ML20151Y785

Opposition to 860126 Petition by Friends of the Earth for Review of ALAB-828.Intervenor Has Shown No Issue of Fact,Law or Policy Which NRC Should Review.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20151Y785
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	02/10/1986
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#186-058, CON-#186-58 ALAB-828, OL, NUDOCS 8602130156
Download: ML20151Y785 (8)

Text

l,iosF w

4.

00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1M FEB 12 40:57 Before the Commission 0FFICE Or,4 iDfij' 7

In the Matter of

)

00CMErlac

)

DRANCH Philadelphia Electric Company

)

Docket Nos. 50-352 R

)

50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

LICENSEE'S OPPOSITION TO PETITION BY FRIENDS OF THE EARTH FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-828 On January 26, 1986, intervenor Friends of the Earth

(" FOE"), by its representative Robert L. Anthony, petitioned the Commission for review of.ALAB-828, issued January 16, 1986.1I Licensee Philadelphia Electric Company (" Licensee")

opposes FOE's request on the ground that FOE has failed to allege or show that ALAB-828 is erroneous with respect to any important issue of fact, law or Commission policy.2_/

Therefore, FOE has failed to demonstrate any reason under 10 C.F.R. 52.786(a) for the Ccmmission to take review of ALAB-828.

In ALAB-828, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board

(" Appeal Board")

sustained a ruling by the Atomic 1/

Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-828, 23 NRC.

(January 16, 1986).

2/

See 10 C.F.R. 52.786 (b) (3).

G

}$o 5

~

• Y Safety and Licensing Board which denied a request by FOE to reopen the operating license proceeding for Limerick to consider a

contention relating to the plant's routine effluent releases.

The crux of FOE's proposed contention was that doses to the public from the plant's routine effluent releases should not be calculated at the site boundaries, but rather at certain publicly accessible points near the plant, i.e.,

a railroad right-of-way and the Schuylkill River.

The Apyeal Board correctly held that FOE had to satisfy the separate requirements for a

successful motion for reopening the record and admission of late-filed contentions.3_/

FOE does not dispute that conclusion.

Rather, it merely disagrees with the Appeal Board's application of the facts to the reopening and late contention standards.

The Appeal Board's findings on those criteria, however, simply do not raise any significant issue justifying Commission review.

In any event, the Appeal Board's conclusions were factually and legally correct.

FOE met none of the three reopening requirements.

Although the use of site boundaries 3/

ALAB-828 at 3-4.

As the Appeal Board noted ( d.),

the Commission ruled in Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),

CLI-82-39, 16 NRC

1712, 1714-15 (1982),

that a

petitioner who seeks to inject an entirely new issue into the proceeding must meet both the three requirements for reopening developed by case law and the standards for admitting late-filed contentions under 10 C.F.R. S2.714 (a) (1).

 %)

for calculating public exposure may have come to FOE's attention by means of Licensee's Semi-Annual Effluent Releases Report No.

1, submitted on February 28, 1985, FOE does'not dispute the Appeal Board's finding that both the Draft and Final Environmental Statements for

Limerick, issued in June 1983 and April 1984, ~respectively, " state that dose calculations are performed at the site bounda-ry."dI

Clearly, FOE's access to such information much earlier than it filed its proposed contention renders the contention untimely under standards for reopening and without good cause under the separate criteria for late filing.

As to the second factor on reopening, the Appeal Board

.also correctly found that "nothing in the petitioners' presentation raises a genuinely significant safety issue."5#

In seeking review, FOE asserts that "there is a much higher frequency of exposure on the railroad right of way and the river than at the site boundaries" because " railroad workers could be exposed for successive days and weeks in doing maintenance work and fisherman and hunters might return to the same place of exposure for many days extending 4_/

ALAB-828 at 5.

5/

ALAB-828 at 7.

_4_

G over months."bI Nothing cited by FOE supports its highly problematical and speculative. conclusions.

By comparison, the calculation of dose to the public at the site boundaries as a valid means to comply with 10 C.F.R. Part 20 require-ments is amply supported by the record.

FOE offers no sound technical basis for any different calculation.

Thus, no significant safety issue was alleged.

Consequently, on the third factor for reopening, there

'is no legal or factual basis for FOE's assertion that

" setting of release limits would have been different if the calculations had been based-on the railroad and river exposures riather than the site boundaries."2 The Appeal Board reviewed FOE's allegations in light of Part 20 re-quirements and the Licensee's Technical Specifications and rightly concluded that no different result in the proceeding wculd have 'aeen reached had the contention been admitted.

With regard to the separate standards for admitting late-filed contentions, the Appeal Board properly found no

" good cause" for lateness for the reasons discussed above.

Although FOE argues that a different result should have been reached on the remaining criteria, it asserts no basis for 6/

FOE Petition for Review of ALAB-828 at 1 (January 26, 1986).

7/

FOEJPetition for Review of ALAB-828 at 1 (January 26, 1986).

8/

ALAB-828 at 10.

. i reviewing, _ much less overturning, those findings by the Appeal Board.

The Appeal Board's conclusion

that, on balance, FOE had not satisfied the factors for admitting a

' late-filed contention does not warrant the attention of the Commissioners.

For the reasons discussed above, FOE has shown no issue of fact, law or policy which the Commission should review.

Accordingly, its petition should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

f Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for Licensee February 10, 1986

-._---c,,4-

9 000KETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM g I g 7 In the Matter of

)

)

FFin u 3:.,t n....

Philadelphia Electric Company

)

bhgpN'H estHS0'352 s

D

)

50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Opposition to Petition by Friends of the Earth for Review of.ALAB-828,"

dated February 10, 1986 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 10th day of February, 1986:

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Lando W.

Zech, Jr.,

Office of the Secretary Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Nunzio J. Palladino, Christine N.

Kohl, Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.

20555 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission James K. Asselstine, Washington, D.C.

20555 Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory o-ry J. Edles Commission I..amic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.

20555

\\ppeal Board

3. Nuclear Regulatory i

Frederick M.

Bernthal, Commission Commissioner Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

-._y-,

--.r

• I Helen F. Hoyt, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairperson Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board U.S.

Commission Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.

20555

-Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dr. Richard F.

Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ann P.

Hodgdon, Esq.

Washington, D.C.

20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Dr. Jerry Harbour-Legal Director

. Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board commission U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.

20555 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Angus Love, Esq.

107 East Main Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Norristown, PA 19401 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Robert J.

Sugarman, Esq.

Commission Sugarman & Hellegers Washington, D.C.

20555 16th Floor, Center Plaza 101 North Broad Street Philadelphia Electric Company Philadelphia, PA 19107 ATTN:

Edward G.

Bauer, Jr.

Vice President &

Director, Pennsylvania General Counsel Emergency Management Agency 2301 Market Street Basement, Transportation Philadelphia, PA 19101 and Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. Frank R.

Romano 61 Forest Avenue Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq. City of Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Philadelphia Municipal Services Bldg. 15th and JFK Mr. Robert L. Anthony Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Friends of the Earth of the Delaware Valley 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065

6.f Charles W.

Elliott, Esq.

Spence W.

Perry, Esq.

325 N.

10th Street Associate General Counsel Easton, PA 18042 Federal Emergency Management Agency Phyllis Zitzer, Esq.

500 C Street, S.W.,

Rm. 840

. Limerick Ecology Action Washington, DC 20472 P.O. Box 761 762 Queen Street Thomas Gerusky, Director Pottstown, PA 19464 Bureau of Radiation Protection Barry M. Hartman, Esq.

Department of Environmental Deputy General Counsel Resources Commonwealth of 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.

Pennsylvania Third and Locust Streets P.O. Box 11775 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17108 James Wiggins Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq. U.S.

Senior Resident Inspector Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 631 Park Avenue P.

O. Box 47 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Timothy R.S. Campbell Mr. Ralph Hippert Director Pennsylvania Emergency Department of Emergency Management Agency Services B151 - Transportation 14 East Biddle Street Safety Building West Chester, PA 19380 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Theodore G.

Otto, Esq.

Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel P.O.

Box 598 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 t nk _

Robert M.

Rader

~'