ML20195B605
| ML20195B605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1986 |
| From: | Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| CON-#286-319 ALAB-836, OL, NUDOCS 8605290440 | |
| Download: ML20195B605 (2) | |
Text
'
- -. A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION d ' \\ ' *~ l Df 0 U ',w J'
RE: PHILA. ELEC.CO. Limerick Gen.Sta. Unita 1& 2.
DOCKET # 50 352,353 sy,22,1986 PETITION FROM ANTHONY /F0E TO THE COMMISSION FOR REVIEW OF ALA'B-836,& 1 STAY.
I MAY 27 #
LB hearings on offsite emergency plans for PECo's Limerick last were, con-pitted is early 1985. Our findings were presented ca 3/2/85 and LB's decis '- d6 ion was entered 5/2/85 WeappealedthisdecisiontoAHen5/10/85andsub-6 mitted our supporting brief en 6/6/85 We new petities the Comm ion.fes review of AB's decision which was met issued until 5/7/86, delayed fehs1T than a year after LB's decision.
PETITION FOR REVERSAL, REMAND AND STAY OF OPERATION.
We assert that our health and safety and that of the public is presatly jeopardised by the Lim-erick plant and its radioactive content,even though it may be shut down at I
present, and that AB's delay in answering our appeal has subjected us to the-risk of radioactive poisoning is case of a radiological accident at Limerick, without the assurance that emergency plasming is adequate to evacuate the EPZ and to prevent a panic st Valley Forge Park and King of Prussia. We there-fore petities the Commission to reverse LB's decision excluding Valley Forge Park and Marsh Creek Park and to order these parks and the King of Prussia area to be included in the EPZ.
We petities the Commission to order new evacu-ation plans based on this expanded EPZ and that these plans he submitted to discovery and thepublic hearing process by romand to the Licensing Board.
Since the public is not protected in case of an accident without the new energency plans,we petities for a stay of the operation of the Limerick plant until the new plans have been demonstrated to be workable and will protect the publio in case of a Limerick socident.
BRITERIA FOR A STAY.
We assert that the four criteria are satisfied as follows:
(1.)We present below the flaws in the.
1H and LB decisions which we believe make the emergency plans unverkable and will add up to a-strong showiur.
present (2.) We will be irreparably injured if Limerick operates as an ewr threat to metropolitan Philadelphia in case of a nuclear accident. We believe that this plant should sever have been sited is such a densely populated urban area.Even with the most favorable emergency plans 'no ese will be safe from radiaties is an aerident poisoning up to 50 miles from the plant as the recent Chernobyl accident in 3
the U.S.S.R. has proven.
We will be forced to move from the area if Limerick is allowed to operate.
l (3.)PECo's steokholders could be harmed by a stay but they are the group that insisted en continuing to build Limerick with the goal of profit,sc they fairly should be liable for any less of inreatment.
(4.) The public interest lies in keeping Limerick out of the rate base with l
the attendant increr.ses in rates which will have disasterous impacts em resi-deutial users and on businesses and the whole area oceaemy.
8605290440 860522 g]O]
l PDR ADOCK 0500 2
.__________________________(__________
.we eo ERRORS IN AB DECISION. We petities the Commielten to evaluate the documents and the testimony and the findings from the L:merick emergenoy planning pre-cess and to find that the plans are flawed from the start via the settia6 up of and through thehearing g the extent of the EPZ,te the addition of traffic control points at King of Prussia and Route 100(the latter required by AB).
- 1. Evacuaties cannet swerk unless King of Prussia, Valley Forge Park and Marsh Creek Park are included in the EPZ. This questies is set" meet" or
" satisfied " as AE claims (AL13-836, pp.19 and 27.) because the evacuaties traffie from these areas must be figured into the volume and timing on the evaeustion routes since the areas will evacuate spontaneously,which was tacit-ly admitted by LR and AE in th6ir orders to set up traffie centrol poists.
- 2. These changes require a new ETE,as the whole base wili be changed. In addities the base volume of through traffic on the main evacuation routes, such as # 76,# 276,# 202,# 36}, # 422,# 73,sud # 100 must be used in the ETE besmuse this traffio does met fit in the formal ETE category of" transients" The latter are travelers within the EPZ. Dr. Urbaaik, NRC's witness,was the ese who brought up throurh traffic in connecties with the Pomma. turnpike.
AB was,therefore,in errer (# 836,p 24,n. 28) in stating that we could met
~ ~ ~ ~
properly raise this subject.
- 3. There was abuse of judicial preceis as we claimed (#836,p.32) and we did set make "generalised complaints" as AB stated ( #836,p.33).
Rather we motified LB en several occasions that we had been out off in our cross examinations.We gpecified this is relaties to Mr.Klima:,Mr. Asher and Dr.
Urbanik where in each case we were precluded by LB from securing "determina-tive testimony" ( #836,p.35) which oeuld have turned the outooks of the hear-ing.
For example we could have secured from Dr.Urbamik,if we had been per-mitted adequate and fair cross examinaties, the applicaties of his analysis of through traffio en the Turnpike as it related to through traffic on theedkar main evacuation routes (Para.2,above) 4 WebelievegggtABwasindirectlyadoptingourpositionenexpanding the EPZ to isolude, Marsh Creek and King of Prussia areas in its statement
( #836,p.21)" In general. contested issues should be resolved through the hear-ing process and not be lef t for post-hearing rosoluties by the staff." The add-ing of traffio control points af ter the hearing makes a neckery of the publie hearing process since there was so testinomy or cross examinaties to deter-mine whether the traffio would mov.s any more successfully or how spontaneous evacuaties would be handled. Including these areas in the EPZ and a new ETE is the answer. We petities the Commission to romand emergemey planning to LB.
I certify copies by mail to: NRC AB,LB,Decketing, Res ec,tfully sub itted, Staff Coused,Ceamer & Wetterhahn,Comew.Pa.,IJA csFf4d'{~4 e Box 18,Meylam,Pa.19065
/d'f@d, g}
f/2J/86
..