ML20117K909

Requests That Commission Dispense w/10-day Comment Period or Advise Parties That Comments Filed Per ASLB 850509 Order Will Be Considered in Connection W/Immediate Effectiveness Determination to Avoid Delay in Full Power Licensing

ML20117K909
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	05/14/1985
From:	Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
CON-#285-010, CON-#285-10 ALAB-806, OL, NUDOCS 8505160001
Download: ML20117K909 (3)

Text

7, ol0 i

LAW OFFICES CONNER Sc WETTERHAHN, P.C.

3 7 47 P E N N S Y LVA NI A AV E N U E. N. W.

Taov m. coNNEN.JR.

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20000 na M. n DOUOtas M.OLSON OUIn"c=*^oI".""

May 14, 1985 OgsygC T

,, pygg, 1203t 833-3500 o cottw &

C ABLE ADDRESS; ATOMLAW

'85 MAY 14 P4:47 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary CFFICE OF SLCHLW '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 00 M g gC B

Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket hos. 50-3 52 and 50-3 53 -c(,,,

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Phila.delphia Electric Company, holder of.'a 5% operating s

license.for the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1, hereby requests that the Commission take immediate action under its procedures as described below in order to avoid unnecessary delay in the full power licensing of Unit 1.

As the Commis-sion is aware, all low-power testing has been completed for Unit 1.

In the event the company can complete the ascent to power program in the next six months, the plant will be available for commercial operations by the winter of 1985-86.

In its Third Partial Initial Decision On Offsite Emergency Planning, dated May 2, 1985, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decided all remaining issues, except for contentions relating to the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, necessary for issuance of a

full-power license.

Possible litigation of the Graterford issues was postponed for reasons beyond the company's control, i.e.,

the development of a Graterford emergency plan and the reversal by the Appeal Board in ALAB-806 of the Licensing Board's denial of any legitimate contentions by the Graterford Prisoners.

By a subsequent Order, dated May 9, 1985, the Licensing Board granted Applicant's motion for an exemption from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 550.47 for the period of time required to litigate any contentions relating to Graterford, which are due to be filed by May 15, 1985.

Accordingly, the Licensing Board's three Partial Initial Decisions and its 2

xw

Mr. Scmual J..Chilk g;

Msy 14,11985

- T Page 2-grant of the exemption provide the basis for the au-thorization of the issuance of a full-power license.

Although:it stated that "any final impediment to the issuance of. a full power license has been removed," the' Licensing Board, nevertheless, afforded ten days for com-ments by any party opposing the issuance by the Board of an order authorizing the Director of Nuclear < Reactor Regulation to. issue ' a full-power license.

This unprecedented action adds.to the existing procedures for the submission of such comments to the Commission.

'Under the Commission's regulations governing immediate effectiveness of an initial decision authorizing issuance of an operating license,. 10 C.F.R.

52. 764 (f) (2) (ii),

"the parties may file brief comments with the Commission pointing out matters which, in their view, pertain to the immediately

. effectiveness issue."

Such comments "must be received within 10 days of the Board decision."' The regulation also authorizes the Commission to " dispense with commentis 'by so -

advising the parties."

In order to effectuate its announced policy of elim-1 inating avoidable licensing delays wherever

possible, fairness dictates that the Commission dispense with the ten-day comment period as provided in Section 2.764 on the basis that the same opportunity is being provided by the Board's action.

Alternatively, the Commission should advise =

the parties immediately that any comments filed with the Licensing Board pursuant to its Order of May 9, 1985 will be considered by the Commission in connection with its immedi-ate effectiveness determination with no additional comment' period provided.

Thus, assuming' the Board authorizes the full power license, no further delays will be encountered.

To allow two ten-day comment periods for the same purpose would be, as the Appeal Board has stated, "to elevate form above substance."'

Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), - ALAB-696, 16 NRC 1245, 1256 (1982).

The Commission has long since been on record as seeking "to avoid or reduce [ hearing) delays whenever measures are available that do not compromise the Commission's fundamen-tal. commitment to a fair and thorough hearing ' process. "

Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 453 (1981).

In a letter dated March 12, 1981 to the Bevill Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, the Commission stated that " expedited licensing

i Mr. Samu$1 J. Chilk M2y 14, 1985 f.

Pega 3 decisions are a. high priority in this agency" (p. 1) and that it intends to achieve "[flurther time savings" for NTOL plants "by increasing the efficiency of the hearing process and subsequent Commission and Appeals Board review" (p. 2).

-The Commission recently restated its intent that its "regu-latory processes be efficient and cost effective... ~ to eliminate-unwarranted delay in reaching decisions consistent

-with not compromising safety."

NUREG-0885, Policy and Planning Guidance at 12 (January 1984).

Thres PID's encompass all contested issues for Limerick, except the Graterford contentions.

Inasmuch as the Third PartiiU Initialw Decision was issued on May 2,

1985,.. ample time ths already;b' eon provided to formulate any comments to the-Commis,sion onlthe issues decided by these PID's ar7 they, relate to the fmmediate effectiveness deter-rnination.

~

+

<~,

.-.q.

9, Additionally, the Commission shonId expeditiously schedule a meetingo'as early, a's May 24h G85-, but not later*

~

than the' end of May,( for its -decisioni on immediate effec-tiveness under Sechicn 2.76C(f).

'n T

+

1 For the reasons \\' disc. ssed above'A Applicant therefore u

requests that thb Coninission (1) dispense wi' h" its ten-day t

comment period or' advise the parties immediately that any-comments filed with 't. tie Licensing Board pdrsuant to its order of May 9,1985 will' be'considired by the 'C)mmission lit' connection with any immediate offectiveness determination with 'no additional comment t eri'od provided and ' (2) promptly i

schedule?a meeting for its, 4 cision on immediate effective.-

- M'.. f ness.

,n

s~

fp sincerelyv v%,,-

i J

N%

. f g[ '\\ '

.u o

,, Counsel for the Applicant Troy

.' Conner, Jr.

.s n.

a j

TBC/dlf

\\

s o,

Chairman Nunzio J..Paliadino s h ' <-

~iJ cc l

Commissioner' Thomas M. Rcberts 1

Commissioner" James K. Asselstine l

Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal

\\\\

g 'g '-

i Commissioner,Lando W. Zech Service List ~

\\

l -

g

,s Sh'g s

t' t

f g

q f

),

L