A coalition of environmental groups has filed a petition with the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking what no one in Levy County has thus far voiced about the proposed two-unit nuclear plant near Inglis.

If the already operational Crystal River nuclear plant had an accident that required an evacuation within 10 miles of the plant, how would Progress Energy get workers in to operate the Levy County plant located just 9.6 miles away?

That question is just one of 12 “contentions” in a petition filed by The Green Party of Florida, The Ecology Party of Florida and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service with the NRC that were at the center of a two day hearing by the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board at the Levy County Courthouse.

The groups’ main contentions are:

a. The design and operating procedures are not in Progress Energy’s license application for the Levy plant.

b. Progress Energy has not secured all the financing for the Levy plant.

c. The company’s environment report fails to adequately assess the plants impact on the aquifer, nearby bodies of water and habitat, and the construction and operation of the plant will cause irreversible damage to the environment and pose health and safety risks to current and future generations of Florida residents.

d. The plant will require a new, permanent storage for nuclear waste — that is not addressed by the company — even though there is no federally licensed nuclear disposal facility. The costs of securing and maintaining the facility will have to be borne by the public.

e. The groups contend there are other options to meet Florida’s power needs that are clean, safe and sustainable alternatives to nuclear power.

f. If an accident occurred at the facility it could result in radiological releases and environmental contamination that would adversely affect the health and well being of area residents.

g. Green Party of Florida members, as well as all living beings in the region.

Progress Energy’s answer to the petitions of the environmental parties is to note that it does not have the necessary information for the board to intervene in the licensing process, that many of their other contentions are outside the scope of the licensing process, that some contentions are not the purview of the NRC but of state agencies.

“The Contentions include an extraordinary number of vague, conclusory, often incorrect, and unsupported statements. These statements fail to satisfy Petitioners’ obligation to specifically identify an issue of law or fact to be raised,” the Progress response says.

Much of Monday’s hearing centered on the environmentalists contentions that the Florida aquifer will be affected by the excavation and elevation of the plant site with aggregate and concrete. The groups also claimed it would affect the wetlands in the area and would require aggregate from a nearby mining operation which would also damage the aquifer and environment.

“We have people in the area who feel they have a right to know that,” said Mary Olson of NRIS. She also mentioned that construction of the plant would result in tree cutting and the construction of roads. “That contributes to the carbon footprints and that’s not covered” in the environmental report.

She also argued before Administrative Judges Alex S. Karlin, Anthony J. Baratta and William N. Murphy, that the drying of wetlands will contribute to the wildfire risk.

“There’s a fairly significant lowering of groundwater,” Olson said. “I don’t think a foot of groundwater is insignificant.”

Olson said more information is needed from Progress on the effects.

As for the operation of the Levy plant during a serious incident at the Crystal River plant operated by Progress,

“Can your control room continue to function if you’re having a situation,” Olson asked Progress officials.

Karlin told the Progress’ attorney John O’Neill he was concerned that the company said it should not be considered. “There’s a nuclear facility down the road and this could cause a problem at this facility,” Karlin said.

O’Neil said, “It’s not going to cause an issue here.” He said other areas have nuclear plants located close to one another without it being considered a flaw in the licensing.

“That’s why you have co-located plants,” O’Neil said.

“From my experience with co-located plants this is not a problem.”

“There’s going to be coordination,” O’Neil assured the judges.

While O’Neil did not mention it in the meeting, the company is looking to locate the emergency operations center for the Levy plant outside the 10-mile nuclear evacuation area should a serious accident occur.

The center, which Levy County officials are hoping would be located in the Williston area, would allow the plant to be operated remotely from the facility during the emergency period and would be a gathering place for the state, federal and local emergency management officials overseeing the emergency and plant operations, closure and restart..