ML20214N123

Licensee Answer in Opposition to Petition by Rl Anthony for Leave to Intervene and for Hearing.* Petition Deficient Under Rules for Intervention.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20214N123
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	05/22/1987
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#287-3563 OLA, NUDOCS 8706020072
Download: ML20214N123 (6)

Text

3 %3 4

DOCHETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'87 MAY 27 P1 :09 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BeforetheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoahhhh;Ilski.

BRAhCi In the Matter of

)

)

Philadelphia Electric Company

)

Docket No. 50-352-OLA

)

(TS Iodine)

(Limerick Generating Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

LICENSEE'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION BY R. L. ANTHONY FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND FOR A HEARING Preliminary Statement On May 20, 1987, Philadelphia Electric Company

("Li-censee")

filed an answer 'n opposition to a request for hearing and leave to intervene by Air and Water Pollution Patrol

("AWPP"), which is represented by Frank R.

Romano.

In the interest of brevity, Licensee'hereby incorporates by reference the factual background and legal discussion contained in its answer to the request for hearing by AWPP as if set forth fully herein.

Argument I.

Mr. Anthony's Petition Is Not A Valid Request For A Hearing In Response To The Notice Published In The Federal Register The procedural history by which Mr. Anthony's petition has-reached the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(" Licensing Board" or " Board") is strikingly similar to the circumstances involving AWPP's petition.

The only g602OO72e7052-6

^=cx 03000332 39 0

PDR

difference appears to be that, for whatever reason, Mr.

Anthony's petition was not formally transmitted to this Board. by the Secretary until May 20, 1987.

This further delay underscores the importance of following. and enforcing the formal requirements for requesting a

hearing and intervention under Part 2 of the Commission's regulations.

For the reasons previously discussed in opposition to AWPP's request, Mr. Anthony's petition is likewise invalid and cannot constitute a legal basis for a hearing or. inter-vention.

II.

Mr. Anthony Has Not Met The Requirements For Individual Standing As with AWPP (or Mr. Romano on its behalf), Mr. Anthony.

has not met the Commission's requirements for standing under 10 C.F.R.

SS2.714 (a) (2) and (d).

While Mr.

Anthony has nominally addressed some of these requirements, his petition fails to demonstrate any specific interest in the proceeding or explain how that interest may be affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

In discussing the nature of his right under the Atomic Energy Act to intervene,1 Mr. Anthony vaguely refers to his

" health and financial situation as a

result of the operation" of the Limerick plant and alleges unspecified 1/

Inasmuch as Mr. Anthony does not state that he seeks'to represent any organization or any other individuals, Licensee assumes that the petition is merely using the editorial "we."

o 4 -.

a e

" dangers" to himself and the public in general.

Such conclusionary statements are insufficient for standing because Mr.

Anthony has not shown how the requested amendment would change the operation of the plant or create any " danger" potentially affecting his interests.

Moreover, as in the case of Mr.

Romano's residence nineteen miles from the

plant, Mr.

Anthony's residence twenty-five miles from the plant does not create any presumption of an affected interest, at least with respect to the minor reporting change created by the requested amendment.

None of the other points mentioned by Mr.

Anthony enhance his claim to standing.

For

example, his past participation as an intervenor in the Limerick hearings does not establish his interest in this proceeding.2/

That Mr.

Anthony has

" studied" alleged hazards at Limerick is irrelevant because an intervenor's

" mere interest in a

problem,

'no matter how long-standing the interest and no matter how qualified the [intervenor] is in evaluating the problem,' is not sufficient for standing" in judicial or NRC proceedings.3/

Mr.

Anthony's status as a

customer of-

-2/

See Licensee's Answer in Opposition to Request for Hearing and Leave to Intervene by'AWPP at 14 (May 20, 1987).

3/

Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Export to South.

Korea),

CLI-80-30, 12 NRC

253, 258 (1980),

citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S.

727, 739 (1972).

i.-

1 4 --

Licensee

-is also unavailing.dI

Finally,

" occasional" traveling through the Limerick emergency planning-zone does-not show an interest sufficient for standing.E The remainder of Mr. Anthony's petition alleges the possibility of a serious accident which would result in the release of radioactivity, including radiciodine releases.

As with AWPP, Mr.

Anthony has failed to show any nexus between the requested amendment and the possibility of an accident at Limerick or its consequences.

Inasmuch as the amendment involves only minor reporting _ requirements and does not change plant design or any operating condition, parameter or procedure which could create an accident or alter its consequences, Mr. Anthony has failed to show any conceivable manner in which he could be affected by the amendment.

Conclusion i

For the reasons discussed above and in Licensee's previously filed answer to AWPP's request for hearing, Mr.

Anthony's petition does not constitute a valid request for hearing which can be the basis for further proceedings

-4/

Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 614 (1976), Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-582, 11 NRC 239, 243 n.8 (1980).

-5/

Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423, 1448 (1982).

'6

.. 4 e

before this Board.

Moreover, his petition is deficient under the rules for intervention in failing1 to demonstrate any concrete, personal interest in the. outcome of the proceeding.

Accordingly, Mr.

Anthony's request -for a

hearing should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or denied for failure to meet standing requirements.

In either event, this proceeding should be terminated.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

I h5' Troy B.

Conner, Jr.

Mark J. Wetterhahn Robert M. Rader Counsel for Licensee May 22, 1987 Ru b

e e

i A

l e

DOCKEiff USNP.C 87 11AY 27 P1 :09 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE & int M"Y Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoWifdElihu ; SEPylCI BRANCH In the Matter of

)

)

Philadelphia Electric Company

)

Docket No. 50-352-OLA

)

(TS Iodine)

(Limerick Generating Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Answer in Opposition to Petition by R.

L.

Anthony For Leave to Intervene and For A Hearing" dated May 22, 1987 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 22nd day of May, 1987:

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.

Chairman Counsel for NRC Staff Atomic Safety and Office of the General Licensing Board Panel Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Section Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. Frank R.

Romano Dr. Peter A. Morris 61 Forest Avenue Atomic Safety and Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Robert L. Anthony Commission 106 Vernon Lct.e, Box 186 Washington, D.C.

20555 Moylan, PA l65 AT A. #d RobeTt M.

Rade'r I

b