ML20129H049
| ML20129H049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1985 |
| From: | Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#285-304 OL, NUDOCS 8506070453 | |
| Download: ML20129H049 (2) | |
Text
6k t.S.'.UCI dB RrXULATOhY Coa *ISSION.. 1702.10 SAh.TY AliD Lice.:;3ILG AFFEAL SondJ
$0 F2ILA. ULic. Co.
Limerick Gon.St. Units 1 & 2 Dockot No.
50-3%)53 OL--
Juno 2,19S5 kJPEAL SY A.L. ANTdOhY/ FOS F:t0M ASL3's 0:tDEh,5/24/85,IMPLLil;TII;G ITS GRAliT OF E E FTION TO FECO RE: 10 CFFJ 50 47 (a) (b) FOR G2ATERFORD FRISCNERS' CONTDiTIONS A33 AUTEORIZING THE IS3UARCE OF A FULL F0FER LICCHSE3 AUD PETITION FOR STAY.
- 1. Anthony / FOE hereby appeels ASLB's order of 5/24/85 implementing its grant of exemption from the requirements of 10CER*50 47 (a)& (b) re.the Graterford Frisoners, and the authorizing of the issuance of a full power operalgI[Econee
."Licerick Generating Station,Unita 1 and 2 " (sic)
We petition the Board to reverse AB's granting of the exemption and to declare invalid,andgevpg g
t authorization of a full power license.
LB has exceeded its authority in authori-zing a license for Unit 2 and this should cell into question its0f%tlttstAlpue any authorization, including Untt 1.
LE insults the NRC,end citiz NhN" protection of their safety and he lth under LEFA and AEA by T,his abuse of licens-a ing jurisdiction. This illegel action reinforces LB's prejudiced stance which was apparent in the latest Emergency planning decisions,LBP-85-14, reinforced by LB' apparent sponsorship of Unit 2 in ASLBP 81-465-07, 5/9/85, pa,Te,8, "Further delays impact on the restart of construction of Unit 2.."
In our statement 5/16/55, in opposition to this exemption we named this reference " gratuitous, irrelevant and prejudicial. ($ee Attachment 1. )
2.
L3's condition, included in its decision L3P 14, requiring traffic control p61nts outside the EFZ has not been met as shown in FD'.A,R.W.Krimm to EL. Jordan,5/21/85,p.3since the plans have not yet been reviewed by Penna.Stete Police or FE'.A. LB is not waiting for its own conditions to be eatisfied.
- 3. We request an immediate stay on the granting of the exemption and the authorization of the issuance of a full power license on the following bases:
I. We believe that we shall prevail on the merits since LB has erred in basing its decision on 10 CFR 50 47 (c) (1) because the Applicant has failed to
" meet the applicable ets da ds" far Gr terford emergency plans,that" deficiencies u
r a
in the plans"have not been corrected (the contentions have not even been he rd a
yot), " interim compens ting actions" have not been taken,and there are not valid a
"other compelling reasonr. to permit plant operation ".
Furthermore LB has abused its authorityhpsitorizing a license for Unit 2,and has acted with prejudice against the public: health and s fety by promoting the interest of PECo inUnit 2 (Attac,1 above) a Wttch.
II. As we have shown in evidence presented to Mr.H.Denton,Dir.NRR,& NRC,12,3,4 )
12/23/85 through May 9,1985 PECo is not able at this time to operate the Unit 1 reacter ih a way that will not threaten ensr s fety and health and that of the public e
b2cause 6f the dhnger of imminent accident and the lethal release of radiation.
III. To abandon Unit i now may involve loss to PECo stockholders but they cill be be.;ter off if the plant never operates and is written off with the cost shared by ratepayers and government. (See Attachment 5.)
IV. It will serve the bublic interest best if PECo stays solvent, the plant is never operated,and the public is saved the risk of nuclear accident and destruc-tive rate incre ses which will impact femilies and businesses disasterously.
a FCdA.Pa.I,B Staff Counsel.DocketingFECo, A. Love,F. ROMANO, -LEX f /_pec Noyla,Pa.19065 ao9 NRC-AB L Ras u
submitted, A
cc:
Othe Boxi 8506070453 B50602 s
PDR ADOCK 05000352 Q>
0 PDR
/
.~ %% ECLEAF. HMYA A*)M CEWs1TG.. M AC uFSfY iL M MdLG MahM IEILA,ELEO. CO. limarick Gen. Sta. Unita 1& 2 DOCKET No. 50-352,353 Eny 16, 1985 STATi:. MENT OF ANTE 0NY/F0E IN OFFOSITIus TO GAAhTiaG APFLICIA T'S r0 TION FOR EXEMFTION FROK 100Fd 50 47 (a) & (b) hE: EL CUATIGJ FLAM FOR INMATBS.
The objections which Anthony /F0E submitted to the Board on 3/15/85 are still valid and unanswered; we reassert these.
We dis gree with the Board's a
order of 5/9/85 in sost~
aspects,and aspecially the conclusion (p.8) " the inmates' health and s fety are, in the opinion of the expert agency in the a
area of emergencies, adequately protected in the event of a radiological emergency at Limerick."
Ne a e inpressed with the deficiencies set forth in the Inmstes' Proposed R, vised Contentions, 5/13/85,andweagree that these are serious and could result in the miseprrigge of evacuation plans ard the release of d,ngerous criminals into the co :cunity,at a time of extreme tension.
We also call the Board's attention to the me=or ndum of R.W Krimm FEMA, 4/9/85, toe.L. Jordan a
NRC (p.2)
" the ovenil radiological emergency plans and preparedness are not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the appropriate measures can be taken to protect the he31th and safety of the public in the vicinity of the Limerick Generating Station in the event of a radiologic l emergency."
a It is obvious that evacu tion of the inmat'es will coincide with the evac-n uation of the rest of the residents of the EPZ and if FEMA has not approved the overall plans,there are deficiencies which will invalidate any aesurance that Graterford plans will protect the inmates,or the residents of th'e EPZ.
the Bo rd placed a condition on its decision,LBP-85-14 (p.74) in Furthernore, a
connection with our contention LEA 24/ FOE 1. in resnonse to FEMA's restriction, the Director,Dffice of Nucle r Reactor Regulation, shall receive verification a
of plans to implement a level of traffic control in the King of Prussia area.."
It is,therefore, not true that " any final impediment to the issuance of a full power license has been r-.oved". (ALAB 5/9/85, p.8 )
Im addition there are many impediments to the safe operation of the Limerick plant as documented. sin Anthony / FOE's petitions to E.R.Denton,Dir.NRR,12/23/85, 2/25/85,5/9/85,and our letter of 4/27/85 to H.L. Thompson,NRS.
PECO does not have permission from DRBC for cooling water to allow operation of the reactor and it violated the low power license in its application to DRBC.
In the operation of the plant a high level of Licensee pl *ents continue,45 from 1/1/85 to 4/2/85'" " th"" 1/3 f th " " * *"*
"""*d h7 P'"*
""*1 *"" " ""d "" th*" 1/3 by design and equipment deficiencies. These' events" prove PEco's operation unsafe-at any power level. Consequently a nucle r emergency could happen at any moment.
a
~
We submit that the Board's reference to" restart of construction of Unit 2" irrelevant a d prejudicial (p.9) Appearing to sponsor Unit 2 is gratuitous, n
is not an appropriate,functipn for the Board in its judicial role.
8 Cout sel, Docketing cc.JiRC ASLB Judges,ALAB,Othe)rs on Serv. List Respectfully subritted, Box 186 P d.A,FEMI,PE0o, A. Love
~
/kWFCS IN C-tQ1~ l gg y' Meylan,Ja.
TD, g!%H 19c43 7r4
U.S. NUCLEAR REJULATORY COE.iIS3 ION Ro PHILA. ELEC. CO.
Limarick Nuclocr Gan Sta.
Dockot No.
50-352,353 April, 5,1985 APPEAL SY R.L. AliTJ0liY/F0E FROM REFUSAL OF NRC DIRECTOR OF REACTOR REGULATION TO ACT ON OUR PETITION OF 12/23/84 TO SERVE A SHON CAUSE ORDER,AND OUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, 2/25/85 ; MD FOR AN'URDER FROM THE CCWISSION.
On 12/23/85 we submitted a petition to the Director of Inspection and En-forcement to issue a show c use order to start proceedings to revoke low power a
license 37F-27 We included substantiating evidence and references to show that PEco is not able to operate the Limerick reactor safely.
After a delay of li months Mr.H.Denton replied that our petition did not require any immediate action and he declined to take any immediate action.
We replied to Mr. Denton's letter on 2/25/85,asking for reconsideration and submitting further evidence from PEco's operation to date,of the faults in equip-ment and opergtor performance which demonstr ted further PEco'r inability to a
operate without end4ngering the public,NHC staff,and PSco employees. In a 3/26/85 letter Mr. Denton again " decline (d) to take any i= mediate action".
It is now more than three months since our petition for a show cause order, and PEC's operating record contains many more reports of violations and repeated errors which at higher levels of operation could have brought on a serious accident and th eat to the public health. and safety.
We believe the-Director's withholding of action on our petition amounts to a d-laying tacti: which threat-ens our he lth and safety under PE~4 's immin-nt escansion to levels above 5 :(,
a (See letter Daltroff to Denton 3/25/85), predicting a full power licensein April.
Te her-by petition the Co: mission to order the-Director to issue a show cause order and to institute a hearing process on the revoking of th.e Icw power license.
We further petition the Consission to order the reactor to be held in a shut down state until a decision on revoking the license has been made.
We present further evidence of PECo's inability to operate the reactor safely:
Conditions required under the license have not been satisfied as follows:
IM?IGEENT LOADS OI. PIPE 5 & SUPF0dT (Torrey/6/85 A.Schwencer to E GP HEDUNDAliCY I'T HI'20TE SEUTDORT CAPA3ILITY 3
. Bauer l
DETAILd3 CONTROL ROO's JE3ICN R_VIEk 3/14/85 l
SAFSTY FARA'iETZR DI3 PLAY SYSTEM 3/27/35 l
i he reactor cannot be safely opeatei until there has teen a co:F ete : heck l
l on all safety systems and re-training of operators and supervisors to eliminate the possibility of process and equipment failure with c:nsequences for accidents as indicated below :
-Safety-relatad equipment removed from service sithout permission, Violation 85-02 and Control Room HVAC system change without NRC approval, Violation 85-01
- INapction 85-11 possible diesel fire pump flywheel crack,p.5; troubleshoot p.1
- For 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> containnent isolation valves inopertble, Inspection 85-08,1/15/95, l
- For Th hours without protection of volume level switch,LER 85-14,1/18/95
- Tag-out operated by construction / craft persorrel instead of FECo,LER 95-15.
Repeated is:le. tion of R#CU as in LERs 95-25,95-27( "cause of event remains under investigation") and previous LERs 84-12,26,34,35,36.
- Repeated scrans and half scrams from loss of power to saf-ty systene,LIR nd Leas, 34-05,39,and 85-07
] ~ ~ hearing to~ ~#e l t'ition the Commission to order a show cadse order and o require s take testi: cry as to the revoking of the licenseNFF-27,sud in the l
interval to suspend operr. tion of the Limerick reactor. Resp [c Cc: NRC A3 ubJitted.
E f p g '}3, Staff CO2 sel,M:ketin.7 f ~ ~ " '
~ Serv.,PECo,
Mr. Hu.th L. Thtmpson, Jr.,Dir. Siv. of Lictnsing,URR April 27,1985 U.S Nucicar Regulatory Commis tion, hohington, 20555 Res Phila Elec. Limerick Gen. Sta.
Dear Mr.
- Thompson, Docket No. 50-352 Unit 1. Startup Testing 7e refer to your letter of 4/10/85 to E.G.Dauer in which you mention a letter to "r.Denton of 3/25/85 which indicates PECo's plan to test oper te a
the turbine-generator, to 5 f. of rated power.
You stnte, "We have not identi-fied any conflicts with;pur plans on this matter..."
On the contrary we have identified several deficiencies and violations from recent NRC inspection reports which add up to the conclusion that PECo is not prepare'd to operate the plant safely at this time up to 5 % power or to test operate the turbine-generator.
Te,therefore, ask you to protect our health and safety and that of the public by changing your conclusion from " no objections" to we forbid any test operating of the turbine until the impedi-ments to safe operation listed below have been corrected and resolved.
Region I inspection report 85-03 dated 4/2/85 in Appendix A (See Attach-ment 1. ) states that Tech. Spec.3 6.1 4 was violated from 12/29/84 to 1/30/85 because PECO allowed the two independent MSIV le knge control subsystems to be a
This constituted a serious threat to the public while the reactor was in operation.
Operation of the reactor should be suspended until NRC has the assur nce that these systems are in order m3d PECo will maintain them in a
symptomatic of a.Starostecki (n.2.) states that this PSIV-LOS violation "could be operation.
RT n undesireablb trend."
In pection report 85-06, dated 4/lO/85, Appendix A, cites two violations s
which affected the power level of the reactor and which pose serious potential hazards to tre public he lth and safety.
FECo aliowed the power level of the a
reactor to be manipulated without the knowledge and consent of a licensed op-erstor, and permitted maintenance work to be done without permission from oper-(See Atta hment 2.)
A violation of Tech. Spec. (.S.1 and; ation personnel.
c Reg. Guide 1 33 Rev. 2, App. A, para. 9.e.
On page 11 of this same inspection report which deteils the unauthorized raising of the reector power level, under 4.).3 " Corrective Action Review",
Mr. S.D.3bneter,Dir. Reactor Safety, finds that the implementation of corrective action has not been developed and that review of these steps,i.e. "three cor-rective actions to this event" will have to be covered " in a subsequent inspec-tion.
This is considered an unresolved item pending URC review ( 352/85-06-03)."
l It is unconceivable that you would allow any te t oper,. tion of the turbine s
while these uncertainties as to control of the power leveh are unresolved.
In pection report 85-14, reported 4/23/95,( p.5 ) that" review of the startup s
test results is in process" e.nd that"a number of changes were required" and "the adequacy of the licensee review of this startup test procedure will be assessed in a subsequent inspection ".
And para. 2 3 cites excention reports supposedly resolved,"but action still is required to close out the test excention." On page 6,STP-15 2,on unresolved
" swap over situation" involving safety systnma states,"This problem has persisted during tests of HPCI and RCIC" and "in additioz HPCI stop valve experienced erratic behavior..during the pump start... A modificad is also planned... These modifications will require retesting of HPCI ". Until the problems with these essential safety systems have been completely. cured'ce are certain that you will not authorize any test operation of tutbine-generator.
On behalf of intervenor Anthony /F03,
in recognition of the above obstaclec to safe operation of the Limerick reactor, we petition you to exercise your authority to forbid PECo from test operating the turbine-generator.
C St ff Oours 1 NR,Co,o$hers on her, A3LbDkeketing, Reapectfq11y submitted, cc: h v.
s.
Q4y7 4, [f4tZT
/i,'7,r..,gy c)f' Sox 196,s.oylan,Pa. 19065
~
Mr. Harold 2.Deton, Dir. NRC Off. Muc1cor 'toactor Reg.
Mey 9,1985
- 7ashington, D.C. 20555
- te s Phila. alec.Co., Limerick Gen.Sta. Units 1&2. Doc.50-g
Dear Mr.Denton,
'.ie are again calling your attention to our petition of 12/23/84 and our cause order to further petition of 2/25/85 requesting that you issue a show initiate proceedings to revoke low power license NPF-27 issued to Phila. Elec.
We are enclosing a copy of our letter,
Co/. for its Limerick plant, unit.fl.4 27/35, to Hugh L. Thompson as further evide The evidence which we submitted to you conclusively proves that PEco is not qualified to operate the plant safely en d the' license should be revoked until equipment, employee,and process deficiencies have been completely reme-The present operation of this plant by PECo is a present and continuing died.
threat to our health and safety.
of Sections of license NPF-27:
rarjn addition we now cite IICo's violatio he license
- 1. C. Limerick will operate in violation of through the use of Schuylkill 3
2iver water for cooling during the low flow season,a d by demand 6ng relea n
ses fro: tre 31ue Marsh reservoir,and by renouncing its egeement to'the " river fell:wer mode" with the Delaware River 3a in Cc-~4 4on.
PEco's applications s
0 temperature licit.
of 3;J15/55 and 4/23/35 to 213C =all for re val of the 59 from Blue..:grsh st:-
.....ie tterhahn letters 3/19 & 4/2f/95 And, rein {ce piet with enc.ceures.) age.("
- se te.;,erv
- 1. 3.
The operation of Limerick with dependence on Schuylkill water for cooling will enda ger the health and safety of downstream water users by n
'hrcatening the biglogical life of the river and drawing upon reserves of drinking water,and Eonsuming water needed by industry to matutnin jobs.
- 1. 3.
P3Co's use of Schuylkill water is inimical to family and co=munity services and community health and safety because of the threat. to public water supply.
Even in this time of drought Mr.V.S. Boyer, PECo V.P. called upon 3270 in his written statement on 5/7/S5 for " Equitable demands upon all im-poundments" despite PICo's
.ggement with DRBC to Se limited by flow condi-tions in the Schuylkill.
This,gn violation of PECo's agreement with DREC and in violation of the conditions of the NRC license, of
- 1. E. Purthermore, PECo is in violation Appendix 3 of license UPF-27 3
3 1 of thd Appendix requires that "the licensee shall prepare and re-l
+::.
l
- ri in enviret= ental evalua tion" before :aking ru:b an appli:ation as this ch ve 'he ::nsumptive det nds en the Schuylkill river.
- e t-5.? r+;uires "a, as ee-rent of t'-e envir: ne 'al i.:n:t" and "N20 n;-
=:.
l
- : al Of the proposei che.nps in the fore cf a license amendment ino:rpera-
)
ti r the appropriate revision to the IFF" (2nvironmental Protection Plan)
II!:'s a:: plication to D32C violates both of these requirements of Appendir 3.
I As further evidence of the threat to the health and safety of the public fr:: this consumptive use of Schuylkill water and Blue ti,s.rsh reserves, we cite the testimony of Mr. David C. Yaeck, Executive Director,Chegter County #ater Je-e:.rees Authority, in oppo3ition to the removing of the 59 restriction and
-.e release of Blue Marsh water for Limerick consumption.
He testified at the
-ming on 5/7/65 in '7est Trenten se to the inviolate base that alue rarsh
~' '
wi er :enstitutes for public water resturce planning in Chester County. Ze esii
'..t a temporary request by FECc had the potential of becoming per=a.nent, is completely opp: sed to FICo's modification of DRBC ani *.is public agency (3ee DR3C transcri;t 5/-/95) lock +t D-69-210 CP,
l
'e sre enclosing a copy of our 1/20,S' ;3titi:n t: AL13 on this matter.
l
' 5.U A3 dismissed our petition and si titel us to sutrit it to your office.
4,ASL3,Joansel,N netim,
'.M.?O:
-+e s:tfully yours, l Nh 6[~? ~ "
3' q
Qip 3'
t
/P
E-( 6 *J LIMDR t CK C /
RATCS)
The Pt.!*r :YTJ7 WI A ENERGY F1.T;;PAYEP.3 COAbtTICd has respared this inforantion t.a':ed ct. deca.cntcJ fret;. Our parpocu in to enablo over'yete to undsrcta.nd t'an severe ecm.wie disuter s.hich thew.teria the Pitiladelphia re yico due to the Philadelpia F.t e :t.r ic courny (P::co) and its mistaken c.ccialon to continue cc,notruction of the Limurick auclear plants at all costs.
1 At present, the cost of running i
PECO's oil plants or buying power from th grid is abe :t 4.2 i
cents /kwhg (PCCO itself projects I
that this cost will increase to only 5.94 cents by 1990.) This replacement power, then, would cost icas than one-third tne_ pro weted 15 cents /kwn cest of 1. a ne r <w I and cost, with federal taxpayers payino l
1eos than ene-fourth the 19 the other 40% as the utility takas cents /kwh cost of Unit 1 if Unit 11 a huge taz loss on the investments.
is can-e t h d.
PLCO's main argument This would lower the cost to
' tor Lic.:r ick has been that it would ratepayers considerably, asking the be cheaper than eil planta, but the
=avinon stue to cancellation even cest of Lir.erick grew by a,are than greater.
504 i r.
t! e last three years while gg_"
-- **- " -- "_M MT t<:.d sy costs only half what FLC0 said it would.
p3 pcco*S RNIO"% ECONot:IC FWZUICCS JUST1FY LIKSRICK7 j-
~-~3 Csm.C"X:t:2.
.--.u " u w W11AT II* UNIT I IS CA!;Cd!1ED, 7007 Current trends do not indicate that Lirie r ick would Tv~er becoma cheaper or necess'ary to the j
The calculation above as sesse s that FECO would not be allowed to Philadelphia regional economy
.cecover eny of the costs cf during its 35-year lifeti-e. Since Limerick if the plant does not 1981, PECO's claims during the FUC cperate. Hewever, if the PUC treats i
ti ti M
hrM We esse as commissions in other
,this proven wrong on all the major states have treated ca ncella t tens,
, ogg g gog,,
PECO would be allowed to recover some of tha costs. A typical method cost of Lirerick Construction is to allcw the utility to recovwr Since 1981, PECO's prcjected cost the constraction cost in equal has core than doubled, f ror' $4.2 insta11N nt payments over 10 or 20 billion to $6.6
,,gg,,
billion for both
--l years wathout being allowed a profit en the part of costs which have not yet been recovered. (In c3,g og ogg i
accounting jargon. this is known as In 1981, fECO projectcu*eil today "amortinti n withcut. a return on would cost $55/berrel, t.or e than the unarcrtized balance.")
twice the current price of I'
Fcr exarple, if Lizerick I is cancelled PECO could collect Cost of Power Of f the Grid one-tenth or one-twentieth of $3.8 In
- 1961, PECO projected that billien -- $380 utllion each of 10 replacecent power off the grid years or $190 mijllon each of 40 would cert 10.74 cent /kwh by 1990.
years. Even adding the cost of oil Now, FECO projects this cost will replaceeent power. cancellation is only grow to 5 94 cents -- little c1carly a tremendoun t,arquias more than half.
$l90 - 1M0 million cost et amorttaat ten Cost of Industrial Co meneration I
.t339 mittian cost of oil instes3 In 1981, fECO said co-generation I
~~i4bp - S n 19 nt il ton c o.t of ca nce llet t" '
was not feasible. Now, FECO admits it could produce 720 eegawatts of f
$630 - StCM million cost of Lisserick pcwer for 6.2 cents /kwh or less.
-16to - S 3.Jn million cost of cerieellation When adjusted for capacity f actors,
$32s. 1 detmattion savlegs so consumers this would be enough to replace
^-
Limerick I at ha'1f the cost.
hYlMdf Ourse, after the 10 or 20 year perled, the cancellation would Cry th in riectrie Decand in DM, PRO projfeted electric be paio off.
In
- contrast, ratep yeis would be paying for use w ould increase by 2.31 per Liter;ek for 35 yearst year. New, PCCO projects growth at only 0 91 per year. By the year
'onc federally-sponsored study
- 2000, this dt!!arance would l
es t ifta t e s that in cases of elirinste the need for both cancellation, ratep4yers an<I Limerlet vr.i t s.
COEGE.-U UEEC of the wasted on truc on ATTN.e Me,Wr S'
SAvi%s ar* Laerucx l a m.xm on war orvarm
,