ML20204F537
| ML20204F537 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1986 |
| From: | Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L. |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| CON-#386-151 ALAB-840, OL, NUDOCS 8608040217 | |
| Download: ML20204F537 (1) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:Sc(Gr/ A/ C b U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f RE: PHILA.Elec. Co. Limerick Gen. Sta. Units 1&2 Docket # 50-352,353 3-{ Petition for review by the Commission ofALAB-840. %" oetition of 6/24/86 Tfequest for an independent decision by the Commission on our loint '86 dt. 31 9 g 3 28,986 On 7/18/86 the Appeal Board issued a Memorandum and OrdWt (ALAB-840) denying the relief requested in our joint petavkqn, Anthony /F0E,to the Board and the Commission for sanctions againbhpddts attorney, f dated 6/24/86, and Nopening of the record on offsite emergency planning for Limerick because of PECo's ex carte submission. We petition NRC to reverse AB's decision and to expedite its independent decision on our 6/24 petition directed jointly to the Commission and AB. We reassert that PECo's ex parte action through its attorney was "an affront to the Commission and the NRC regulations"(Anthony 6/24, page 2) and that it was submitted to AB before 1.ts decision of 5/8/86 (PECo claimedt the WLF paper was mailed to NRC on 5/1/86) with the po-tential for influencing the AB decision.(See Lic. Answ.7/9,p.13 n.26). We assert that this attempt to influence AB's decision along with PECo's effort through this submission to subvert NRC's authority in offsi.te emergency planning and to,ex onrte, influence a change of NRC regulations,i.e. to remove NRC from this planning, constitutes " con-temptous conduct", contrary to AB's finding (ALAB-840,p.9,10),and re-quires sanctions against PECo's attorneys under 10 CFR sec.2.713(c) The PECo submission of R.M.Rader's paper in retrospect clearly demonstrates PECo's disdain for NRC's part in offsite planning and the effort of citizen advocates to protect the public health and. safe-ty. This was not known by NRCand its boards and staff until the et_ onrte submission. This knowledge before the offsite hearings would have changed the focus of the boards, staff and parties with a comple-Em tely different outcome on offsite emergency plans. The fact that Sno j pga. PECo has made no disclaimer of the Rader paper indicates its cccept-08 ance of and involvement in this resistance to NRC's role in offsite 1 03 0 planning, presumably from the inception of the process for Limerick. g l Ea Had this motivation and deliberate PECo policy been revealed in the OQ l g< offsite planning process the outcome of the hearings and appeals l E would have been altogether different. g a)n.o We,therefore, petition the Commission to right the injury which has been done the public safety in the offsite planning process by rever-1 sing the decision in ALAB-840 and ordering sanctions and reopeni.ng the 6 record. gp f/' 4 g,.g,/-4, / iff;;i~ Respec ully subaitted, j l bo86Nkh0ENf8Codn$eNCoftUtNr E l' $A. Bx 6 o a.19065}}