ML20108E033
| ML20108E033 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1984 |
| From: | Elliott C LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#484-589 LPB-84-31, OL, NUDOCS 8412140125 | |
| Download: ML20108E033 (10) | |
Text
@7ft Oocnerea USMC 0 13 #0:30 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N 'I NG E vib[
BEFORE THE COMMISSION BRANCH In the L Ltar o.":
)
~
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANYi)
Docket Nos. 5'0-352, 50-353 O(,
)
(Limerick Cenerating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
MOTION FOR STAY OF LBP-84-31, SUSPENSION OF LOW-POWER FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-27, AND/OR PROHIBITION OF LOW-POWER TESTING Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. (LEA), intervenor in the above captioned licensing proceeding, moves the Commission for an Order staying LBP-84-31, suspending the low-power operating license NPF-27 for the above facility, or otherwise prohibiting low-power
-testing, and sets forth the following in support thereof:-
On or about September 3, 1984, LEA filed a timely appeal to the ASLAB Board from the Partial Initial Decision (PID), of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), which, inter alia, authorized the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue the operating license.
On or about October 3, 1984 LEA filed a brief in support of its appesk setting forth in detail various errors in law, and violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Admini-strative Procedure Act and Commission regulations by the ASLB.
8412140125 841210 PDR ADOCK OS0003sg
~
0 PDR
/) Sol
LEA's arguments therein are hereby incorporated in-their entirety by reference thereto.
Based upon the arguments set forth in its Brief, LEA believes that it has made a " strong showing" that it is likely to prevail on the' merits of its position.
On or about November 15, 1984, in connection with its Appeal, LEA filed a Motion For Suspension of Low-Power Facility Operating License NPF-27 with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB).
In a Memorandum and Order dated November 23, 1984, the ASLAB dismissed LEA's Motion as an untimely " stay" request and stated-inter alia:
...our power to treat a post-license-is suance stay request as a motion to suspend, or to entertain a motion for license suspension, extends only to limited circumstances -- for example, where the license has already been issued but a party nevertheless has a colorable right to such a stay within the time limit of 10 C.F.R. H 2.788 (a).
Otherwise, requests for license suspension are more properly addressed to the Director of NRR via a petition under 10 C.F.R.
g 2.206 or to the Commission itself.
(Memorandum and Order, slip. og., p. 3).
LEA therefore requests the Commission, for the reasons set forth in its Brief on appeal and those set forth below, to either stay the authorization for the license granted by LDP-84-31, to suspend the license, or otherwise to prohibit low-power testing of the facility.
The Commission's failure to take such action will pre-judice LEA's interests pending appellate review, and will irretriev-ably commit resources in the face of violations of the National Environmental Policy Act. -
i Irreparable Injury to LEA LEA will be irreparably injured unless the suspension or pro-hibition is granted.
Among the bases which LEA set forth for reversal of the ASLB partial initial decision below is the failure of the environmental review for Limerick to consider design alternatives to mitigate the risk of severe accidents.
LEA's membership is among the population exposed to this risk, and would be among the beneficiaries of a reduction of this risk.
Hidden from NEPA review and excluded from licensing consider-ation are Staf f--contractor analyses of a range of potential risk reduction measures which may be available for implementation at 1/
However, the cost-effectiveness of such measures, Limerick.
the practicability of backfitting such measures into the Limerick design and the radiation exposure of workers involved in the implementation of such measures will all be adversely affected by low-power operation of the facility which will contaminate plant systems.
Thus, low-power operation may forever make unavailable design alternatives which could substantially reduce the public risk to LEA's membership.
As the ASLB stated below:
It is commonly recognized that as construction continues, the costly corrective action to minimize environmental harm may increase, even to the point where such action is not reasonably possible.
1/
the material noted in LEA's pleadings and brief below.
See, e.g. %
r f
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station) LBP-82-92A, 16 NRC 1381 (1982).
Plant operation may well cause an
" irretrievable and irreversible committment" to a particular, and needlessly risky, plant design.
The public accident risk from operation of Limerick exceeds that of any facility in the United States with the sole exception of Indian Point in New York.
See NUREG-0974, Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of the Limerick Generating Station, pp. 5-116 124.
Remedial risk reduction measures unavailable at Indian Point due to its history of plant operation may still be available for Limerick.
In addition, the NEPA, APA, and regulatory violations set forth in LEA's Brief, unless corrected prior to plant operation, will irreparably harm LEA's interest in lawful decision-making for the Limerick facility.
Harm to Other Parties The granting of suspension will not harm the cognizable interests of other parties.
The only party whose interests may reasonably be said to be adversely affected by such a suspension ~
_. _ i.
would be the Applicant.
Yet the only such interests so affected are solely economic in nature - concerns which, as this Appeal Board has expressly noted, are "not within the proper scope of issues litigated in NRC proceedings".
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Gen 2 rating Station) ASLB-789, NRC (November 5, 1984), slip. og. p. 5 (rejecting such concerns in the context of a stay of a license).
To the extent that such solely economic interests are deemed cognizable, LEA submits that the interest in the health and safety of the public must necessarily outweigh the monetary and private interests of the utility.
Further, such economic impacts to the util'ity are speculative at best, because the ultimate full-power and commerical operation of Limerick cannot now be prosumed, in the face of extant challongos to tho adequacy of off-site emergency planning which remain to be litigated as 1/ ndeed, it would be arbitrary and capricious for the Commission I
to considor claims of economic harm to the utility caused by a licensing delay, yet exclude claims of economic harm to the rate-payers and the public occasioned by the licensing of a nuclear facility, which like Limerick, the need for which is dubious at best.
If the Appeal Board intends to consider such claims of economic harm to the utility, LEA respectfully requests an oppor-tunity to set forth the economic harm to its membership and the public resulting from facility licensing and operation.
5-e L
a condition to full-power operation and whose outcome cannot permissibly be prejudged.
Indeed, the Appeal Board has precisely, rejected a claim that even the grant of a low-power license begins the " inexorable" process to full-power licensure.
Philadelphia Electric Co., supra, slip. oE., p. 5.
The Public Interest The requested suspension would serve the public interest, because it (1) protects the public interest in avoiding undue risk in nuclear power plant operation; (2) permits time to fairly and comprohonsivoly considor risk mitigation altornativos; (3) avoids an " irreversible and irretrievable commitment" to resources in the face of violations of National Environmental Policy Act safe-guards; (4) protects the public interest in principled and lawful decision making.
We anticipate the Applicant's arguments that the public interest would be disserved by any asserted increased costs due to delay in testing and commerical operation.
Therefore, we reitorate-the Appeal Board's rejection of the cognizability of "a nuclear plant's possible effect on rates."
Id., slip. og. p. 5.
And, in any event, whether the Commission will authorize full power operation by such time so as to make the suspension LEA roquests a material factor in any delay of commerical operation impacting rates is utterly speculative; even more speculative is e.
.o
+
what actual significant impact, if any, such a delay might actually have upon rates.
What is not speculative is the fact that contamination of plant systems by low-power testing will make design change backfitting more dangerous, more difficult, and-more expensive, and may thus irrevocably shift a close cost-benefit ratio against risk reduction.
For all these reasons, Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. respect-
~ fully requests the Commission to either stay LBP-84-31, siuspend
~
the low-power license granted to the Applicant, or otherwise prohi-bit low-power testing of the facility pending-adjudication of LEA's appeal on the merits.
W
. Charles W. Elliott, Esquire 325-North loth Street Easton, PA 18042 (215) 258-2374 Dated:
December 10, 1984
-,t.
- W" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '84 EC 13 NO 00 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
In the Matter of
)
hhl$GfSE b
)
BRANCH Philadelphia Electric Company
-)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copics of-LEA's " Motion for Stay of LBP-84-31, Suspension of Low-power Facility Operating License NPF-27, and/or Prohibition of Low-power Testing" dated December 10, 1984 in the captioned matter have been served upon the fol-lowing by deposit in the United States mail this 12-10-1984.
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Lando W. ~ 2ech, Jr.,
Office of the Secretary Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory.
U.S._ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Nunzio J. Palladino, Christine N. Kohl, Chairman i
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
-Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 L
Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
t James K. Asselstine, Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Gary J. Edles Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington,' D.C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l
Frederick M. Bernthal, Commission Commissioner-Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 P
r m
7.. c._..
Helen F. Hoyt, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairperson Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board U.S.
Commission Nuclear Regulatory.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office'of the Secretary Dr. Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Ann P. Modgdon, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 counsel for NRC Staff office of the Executive Dr. Jerry Harbour Legal Director Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Angus Love, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing 107 East Main Street Board Panel Norristown, PA 19401 U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Sugarman, Denworth &
Hellegers Philadelphia Electric Company 16th Floor, Center Plaza ATTW:
Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
101 North Broad Street Vice President &
Philadelphia, PA 19107 General Counsel 2301 Market Street Director, Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19101 Emergency Management Agency Basement, Transportation Mr. Frank R. Romano and Safety Building 61 Forest Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17120 Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Martha W. Bush, Esq.
Mr. Robert L. Anthony Xathryn S. Lewis, Esq.
Friends of the Earth of City of Philadelphia the Delaware Valley Municipal Services aldg..
106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 15th and JFK Blvd.
Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 Philadelphia, PA 19107 w----.____--_--_-_--____-__-__-___.__-_--__.
Mark Wetterhahn, Esquire Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Associate General Counsel Conner & Wetterhahn Federal Emergency 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W Management Agency Washington, D.C.
20006 500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 Washington, DC 20472 Phyllis-Zitser, Esq.
Limerick Ecology Action Thomas Gerusky, Director P.O. Box 761 Bureau of Radiation 762 Queen Street
' Protection Pottstown, PA 19464 Department of Environmental Resources Sori G. Forkin, Esq.
5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.
Assistant Counsel Third and Locust Streets Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Harrisburg, PA 17120 Governor's Energy Council 1625 N. Front Street James Wiggins j
Harrisburg, PA 17102 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Jay M. Gutierres, Esq. U.S.
Commission j
Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 47 Commissior Sanatoga, PA 19464 i
631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Timothy R.S. Campbell Director Department of Emergency Services 14 East Biddle Street i
Nest Chester, PA 19380 I
=
Charles W. Elliott, Esquire a
I
- I i
.