ML20237G160
| ML20237G160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1987 |
| From: | Stanichak J STANICHAK, J.M. |
| To: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709020132 | |
| Download: ML20237G160 (2) | |
Text
<
9 O
JOSEPH M. STANICHAK =
ATTORNEY AT LAW 700 Fn.Aw KLew AVENUE A LIC1UIPPA. PENN SYLVANIA.15001 AR E A Co D E 412 375-6070 August 28, 1987 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Mr. Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Re:
George S. White, et. al.
-v-Capco and/or Duquesne Light Company / Petition for Intervention on Licensing of Beaver Valley No. 2/ Docket No. Prod. & Util. Fac. 50-412 Filed 83 Sep-6 P4:22 Served Sept. 7,1983
Dear Mr. Murley:
May I take this opportunity to thank you for v;;ur response of August 25, 1987, with the attendant enclosure.s.
I have examined same to the best of my ability but do request information concerning the determination of the exclusion area.
Under 10 CFR, Section 100.11, the regulations indicate that in evaluating the site, the applicant should assume a fussion procedure release from the core, leak rate from containment and meteorological conditions.
The epicenter of the exclusionary zone appears to have been determined according to the discretion of the applicant and your enclosure 3 indicates that the epicenter is around the Unit One containment building.
My inquiry at this moment is whether or not this discretion is justified in light of the failure to take j
into account the first criteria of the core.
If the epicenter would be the core reactor in Beaver Valley Unit 2 and a 2,000 foot radius utilized, then my clients, Mr. and Mrs. White, would be living within the confines of the exclusion area.
The applicant, by utilizing the epicenter of the contair. ment buildings, embraces Phillis Island, that is vacant land at this time, and consequently excludes Mr. and Mrs. White, who live within the area.
I bring this to your attention and request that you favor me with a review as to the placement of the epicenter in the determination of the exclusion i
8709020132 870828 PDR ADOCK 0S000412 P
PDR (E. 03
</b w_-____-___
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Attn:
Mr. Murley, Director August 28, 1987 l
area utilizing the other technical factors involved or, in other words, can the applicant be accused of gerrymandering?
If this be gerrymandering and it was induced by fraud, suppression and possible obstruction, violative of the Rules and Regu-lations of your Commission, will the Commission take steps for an inquiry j
or simply entertain a petition for vacation of the license previously granted?
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly, M%
JMS:gh Anseph M. Stanichak
{
a 4
l f
I
)
i
)
I i
m
____._._-a___m.__.:_m_
_ _ _ _ _ _