ML20206P685
| ML20206P685 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1986 |
| From: | Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP), NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#386-760 OL, NUDOCS 8607020211 | |
| Download: ML20206P685 (4) | |
Text
--
= *'
MEOI pnQ1~pV& Q1l' sme auwe mi 8mgp U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS. AND ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL B0 RE: PHILA.ELEC.CO. Limerick Cem.Sta. Units 1 & 2.
Docke't No. 50-352,353 $ c June 24,1986 PETITION TO THE APPEAL BOARD AND COMMISSION TO REOPEN THE ON OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING BECAUSE OF THE C0'MPROMISING OF THE L G AND APPEAL PROCESS AND DISCREDITING OF THE NRC REGULATIONS BY THE EX PARTE FILING WITH NRC BY WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION OF AN EMERGENCMLA G ARTICLE (WORK.
ING PAPER # 4) BY ROBERT M.RADER, CONNER & WETTun nnu,ATTD S3pog
.ELEC.
On 6/4/86 we geceiv/F05,*
Anthony Or ed a memorasdue from William LOO j
ideI;,$hi,ef of NRC 5&Eamd Wetter-Docketing, including a copy of an article byRobert M.Rader #
haha, on offsite emergency plamaing. Mr.Rader represented PECO in the LB and AB hearings on offsite emergy planning and continues with PBco.
This article l
was published fa April 1986 before the issuance of the Ifdecision on the Limer-3 ick plans,5/7/86, a d was submitted to NRC by Washington Legal Foundation dur-n i
ing the period when this decision was before the Commission and was subject to review petitioaffrom Anthony /F0E 5/22/86,and PBco, 5/27/86.
We are in complete agreement with the NRC General Counsel that this con-stitutes an er parte filing and is prohibited under 10 CFR 2 780.
We believe and inevitabily.
that PEco is entirely associated.with the position set forth by its lawyer g
j and law firm,
it has done nothing to separate itself from this submission to NRC and is thereby a party to putting unethical and prejudical pressure on the Consission and the NRC licensing hearing and appeal process,outside of i
the NRC regulations and the record. We claim that this discredits the firm of Commer and Wetterhaka in its past representation of PEco and must dis-qualify it from any further connection with the Limerick licensing process.
RELIEF REQUIRED.
We hereby petition the Commission and the Appeal Board to institute sanctions against PEco and Conner and Wetterhahn as a result of this er parte filing,namely (1.) eliminate Conner and Wetterhahn from any further participation in the Limerick process, (2.) declare the hearings on Limerick offsite emergency planning discreditied and prejudiced hopelessly,
against the role of NRC and that of intervenors in this planning,with the result the offsite planning process has been discredited and must be started I
over again.
We petition the Appeal Board to order the offsite emergency I
planning record reopened and the process recommenced with the NRC role and the role and rights of intervenors reestablished as the regulations require.
We include here some of the evidence from the Rader article which shows the j
prejudice which disqualifies the hearing and appeal process and the unethical pressure,outside the record,on Commission decision making. We cover the three j
factors to be addressed in the deoision to reopen the record.
8607020211 860624 DR ADOCK 0500 2
1 2
TIKELINESS
- 1. We assert that this petition to reopen the record is timely presented and therefore satisfies the first factor.
We received a copy of the Rader article only on 6/4/06 and could not have k1own of it before then.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES.2.Okepetition fulfills the second footor in that it ad-dresses basic safety and environmental issues,since workable emergency plans to protect the health and lives of the public in the area surrounding the Limerick plant in the event of a nuclear accident are essential to protect people and the condition and safety of the environment.
DIFFERdNT RESULT.
3.
We assert that the results of hearings and appeals on offsite emergenoy planning would have been different in that all:', inter-venor contentions would have had fairer consideration had the hearings and appeal process not been subject to the destructive taction of PEco through its counsel, based on their rejection of the function of NRC in offsite planning, i
almo the need for citizen intervention,as explicitly stated by Mr.Rader(NRC Memo. 6/2/86).
The prejudice cgainst NRC and rights of intervenors is out-linedbelow from Mr.Rader's. " Working Paper Series -No.4 "(Wash. Legal FDTN.)
Since we are aware of no disclaimer to the contrary,ve conclude that Mr.Rader has expressed the beliefs and position of Conner and Wetterhahn and PEco.
REMOVING NRC FROM OFFSITE PLANNING.Mr. Rader states bluntly that NRC should be cut out of offsite emergency planning. This is an affront to the Commis-sion and the NRC regulations and the process through which they have been developed as the result of study and conclusions by experts, special commis-sions and legislators. We ci te sue condensed quotations,by page numbers,below.
- 4. FEMA already has " lead agency"...The further review tacked on by theNRC, especially hearings before its licensing boards, generally adds little to enhance public health and safety......In short, NRC hearings and staff re-view related to offsite emergency planning are superflous to safety and should be eliminated.
9 f offsite planning:) protraated hearings which rarely result in any measurable contribution to reactor safety or public protection.....
25 Accepting the faulty premise that public health and safety can be as-sured only if the NRC ratifies offsite planning through its licensing process...
- 27....NRC's role in offsite planning, chiefly through hearings, serves no real function other than to validate what FEMA has already determined....
Thus, the NRC 's overall findings are maiply redundant.
- 38. The costly and unnecessary results of injecting offsite emergency plan-ning issues int nuclear reactor proceedings graphically illustrate the need to excise offsite planning from the NRC licensing process. A recent exam-ple is the proceeding for the Limerick Generating Station.....
W 3
PREJUDICE AGAINST NRC BOARDS AED INTERYENORS.
Mr.Rader seems to have opera-ed in the hearings we have observed,in conformity with his expressions on be-3 half of his firm,and presumably PECe,in defiance of intervosore,ame ERC efforts f
to protect their rights, as exemplified;in the passages quoted below. '.
ll...the NBC Appeal Esard....has effectively repealed the BBC's regula-tions es intervention and substituted a new,de faste 50-e11e proximity test.
13... adequate " bases"....has been effectively written out of the Wations by dooisions that a li' ens tag board may not deelde the ?merite"of a conten-o tion under the guise of essaining its " bases".
14... permissive intervention policies and liberal procedures for admitting contentions pemente all NRC hearings,but are more troublesome at the emer*.
gency planning phase..... enfety is not enhanced. Hearings follow the in-tervenors' agenda,not what' responsible planners consider important.
Mr.
Rader shows that he and PECo pressure intervenors and boardk[iosasa speed.
- 39. The Licensing Board..... still could not sufficiently compress the time for admitting contentione, discovery,the hearing, post-hearing findings and its decision to prevent delay in ascent to full-power at Limeriok.
Mr. Rader voices his disregard of safety and life,.bu.t priority for reactor licensing at any cost,while scorning the requirements of NRC regulations,thuss 41.
Something is surely amise when public scosas to economical (sic) sources of electrio power is conditioned upon the almost imoonoeivable possi-bility that public officials will implement a mass evacuation of a maxi-mun security prison because of radiological hasards from a plant eight ailse away.
SUBVERTING NRC RULEMAKING Mr.Rader and his firm,apparently supported by its olient PECo, through the or marte submission seem to be urging the Commission i
to disregard its regulations and rulemaking process in offsite plans for Limeriok.
- 43. The most fundamental reform is immediate transfer from the NRC et its ex-isting authority and functione for offsite emergency planning to FEMA.
44 Because FEMA offsite findings would be accepted without independent NRC review,there would be no " material issue" on which intervenors could demand a hearing under the Union of Concerned Scientists decision.
- 45. In future licensing.... NRC would accept FEMA's certification....
- 47. Foremost among these reforms is reduction of the EPZ around nuclear power
- plants, Contentions of Anthony /F0E and LEA maintain that safe evacuation needs *Jarger EPZ.
51...
it a 6emed-at first blush that a utility licensee would have solid grounds for requesting the NRC to reconsider severe sooident risk at a parti-cular reactor site to recthee its EPZ,pending further research.....
58...the ETE requirement can be dropped at no cost to effective protectice actions.
- 63. " the site-specific environmental impacts attributable to accident sequen-ces that lead to releases of radiation.... including sequences that result in inadequate cooling of the reactor fuel"...Producedto insights enabling the NRC to license incrementally safer reactors.
65.( Resclass 9 accidents) So much conjecture about latent cancer deaths, pre-aised on an extremely improbable accident,is irrelevant to licensing and only whets the anti-nuclear penchant for scaremongering.
4 CONCLUSION.
In recognition of our coverage and satisfaction of the three factors for reopening the record and the apparent subversion of the NRC reg-ulations and the licensing process by the submission of the er parte document cualysed above, we petition for the disqualification of Conner and Wetterhahn and the removal of that firm from any connection with the Limerick procsedings, cad we petition further for the reopening of the record and the proceeding on Limerick offsite emergency planning.
Respectfully submitted, h
k.
Box 186 Moylan,Pa 19065 i
I certify copies iry mail to:
NRC Commission, Gen. Counsel, Docketing, AR,LB,Sta f C neel Conner de Wetterhahn, A. Love, LEA
/24AL 6 25 y$
.