ML20214N181

Order (Rescinding Order of 870519 & Replacing Order).* Licensee Filing as Soon as Possible of Answer Addressing Argument II W/Respect to Anthony Petition Suggested.Served on 870526

ML20214N181
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	05/22/1987
From:	Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
References
CON-#287-3581 87-550-03-LA, 87-550-3-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8706020090
Download: ML20214N181 (2)

Text

'

e

%$T UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'87 ttAY 26 P 2 :49 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD r

Before Administrative Judges [ocNbnn .hdN BPMKH Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chainnan Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Peter A. Morris SERVED MAY 2 61987

)

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-352-OLA

) (TSIodine)

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (ASLBP No. 87-550-03-LA)

(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1) )

) May 22, 1987 ORDER (Rescinoing Order of May 19, 1987 and Replacing It)

Our Order of May 19, 1987 had been issued in light of Licensee's counsel's letter of May 7,1987 addressed to B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. However, under date of May 20, 1987, the Licensee formally filed an Answer In Opposition To Request For Hearing And Leave To Intervene By Air And Water Pollution Patrol. AWPP's petition for hearing and leave to intervene had been submitted earlier by Mr. Frank R. Romano on September 4,1986. Having Licensee's formal filing before us, we rescind the Order of May 19, 1987.

On May 20, 1987, the Secretary of the Comission forwarded to us the petition of Mr. Robert L. Anthony for leave to intervene and for a hearing which had been submitted on August 25, 1986.

8706020090 870522 PDR ADOCK 05000352 O PDR g "),

) .

{

Licensee's Answer consists of two arguments. Argument I urges that AWPP's petition is not a valid request for a hearing in response to the notice published in the Federal Register. Argument II argues that AWPP has not met the requirament for representational standing.

For purposes of judicial economy, since Licensee's Argument I could be deemed and is deemed by us to encompass both the petition filed by Mr. Romano and the petition filed by Mr. Anthony, Messrs. Anthony and Romano are requested to respond only to Licensee's Argument I by no later than June 11, 1987 and the NRC Staff is requested to respond by June 16, 1987.

If, after reviewing these submissions, the Board should reject Licensee Argument I, it will advise Messrs. Anthony and Romano as well as the NRC Staff, upon what dates they shall file responses to Licensee's Argument II. While the Board, after reviewing these submissions, may find merit in Licensee's Argument I and dismiss the two petitions, it is suggested for purposes of economy that the Licensee file as soon as is possible an answer addressing Argument II with  ;

respect to the Anthony petition. ,

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l

. $d.v I bbd f Sheldon J. WoUe, Chaitilfan ADMINISTRATItdJUDGE t

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 22nd day of May,1987.

- - - --a, - m---,,. -- e-e--, , n-y-, ,-a, - - , - - - - - - . - , - - - , - - - . , - - , - - ,-,,--,-.~,-.,,---,-,,-r-,. - - - - , , - - - - -