ML20154R643
| ML20154R643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1986 |
| From: | Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#186-590 OL, NUDOCS 8603310120 | |
| Download: ML20154R643 (1) | |
Text
h MC(2 &T/2 Y U.... iJC LEAR REGU LATORY GO.dMIS3 ION... ATOMIC S d ETY APPEAL BOARD PHILA.ELEC CO. Limerick Gen.Sta. Units.1 & 2. Docket # 50-352,'iS3OL Judges T.S. Moore, Chairman, Dr.R. L.Gotchy,H. A.Wilher. "NUNt' uwe MOTION. BY R.L. ANTHONY /F0E TO THE APPEAL BOARD TO DISMISS THE LICENSEE'J MOTION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION ON LB'S ORDER RULING ON OUR INTERVENTION. '86 MAR 2'8 A11 :51 On 3/19/a6 PECo filed a motion with the Board"for directed certifi- ' memorandum and order ruling on Rober) L.Amigon[ Cgtiti a cation of the for leave to intervene '" We assert that LB's determiniation that N M d met the threshold intervenor criteria was correctly arrived at and we ask the Board to confirm this by denying PEco's motion. ARGUMENT. We consider here the six points raised by PECo in its peti-tion above (p. 2 & 3).l.The Board accepted that we were not notified of j the Fed. Reg. notices of 12/26 and 30/85 until we received a copy from NRC on 1/29/86 and that we filed our petition immediately. The Board made a fair determination,as it is authorized to do under 10CFR 2 714 (d). 2 '. We did not fail to address the lateness criteria since our petition was not late we filed on the day of our notification. The Board did not develop arguments on our behalf as PEco mistakenly averrs. It carried out its obligaion under Sec 2 714 (d): ..in ruling on a petition for leave to intervene,(to) consider the following things: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right... (2) The natare and extent of the petitioner's property, financial,or other interest in the proceeding. (3) The possible effect of any order which may be entered....on the petitioner's interest. 3 The Board did not decide that we"had greater rights in intervening i than other individuals". fhe Board merely reaognized the NIfC requirement, restated by the previous Licensing Board,that all documenta'should be ser-ved on all parties,and that it was a fair expectation that We should be I served the Fed. Reg. in these license amendments notices. 4 The Hoard did not violate any precedent but actually carried out its j obligation by fairly determining that our petition was acceptable. The Board agreed with the Staff that our petition was legitimately filad in ( ASLBP No. 86-522-02-LA,3/13/86, p.7 ) : We believe that the Staff has taken the more responsible position on this~ issue. It does not oppose the petition on the basis of timeliness. The. Staff imphes that Mr. Anthony was entitled to receive.a copy of the Federal Register notice when it was published. Staff Response at 3 n.l.
- 5. The Board could have sensed that we could add to a sound record. correctly.
6. The essence of the issue here is that PEco a granted the amendments. I certify copies by mails NRC,Sec.,Docketin espectfully submitted, ConneriWette h / M r. J,(,e /b 6 u-By hand:L.B. Judges,Staf" N M ' 'b ',r_hahn /d,- Bor 186 Moylan.Pa.19 65
- "1 8603310120 860326 PDR ADOCK 05000352 L
G PDR g}}