter of October 25, 1984 to Robert L. Anthony (enclosed i
traces the history of Montgomery County's opposition to the l
construction of a nuclear plant at Limerick.
As the letter states, the County was in constant opposition to Limerick, and its right of self-determination was pre-empted by the special powers of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which chose to permit 1he construction of a plant at this most inappropriate location.
i F
The terrain is hilly the roads narrow and windings yet it is very close to major centers of population.
Mr. Bartle writess As to emergency procedures, I have stated publicly i
several times that I have little faith in the is--
plementation of any evacuation plan.
Anyone who has driven these roads at rush hour knows that effective evacuation is indeed impossible.
PECO's traffic sia-ulation is just sophistio~ mumbo-jumbo.
In the event of an e
l accident at Limerick, the roads will be blocked with traffic l
the only possible evacuation will be on foot.
PECO was aware of this when they chose Limerick as the site' l
for this t.
It is now obvious that the site was chosen so that 0 could use the nuclear ' excuse' in order to mine water from the Delaware River at Point Pleasant, and sell it L
through the area between the Delaware d Limerick (North 58 ales and North Penn Water Authorities.
PECO's access to the i
U" water was to be fa'oilitated by the privileges granted to the-g; ntaclear industry.
The unfortunate site was chosen by the g
desire to import, transport, and sell water.
t l
'The site is one from which effective evacuation.is impossibles
.but evacuation was not a concern of the planners at the time i
when the. site was chosen.
g
(
I urge you to.close down the Limerick reactors.
(1) They never t
should have been located here (2) they were never wanted nor consistently opposed by the County Commissioners.) they were
"**ded by the residents of Montgomery Countys (3
5 We Bo not a.F.
need a Three-Mile Island sooident, or worse, in Montgomery County
i I prepared the above comments for presentation at the NRC hearings first on November 16th and again on December 13th.
1 On both occasions I was not given an opportunity to speak, while unlimited time was given to those who spoke about nuclear energy in general, not the problems of evacuation from Limerick.
I as not an antinuclear activist.
I oppose the Limerick plant because of its location, just as previously my County Commissioners opposed it.
I think that strong opposition is called for since the accident at Three Mile Ihland, and since the electricity Limerick will produce will be more costly than electricity from coal or oil.
Limerick will be an economic disaster for our area. It can not be evacuated.
The ignorance demonstrated by the PECO workers who testified on December 13th was appalling.
Their testimony was often irrelevant, and the opinions expressed, if honestly held, clearly showed that PECO is not adequately warni g its workers of the dangers connected with their workplace.
PECO should be reprimanded for indoctrinating rather than informing its workers about the risks they are daily running as a result of their work.
The opinions expressed by the PECO workers on the 13th clearly arose from self-interest, however sistaken.
I believe that the views of those who are employed in a nuclear plant should be considered prejudiced by reason of their employment and i
that such workers should be denied formal standing at the
- hearings.
I as the seventh generation of my family to live in Montgome n Countys I want to see it continue to be habitable and beautiful.
Many of those who spoke in favor of Limerick were new residents of the County who spoke out of concern for their jobs. I, however, write out of concern for the future, for a County free from the fear of radiation, of nuclear accident, of d w erous chemicals in our air and water and lethal waste material in j
our soil.
l l
Sincerely yours, AAt Grace Freed Muscarella I
l l
i 1.
9 S
M:ONTGOM ERY COU'NTY e
p NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA commissionsmo A44AM C M CR RIT A C.S ANNING S Ot eCa?OR FREDEmeC M. WENT3
,,c,ggeg*,;,,
Octobe r 25, 1984 a
a M r.
Robert L.
Anthony P. O. Box 186 Moy l an, PA 19065 De ar Mr. Anthony:
Thank y6L for your lette r of Octobe r 2, 1984 regarding Li me ri ck P;l an t.
the When the plant was fi rs t p roposed in the mi d 1960's,
the Coun ty peti tioned the then Atomi c Ene rgy Commission
( AE C) f or pe rmi s s i on to in te rvene.
Pe rmission was granted and the Coun ty at tended thi rty-th ree (33) days of pub li c hea rings _ during the1970's.
The County p resen te d e vi den ce,
pross-e xami ne d wi tnesses and made a s t ron g ple a to p re ven t the cons t ructi on of Li me ri ck.
The County a lso emp loye d the Franklin ins ti t u te as a cons ul tan t to s tudy the impact of the plant and i ts findings we re p resented to the AEC.
The AE C_ e ven t ual ly ruled in favor of the applicant an d cons t fuction was pe rm1.t te d ove r the opposition of the
~~
e
' Goun ty and Congressman Coughlin.
'k The Coun ty also inte rvene d an d p resen te d' tes ti mony be fo re the Pennsy lvani a Uti li ty Commission (PUC) re comme n d i n g "that a Ce rti fi cate of Necessity not Ls granted to the Phila-de lphi a E le ct ri c Company.
The PUC, howe ve r di d grant the ce rti fi cate.
The County a lso be came involved in the De l aw a re Valley Basin Commission studies and hearings con ce rn i n g the wate r s upp ly fo r the Lime ri ck P lan t ope ra t i on.
The County p u rs ue d e ve ry _ ava; l ab le admi n i s t ra ti ve procedure to p re vent the con s t r uc t i on of Li me ri ck. but the
_gove rn men t a l b o_d i e s re s p on s i b l e f og,..th e de ci s i on de c ree d inet the plant could be b u l l.t.
_The N ucle a r Re n u l_ a t o ry ~
Commi s s i on (N RC) h as p reempte d a l l o the r gove rnmen t al bodies
[n Ene con t ro l and licensing of N uc le a r P owe r P l an ts.
They e mp l oy e xpe rts in the ficid for the p u rp os e of making do-ci s i on s in that a re a.
It is i n c umbe n t upon the NRC to p roperly moni tor the const ruction and ope ration of the Lime ri ck P lan t.
ar f.nt%
Qk.
.,$ a cateturin of % ca.o rias n.r c.ar, ca.r, :Bice re..iat o
s f / iPf"). )'l~ /i ID =
Mr. Robe rt L. Anthony P age 2.
~
As to eme rgen cy p roce dures, I h ave s ta te d pub li cly s e ve ra l t i me s th a t I h a ve li t t le falth in the e f fe et i ve im-plumentation of any evacuation plan.
I be li e ve, howe ve r,
th a t the County must do eve rything possib le to e f fectuate as good an evacua ti on p lan as possib le, an d we wi l l con tin ue to work toward that end.
Thank you for your in te res t an d con ce rn.
S i n ce re l y,
Paul Bake r Bartle Chairman Mon t game ry Coun ty Commi s s ion e rs PBB keI cc:
Mr. Arth ur Loeb'en
-e
+
0 e.
e 8
h 9
e LE'M11 B ) T' /s am
-