ML20137B674
| ML20137B674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1985 |
| From: | Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#385-298 OL, NUDOCS 8508220106 | |
| Download: ML20137B674 (2) | |
Text
U4N!/fl/% otv uc
? # )7U.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION..........
RE: PHILA ELEC. CO. Limsrick. Gen.Sta. Units 1. A 2.
DOCKET #
50-352,353 O b REQUEST TO THE COMMISSION SY R.L.WrMONY/F0E FOR RECONSIDERATION 0F IU ORDER OF 7/25/95 DENYING ADJUDICATORY HEARING ON PECO MOTION OF6/24/95,AND RECUEST FOR STAY OF EXEMIrrION AND p]R ADJUDICATORY HEARING.AFD STW ON OPE tar n:G.uGVE 55' August 17,1985 The Commission's orSer of 7/25/85 in response to PEco's motion of 6/24/39 for an exemption from 10 CFR 50, App. E, Sect IV.F.1 for the conduct of a full participation -
exercise within one year before the issuance of a full-power operating license does f" D not respond to the " substantial reasons"against the granting of this exemption set forth in "'Re.sponse in Opposition" submitted to the Commission on 7/3/35 by AntYy/F0E.
MG 21 O We,therefore, petition NRC to reconsider this order and to make a decision im-media tely, referring consideration of PECo's motion for this exemption to the Licensing h
3oard for an adjudicatory hearing instead. of referring the matter for evaluatiod and decision to the Director NRR,in keeping with its precedent in Shoreham, CLI 48-3,19 NR(
1154 (1984)g We further petition the Commission (NRC) for an immediate stay on this ex-emption,and Me enforcement of the requirement of Sect.IV.F.1 (see above) requiring a full participation exercise before" first operating license for full power and prior-to operation above 55, of rated power".
Since NRC issued a Memo and Order on 8/8/85,(p.9)
(CLI-85-15) authorizing "the Director to issue to PECo a full-power operating license for the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1.", we assert that this. order was issued in violation of 10 CFR 50, App. E, Sect. IV.F.1 which requires "a full participation ex-ercise shall be conducted within 1 year before the issuance of the first operating lic-ense for full power and prior to operation above 5". of rated power.."
As NR6 is aware, the most recent full participation exercise was conducted on 7/25/84 which does not meet the Sect. IV.F.1 requirement.
Since NRC violated its regulations by its order of S/9/85 authorizing a full-power license for Limerick, it must now correct this action by revoking this authorization and by suspending a full-power license if it has already been issued. We petition NRC for a stay on the issuance of a full-power license and a stay, on an exemption for PECo from the "within one year requirement" of Sect. IV.F.1 until af ter an adjudicatory heer-Ing by LB and proper findings on this issue, or,as the alternative, an icmediate decision by NRC denying PECo's motion for an exemption f rom Sect. IV.F.1,while requiring at the same time compliance with this Section with a full participation exercise on offsite emergency preparedness for a Limerick nuclear accident,before a full-power license or operation above 5%
CRITERIA FOR A STAY. We assert that we meet the 4 criteria under 10 CFR 2.798(e) below:
- 1. It appears certain ~that we will prevail o n the merits because NRC will find its order of 8/8/85 a thorizing the license,violalated Sect. IV.F.1 and it will that u
revoke it. And Nic in its order of 7/25/85 erred in deciding that there was no need for an adjudicatory hearing since our "Resconse in Opposition"of 7/3/85 cites the violations of its regulations by FEMA in relation to Limerick emergency plans, showing the likelihood of the FEMA Commissioner revoking approva11and PECo's inability to operate safely set g
forth in our 7/2/85 Brief in Support of Our Appeal to AB.
NRC erred in ignoring that the exemption violated 10 CFR 50.12 (a) in its endangering life and property.The exgeg showg Also NRC ignored our appe l to reopen the record on radioactive rele sesi Appeal to AB 6/7/85,and Brief 7/2/SS.)NRC ignored our appeal of 8 exemptions, o/30/85f 7/26/85.
a a
The Staff reminded NRC in its Response to Applicant's Motion,7/11/85, (nl.) that 10 CFR 51.21 requires an environmental assessment before the granting of an exemption. We have seen no such assessment and believe that it does not exist. Nor ha.,ve we seen or been provided. any" Director's action on the exemption request" which NRC, in its order of 7/25/85 stated, " will be reviewed by the Commission in the course of its full-power ef fective-ness review".
Therefore, we assume that NRC in its haste to authorize a full-power license on
)
8/8/85 ignored the Director's missing action (af ter referring "the initial evaluation 8508220106 050817 he PDR ADOCK 05000352
,_L 4, (' V>
PDR c
o
-. 2 -.
and decision" to the Director NRR)(NRC 7/25/35 order). We assert that NRC issued the authorization for a full-power license in violation of 10 CF2 50 App. E Sect. IV.F.1 on 3/9/85 since no exercise-had been conducted within a year as required and no ex-a thorized.
emotion f rom this requirement had been u
- 2. R.L. Anthony and members of F05 will be irreparably injured unless this stay.is granted.
If Limerick is granted a full-power license the risk of radiological accidents and radiation releases wili tincrease our chances for cancer, birth defects,and sickness and long term f atalities f rom low level radiation. We will be forced to pay increases in eletric rates which would be far in excess of our rates if Limerick #1 was never operated and PECo purchased electric 2r$E the excess pool which is available and apn rently will E
a continue. Cur chances for jobs will be impaired by the economic hardships of business f rom. aoaring rates,and the resulting flight of business f rom the PECo service area. We
' may be forced to move from the area with consequent loss of investment in property.
near future decides, partially as a result,
- 3. If this stay is grar.ted and if PECo in the to consider altern tives to the 3
a operation of Limerick, the company and its stockholders, employees and customers will be benefitted in the long run although there may be a passing financial squeeze. PECo could ictediately be relieved of the major part of the current costs whid the company claims. amount to about $ 1 million per day. This. could turn' out to be a very creative step in the stability of the company and its future financial status.
- 4. It appears clear to us that the public interest lies in keeping electric rates low,and the pubile would benefiggrom being relieved of the burden of Limerick in the rate base with my added power need being purchased' f rom the excess in.the area f ros utilities, co-generation, solar and wind power, commervation,etc. Other utilities are making a suoc ess f rom exploiting such alternatives. The public interest is strongly in-volved in the preservation and creation of jobs. Removing Limerick as a potential bur-den in the rate base will further this. The public interest also requires the removal of the radiation threat of Limerick's operation. The public must be protected from the
' negative imoact of Limerick on the economy and the disastrous results for family in-vestments.f rom soaring electric costs. These negative factors could. result in economic and social dislocations of continuing consequence.
4 CONCLUSIONS. We believe that we have established conclusive points which make a. stay Imperative. We,therefore, petition the Commission for the following actions:
or revoke
- 1. Immediately stay the issuance o(,a full-power license.or opera tion above S %.
- 2. Deny PECo' motion for an exemption from 10 CFR 50, App E, Sect.1V.F.1.
3.aequire compilance with Sect. IV.F.1 with a full participation exercise.
Or alternately, Refer consideration of the motion to the Licensing Board for an adjudicatory hearing.
All Anthony /F0E submissions referered to above are included in toto by reference.
cc: NRC Staf f, Docketing, AB, LB, PECo, LEA, 2espectfully submittec, Others on Serv. List g 4, Box 186 Moylan,Pa. 19065
.. _