ML20133B445
| ML20133B445 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1985 |
| From: | Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#385-101 OL, NUDOCS 8508060176 | |
| Download: ML20133B445 (1) | |
Text
7g; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD RE: PHIIA. ELEC. CO.
Limerick Gen Sta. Units 1&2 DOCKER #:
50-352,3 530L PETITION, BY R.L. ANTHONY / FOE TO THE APPEAL BOARD FOR A STAY OF LB's ORDER OFDN2"/85 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A FULL POWER OPERATING LICENSE FOR LIMERICK, UNITS "112.*
August 1,1985 Anthony /POE petitions the Board for a n immediate, stay on the LicegingBo,agd'g g authoriza tion to the Director,NRR,to issue a full power operating licenue fWLimetick in its order of 7/22/85, included in its Fourth PID.
We claim that in keeping with the requirements of this o'rder LB hrs made-it _im--
possible for the Director to issue this license at this time. The orderM7/27/f p.'25) requires the issuance of the license to be " consistent with the Board's dech'i e in this case and upon making requisite findings with respect to ma.,tters not embraced
- in the Third Partial. Initial Decision on Offsite Emergency PlaJning or in this dects.
Lon."
We set forth below several matters "not embraced",etc. which require " requisite findings"before the license may be issued. We,therefore, petition the Boarp for an in-j mediate steyt.under 10 CPR Sec 2.788 (e) and demonstrate to the Board that we are entitled to a stay by fulfilling the four criteria as set forth below.
STRONG SHOWING ON THE MERITS.
not consider the requirement of 44 CFR 350.7 (b);
The exact sitehnd configuration of the EPZ surrounding a particular nuclear power f acility shall be determined by State and local govearnments in consultation with FEMA...
As we pointed out in our brief submitted to the Board on 6/6/85,re. the 3rd PID, FEMA disclaimed any connection with setting up the EPZ. The wording above "shall be deter-mined" does not allow any exception to this by FEMA or NRC. It is a requirement in l
offsite planning. In neither the 4th or the 3rd PID did LB consider this, making both decisions flawed.
~
l 2.We are certain that we will prevail on our aPPe l to the Director FEMA, of 6/25/85 a
and that the Director will withdraw FEMA approval of emergency plans for the whole EPZ f
a,,,,nd Graterfoed. We incorporate here by reference our appeal and its listing of all the sections of 44 CFR violated by FEMA in approving the Limerick emergency plans. LB leaned heavily on FEMA in arriving at its decision.4th PID,as evidenced by its reference to FEMA witnesses Asher/Rinard, pp 5, 6, 8, 9,10, at:1 11. llence, withdrawing of FEMA v will leave. LB without an essential ingrediant of its decision.
approval l
to
- 3. Another " requisite finding" is involved with our appealghe Board of 6/7/85 a d brief of 7/2/85 on Limerick effluent releases.. We believe that the Board will re-n verse LB's decision and order the record reopened, making the issuance of a license im-possible before the results of a hearing on the matteraie issued.We ask a stay on this
appeal to be combined with a stay on the operating license until af ter a hearing by LB.
- 4. Other " requisite findings" are tied up in appeals which we believe will be decided in our favor, appeal 4/5/85 to NRC to revoke the low power licence,and appeal,7/3 (opposition) to NRC vs., an exemption to PECo f rom 10 CFR 50 App.E,IV.F.1,and'.eut y#
appeal 7/26/85 to NES vs. the issuing of 8 exemptioOs to PECo f rom NRC regulations. We include all of these here by reference.in their entirety.
We are certAfn from the weight of 'the above that the Board will find we ' prevail en y g
the merits, y a. IRREPARABLE HARM.
If Limerick is licensed for full power operation we will be irrepar-g ably injured because of the danger of accidents routine releases,and radioactive waste.
g In addition will be financial injury because of losses to the uconomy and soaring rates.
h HARM TO OTHER PARTIES. If Limerick is not licensedgif the plant never operates,PECo 5 stockholders will probably be harmed in the short run but,in the longer run will benefit.
~
PUBLIC INTEREST.
The public interest lies in avoiding economic setbacks from rate hikes, successive additions to home e4ectric bille, and PEco instability. This means "no" n
5 to Limerick. Unit i should never be Itcensed.
ca.C cc:NRC LB. Staff Counsel, Docketing, FG%
Respee ull submitte PECo and others on Serv. List..
Box 186 Moylan,Pa.19065
. 3 CQ