ML20154G254

Memorandum & Order on Licensee 860225 Motion for Leave to Defer Answers to Rl Anthony 860215 Contentions.Prehearing Conference Will Be Provided If Rl Anthony Petition Granted. Served on 860306

ML20154G254
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	03/06/1986
From:	Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#186-336 86-522-02-LA, 86-522-2-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8603070612
Download: ML20154G254 (3)

Text

,9% .

ERVED NAR-61986 BD 3/6/8@0CHETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION 90 MAR -6 P4

12 Before Administrative Judges: OFFILE 0; 9 i . .nn i Ivan W. Smith, Chairman 00Chtimb 4 ' Hviu BRANLH Richard F. Cole Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

In the Matter of )

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No. 50-352-OLA

[ASLBPNo. 86-522-02-LA]

(Limerick Generating Station, (CheckValve)

Unit 1) )

March 6, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON LICENSEE'S MOTION TO DEFER ANSWERS TO PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS By motion dated February 25, 1986 the Licensee seeks leave to defer answering the contentions filed on February 15 by the Petitioner, R. L.

Anthony.1 The Staff supported the Licensee's motion in a response of March 4.

The Board recognizes that, as Licensee puts it, it might be pointless to answer contentions if the Board rules that Mr. Anthony's petition should be denied. We also agree with Licensee that it might be non-availing to answer contentions until the time for supplementing petitions nas expired. However, if the Board were to allow this proceeding to progress in the normal sequence with the normal timing, 1 In our order of March 4, 1986 we suspended temporarily the opportunity and need for filing pleadings, including the need to answer Mr. Anthony's pleadings.

8603070612 860306 PDR ADOCK 05000352 0 PDR Y

^

i 1

the parties might still be wrestling with prehearing matters well into the time period in issue. Even with the best efforts of the Board and the parties it may be very difficult to resolve this proceeding before the scheduled outage on May 26, 1986.

The responses of Licensee and the Staff to the intervention petition have raised novel questions of timeliness, standing, and the meaning of the term " aspects" of the intervention rule, 10 CFR 9 2.714.

Both the Staff and Licensee agree that, once the Board rules on the intervention petition, any delay in answering proposed contentions would be minimal. To assure that any such delay is minimal, the Board directs both the Licensee and the NRC Staff to be prepared to have in the hands of the Board its responses to Mr. Anthony's February 15 contentions no later than 12:00 Noon, Monday, March 17, 1986. The Board anticipates that it will rule on Mr. Anthony's intervention petition during the week of March 10. If the petition is not granted, counsel for the Licensee and the Staff will be informed promptly that answers to the contentions will not be required.

This arrangement does not resolve Licensee's concern that Mr. Anthony might supplement his petition with yet another set of contentions or file an amended petition as provided under the intervention rule. If the Board grants Mr. Anthony's petition, we shall provide for a prehearing conference and address the regulatory authority for amending and supplementing petitions. We see no injury to Licensee I

in any event because, if Mr. Anthony should file supplements or amendments to his petitions, the other parties will be afforded

4 i

reasonable opportunities to address his later filings. Any resulting delay will not harm Licensee's position in the proceeding.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND 1 LICENSING BOARD

'l .

l ' m a/

IV&n W. Smith, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE I

i Bethesda, Maryland ,

March 6, 1986 i

l l

l i

)

l I

i I

)

l l l l

t

\