ML20128H081

Rl Anthony & Friends of the Earth Response Supporting 850607 Appeal to Reopen Record & Hold Hearings on Radiological Effluent Releases from Operation of Facilities

ML20128H081
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	07/02/1985
From:	Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML20128H085	List: ML20128H081 ML20128H087
References
CON-#385-716 OL, NUDOCS 8507090402
Download: ML20128H081 (3)

Text

l

%G

~ . , U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATLRY COMMISSION . . . ATOMIC 3AFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD RE: PHIA.ELEC. CO. LIMERICK GEN. STA. Units 1 & 2. DOCKET # 50-352,353 July 2,1985 ANTHONY /F0E BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF OUR APPEAL OF 6/7/85 FROM ASLB l'EM.& ORDER OF 6/4/85 APPEAL In a Memorandum and Order of 6/4/85 ASLB denied our petition of 4/30/85 To Reopen the Record on the Basis of New Information in PEco's Effluent Release Report,Feb. 1985 We filed an appeal of this order with ASAB 6/7$QFhis brief reinforces our appeal and petitions again that LB's order be reversed and that the record be reopened and hearings be held via a Boa rd rema g orp rg o g g l

1. CRITERIA FOR NEW CONTENTIONS. InitsMemorandumandOrder,6/,4/85(LB6/4-P.ll)

LB admits thgt we considered the five criteria in our filing e 5/14E lll Good Cause .Although radioacive rele ases from routine operations were ino'lud'ed in FSAR and ODCM, we had no way of knowing the actual effects or extent of radioactivity untilPEco'sfirstsemi-annualreportwqsissued.Aswestatedon4/30,wehadto request Attachment D,and received it only on 4/2,still n6t complete We have ,

up to now,not received the " attached pages" for Att. D.

I i Weassertthattherewasgoodcausetofileourcontention4/30/85andour request to reopen the record. We did not have the basis for filing before then.

We ask the Board to find that this facter weighs in our favor. 4.

(2) Availability of other Means (LB-p.ll) LB conceded that we prevail on this.

(3) Development of Record (LB-p.12) LB admits (6/4-p.4) that only releases under ]

emergency conditions were litigated before it and included in its decision,LBF-84-31'.

NRC Staff,also,in their response of 5/28/85 (p.7, note 5) said there had been no I' contentions on routine releases,and there was no litigation. It is apparent,thus,tg that the record is lacking in this essential aspect of protecting the public safetyk l We gnformed LB,5/14, that we had secured the services of an expert who could hk make a valuable contribution in augmenting the record on routine releaseo.,Our y expert is Dr. Bruce Molholt,a geneticist and microbiologist. Since LB did not af- II

$ ford us an opportunity to present him as a witness in a hearing, we are.submitiagg ,

'^

here as Attachment 1. an Affidavit by k.Moholt,and Professional Saalificati

.m u a g We believe that the Board will find that this is a valu ble addition to the(reeg ., '

@ and that it is essential to have Dr.Moholt's further testimony in a heariner. h C j:p r

i, oo g We ask the Board to find that we have prevgiled on this femtor.

mg (4) (LB-p.12) LB granted that our interest is not otherwise represented asept* .

- "thisfactorweighsinfavorofthepetitioner"(Anthony /F0E). #!" $ .h ,

P N

(5)nroadening of the Iseues. reopening the record on effluent releases does not.d.']f3. )

.c. -

g broaden the issues,as we point out under (3) above; it fills in a vital-aspeet, ira l

N in protecting the public's health and safety through this addition to the record.'

, , . ., w e i

We maintain that any delay cannot weigh against the assurance of public safety I }{'

which ... -..... - s j must be counted as a priority consideration. Furthermore,a full power licensei .

m willnotbeheldupatthistimebyourappealsinceGiunterfordemergenoy.contestik ys

F

• • 2 **

ara only coming to a hearing,ctarting 7/15 In addition th- curr-nt cater short-age is limiting PEco's ability to proceed with t--ting and power incraases. We not cause delay estimata that our appeal mayg beyond the artent of these othar factors.

STANDARDS FOR REOPr.NING We trust that the Board will find that we have satisfied the five factors above and that we prevail on all five. We have thereby eatisfied the first requirement for reopening the record. In respect to standard (2),we assert that the effluent releases from routine operation is a vital safety issue which has not been considered in the licensing process and that the Affidavi t of Dr.Molholt points up some of the essential missing factors. His testimony in a a hearing will further reinforce these issues. We furthe assert that we are subject to immediate personal danger since R. Anthony has on several occasions walked along the railroad right-of-way to observe the Limerick plant. This means that he and others who walk there can be exposed to gaseous effluent at about 900 feet from the plant's stacks.

By basing its effluent set points on radiation levels at the site boundary circumference at 2,300 feet, PECo has failed to provide for my safety at 900 feet for that PECO,thereby has violated andy of any who traverse the railroad right-of-w ay.

10 CPR 20.106 (b) by raising the limits of radiation exposure without receiving NRC approval. At the same time PECo has violated 10CFR 20.106 (c-) (1)(2)(3)and(4).

PECo is also in violation of the provisions of 10 CFR 50 36 (c) (1) and(B)(ii)(A) in not providing set points to assure " barriers which guard against the uncontrol-led relegse of radioactivity".

By adjusting its set points to 2,300 feet instead of 900,PECo is also in violationof10CFR5036a(a)(2)in[8'Eording"theprincipalradionuclides released to unrestricted areas.."

On the basie of the above we ask the Board to find that our contention on efflueht releases satisfies standard (2) since it constitutes a basic safety issue.

With respect to standard (3) we assert that the isolation set points will have to be based on lower levels when the dosages are calculated at 900 feet and modifications will have to be made in plant procedures and equipment if PEco is to come into compliance with the regulations cited above,1.e. 10 CFR 20.106, 50 36, and 50 36a. We ask the Board to find that standard (3) has been satisfied.

We ,therefore,ask the Board to find that we have met all the criteria and standards for reopening the record,and thus order LE to reopen t'ae record.

FAULTS IN PLANT AND OPERATION Further reinforcement for reopening the record comes from the record of faulty equipment and op-ration at Limerick which appear to assure the continuing inadvertent release of radioactivity at dangerous levels until corrective steps have been drawn up and carried out. s Examples come from Region 1 Inspection Report 85-21, dated 5/2/85, (p.4) "open " item 84-66-11 invol-ving in-field radioiodine sampling. collection techniques,and training for in-

I aa3oa field analycio. Ir, the came inopretion (p. 5)is"unrecolved ites" 85-21-01 on an. unacceptable method of calibrating a neutron survey instrument. Another in-spection report, 85-23 dated 5/20/85 (p.3,4) sets forth inadequacies in"esicula-tions of dose contributions from plant radioactive effluents to unrestricted areas",

an open item 85-23-01.

In addition to the se.mples above from inspection reports, some appreciation of the scope of faults and failures at Limerick can be learned from the record of Licensee Event Esports, a total of 54 reported from 1/1/85 to 5/17/85. Almost half of these potential accidents were caused by personnel error. At hig'ser lefels of operation (the plant was limited to 5% during the period) there would undoubt-edly be inadvertent releases of radioactivity as a result of these " events"(LERs).

The way in which they relate to effluents can be assumed from the repetition.of a series of" events", (out of the total of 54),9 involving the neactor Water Clean Up System, 5 involving the neactor Containment ventilating system (HVAC), and 4 involved with Control Room HVAC. These " events"give an indication of the faults in operation and equipment as they relate to the potential for liquid or gaseous radioactive releases at Limerick. -

The need for changes in"PEco's management oversight of (the) radhiogical activities" is documented in a letter T.E.Murley,NRC,to V.Boyer ,PEco,5/30/85 (EA 85-42) page 1. " A. Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties / Peach Bottom.." and B,a similar notice for Limerick. These violations at both plants were rated at Severity Level III (p.3) The two incidents at Peach Bottom involve deficiencies in oversight of radiological activities (p.l.),but the report (p.2.)

concludes that these deficiencies ervade PECo's management and,therefore, could we b eve be expected in a related form aat merick in relation to contractors and employees, f

1.e. " inadequate oversight and control of contractor activities is not limited to the particular facility management ,but also involves corporate management."

t

(

(

SUMMARY

With the evidence of inadequate oversight of radiological activities l on the part of PEco's management and the record of open items and LEaa in PEco's operation at Limerick to date, the potential for radioactive releaser to the public in the unrestricted area is immediate and continuing. It is essential,hhere-fore, that our contention on radiological effluents from routine operation of the plant be heard and measures undertaken to protect the public. Since we have settisfied the criteria for reopening the record,we ask for th'is,and a remand to the Licensing Board for hearings.

Res otfully submitted, cc NRC:LB, Staff Counsel, Docketing, PECo Others on Serv. List db