ML20247Q462

Response of Intervenor Rl Anthony to Answer of Philadelphia Electric Co (PECO) to Request for Hearing on PECO Application for Low Power Operation of Unit 2 & Stay of Any Operation in Keeping W/Us Circuit Court Remand Of....*

ML20247Q462
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	07/23/1989
From:	Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#389-8967 OL-2, NUDOCS 8908070151
Download: ML20247Q462 (1)

Text

CO N i

. UNIIED STATES NUCLTAR REGULATORY .C0KMIS110 h ...

I/C RE: PHILA.ELEC. CO. Limerick Generatin Sta 28 P346het So.352,353 - o / '

REPONSE OF INTERVENOR ROEERT L.ANTHONI TO ANSW1RL OF PECO DATED 7/7/89 TO HIS REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON PECO'S APPLICATION FDR E0TPOWIR OPERATION OF UNIT 2

~

AND A~ STAY OF ANY OPERATION IU KEEPING WITH THE U.S. CIR.CDURT RD1ND OF THE SAMDA ISSUE AND PECO FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NEPA RE2UIRDu!KTS.

-The Court kRoopening of the Licensing Process., PECO claims that the new infor-antion which we submitted calls for a petition on our part to reopen the Limerick

= licensing process. We disagree. The U.S. Circuit Court reopened the process, call-ing NRC's failure to consider SAMDAs before issuing an operating license unlawful it would seem,even on the Commission's own terms that a failure to consider SEDAs in the Limerick proceeding could effect the final decision,and therefore,that preclusion from consideration was an abuse of discretion. Limerick Ecol. Action

v. US. NRC 869 F2d 719 (3d Cir.1989) a 738 .

The Circuit Court ordered PECO to consider alternatives in the form of added equip-j ment and condemned this failure as 8an abuse of discretion 8(above). It follows,we

-assert,that the issuance of a Limerick operating license, lacking this fulfilling of

• NEPA requirements on safety alternatives was also an abuse. The license,therefore, was illegally issued and is no longer valid for Unit 1 & 2 operation.

8900070151 890723 PDR ADOCK 05000352 G PDR Consequently,the Court has reopened the NRC licensing process,and our petition to bring new contentions on new material,which we have submitted ( 6/23/89 Request),

is valid. We ask NRC to set up a licensing board and to hear our contentions.

Intervenor's Basis fora. Stay of Low Power Operation. We are entitled to a stay because without Alternatives to protect against offsite releases in case of SAMDAs.intervenor is :

1.In danger of radiation poisioning leading to cancer and possibly death. He will be irreparably harmed. The Circuit Court decision ( Limerick Ecol. Action.above) assures that he will prevail on the merits. 2. Lacking a stay,the harm could be irreparable, 3.There could be added expense for PECO and ratepayers but shutting down the plant

'later to install safety equipment toinstall SAMDAs would mult$ harm to: PECO.

4. It is in the public interest to grant a stay now to enforce NEPA and protect the public health from the risks of radiation pollution.Eithout SAMDA alternatives, offsite releases could cause fatalites. snort term.as well as long term cancer cases.

Copies to: NRC Staff,M.B.Margulies C.W.Illiott Resp etful y suhitted q y } f g r.R. Romano A.R. Love g ,

g

- . ___ - - - - - - - - -