ML20236E682
| ML20236E682 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1987 |
| From: | Cole R, Morris P, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC., NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4130 87-550-03-LA, 87-550-3-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8708030047 | |
| Download: ML20236E682 (8) | |
Text
. - _ _ _ - _ - _
- $Y l
DOCKETE:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
'87 JJL 29 NO:22 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges
{
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chainnan i
Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Peter A. Morris SERVED JUL 2 91987 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-352-0LA
)
(TS Iodine)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (ASLBPNo. 87-550-03-LA)
(Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1)
July 28, 1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Provisionally Ordering A Hearing and Provisionally Granting Petitions For Leave to Intervene)
MEMORANDUM In the Memorandum and Order of June 22, 1987 (unpublished), the i
Board rejected the Licensee's argument that the petitions submitted by Mr. Frank Romano, on behalf of Air and Water Pollution Patrol (AWPP),
and by Mr. Robert Anthony were not valid requests for a hearing with respect to an application filed by the Licensee requesting that the Limerick Technical Specifications for Unit 1 be amended.
In that Memorandum and Order, as supplemented on June 25, the Board directed that by July 7,1987 AWPP should file its response to Argument II set 4
forth in the Licensee's Answer of May 20 and, by the same date, Mr. Anthony should file this response to Argument II set forth in the 870B030047 070728
$6g !
PDR ADOCK 05000352 G
s.
y Licensee's Answer of May 22. The Staff was directed to respond by
)
July 13 to Argument 11 set forth in the Licensee's two answers.1 Under date of July 2, Mr. Anthony filed his response, and, under date of July 5, AWPP filed an answer which was signed by Mr. Romano as Chairman.
{
I The Staff filed its reply on July 13, 1987.
I.
Discussion A.
Requirements for Interver. tion 10 C.F.R. 62.714(a)(2) requires that' a petitioner for leave to intervene set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
}
the proceeding, how that interast may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why the petitioner should be permitted to intervene, and the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which the petitioner wishet to intervene. This section also requires that the petition should make particular reference to the following factors in 52.714(d):
(1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding.
(2) The nature 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 in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
1 Licensee's Argument II alleged that each petitioner had not met the requirement for representational standing.
i With regard to case law, in Portland General Electric Company, et al. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613 (1976), the Commission stated that to have standing to intervene as a matter of right, a petitioner must satisfy two tests - one, some injury must be alleged that has occurred or will probably result from j
I the action involved, and, second, an interest must be alleged that is
" arguably within the zone of interest" protected by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. (2011, et seq. (1976) and by the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 64321 et seq. (1976).- The Appeal Board has held that close proximity has always been deemed i
enough, standing alone, to establish the requisite interest. Virginia l
Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1
{
1 l
and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979). However, a petitioner may not rest upon such a presumption and, to establish representational standing, must explicitly identify the nature of the invasion of that interest which might flow from the proposed action. Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 393 (1979); Consumers Power Company (Palisades Nuclear Power Facility), LBP-81-26, 14 NRC 247, 253-55 (1981). Once the nature of the invasion of that interest has been specifically identified, whether a petitioner's concern is in fact justified must be I
left for consideration when the merits of the controversy are reached --
i.e., at this early stage of the proceedings, a petitioner is not obligated to particularize a causal relationship between injury and his interest. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (Cobalt-60 1
i L__-______--
I 1
N Storage Facility), ALAB-682, 16 NRC 150, 154-55 (1982); Virginia 1
Electric and Power Company, supra, at 57 n. 5.
In an operating license amendment proceeding, a licensing board should not apply stricter geographical requirements for standing than those applicable to construction and operating license proceedings. Armed Forces l
Radiobiology Research Institute, supra, at 153-54; Virginia Electric and Power Company, supra, at 56. An " aspect" is generally considered broader than a " contention". Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-27, 8 NRC 275, 278 (1978).
Further, a petitioner's participation in previcus Commission licensing proceedings is not determinative of, if indeed relevant to, its being admitted as an intervening party in a current proceeding.
Wisconsin Electric Power Power, (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1),
LBP-73-26, 6 AEC 612, 616 (1973). However, representational authorization of a member with personal standing may be presumed where it appears that the sole or primary purpose of the petitioner organization was to oppose nuclear power in general or the facility at bar in particular.
Houston Lighting and Power Company, supra, at 396.
In any event, it is enough for standing purposes that the petition has been signed by the ranking official of the organization who himself has the requisite personal interest to support an intervention petition.
Duke Power Company (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773), ALAB-528, 9 NRC 146, 151 (1979).
i
4 i
i 2 B.
Compliance With Requirements 1.
AWPP a.
Interest 1
I Mr. Romano, representing AWPP as Chairman, states that, since AWPP's incorporation over 15 years ago, it has opposed the construction and operation of Limerick and seeks to have the plant shut down. Living i
about 19 miles southeast of the Limerick plant, he asserts that the proposed amendment, if permitted, could adversely affect his health and safety and his family's as well as the health and safety of members cf AWPP, and that the value of his property located within 10 miles of the plant would likewise be adversely affected. He alleges that decreasing the reporting requirements with respect to incidents of iodine spiking could lessen the margin of safety. We presume that AWPP has the representational authorization of a member with personal standing.
In any event, we conclude that Mr. Romano, as the organization's Chairman, has shown the personal interest required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by the Commission's Rules of Practice and by case law, and thus has established the interest and/or standing of AWPP.
b.
Aspects AWPP asserts that the proposed amendment makes " safety related changes in a safety requirement" because changing the reporting 2
Our discussion and conclusions are based on our discussion in Part A, supra, but do not cite again the relevant regulations, statutes and case law.
e
, requirements (from reporting each tiine an iodine spike occurs, to reporting in a single annual report) would permit reporting an annual figure that could meet the (license) requirement for a year, but that a high unexpected iodine release could exceed the one time limit, be it (an) hour or day or week limit. The Licensee and the Staff argue that the proposed amendment does not involve any change in the design of plant equipment or reactor operator practices that could impact the probability er consequences of an accident and does not involve degradation of any of the conservative assumptions used in Staff's previously performed dose assessment analysis. However, at this stage of the proceedings we do not reach the merits and decide whether the petitioner's concern is in fact justified. We conclude that AWPP has set forth with particularity a specific aspect of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which it wishes to intervene.
2.
Mr. Anthony a.
Interest Mr. Anthony resides within 25 miles of the Limerick facility and
{
visits within 2 miles of the plant. He asserts that the proposed 4
amendment, if granted, would remove requirements to react to iodine spikes which would increase threats to his and his family's health and safety.
Further, he states that, should the amendment be allowed, he I
would have to move from the area and would suffer financial losses in having to sell his property and business. We conclude that Mr. Anthony has shown the personal interest required by the Atomic Energy Act of
1 i '
1954, as amended, by the Connission's Rules of Practice and by case law, and thus has established his interest and/or standing.
b.
Aspects Mr. Anthony asserts that granting of the proposed amendment would reduce control over iodine spikes and would discount the threat of such spikes, and thus would reduce the vigilance of Licensee's employees who operate the plant. The Licensee argues that Mr. Anthony has failed to show any nexus between the requested amendment and the possibility of an accident at Limerick or its consequences and that 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.
However, we iterate that, at this stage of the proceedings, we do not reach the merits and determine whether the petitioner's contern is in fact justified. The Staff asserts that Mr. Anthony has failed to set forth the specific aspect of the subject matter of the proceeding that he wishes to pursue. We conclude that Mr. Anthony's assertions are sufficient to identify aspects of the subject matter;of the proceeding as to which he wishes to intervene.
ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED 1.
That the petitions for. leave to intervene of AWPP and of Mr. Robert Anthony are provisionally granted, and a
r
i
\\ 2.
That a hearing is provisionally ordered upon the application for an amendment to the Technical Specification of the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1, dated August 19, 1986.
Further, while a notice of hearing is being issued today which, inter alia, schedules a
$2.715a special prehearing conference to be held on September 29, 1987, said notice is also provisional since the Board cannot rule upon the need for an evidentiary hearing until after September 29, 1987 when it determines whether at least one admissible contention has been submitted.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
S:AJAu\\ LOGY 4 Sheldon J. Mlfe, Chairman j
ADMINISTRATE JUDGE w?e Dr. Richard F. Cole ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE IUT2 4. hunAlo Dr. Pete'r A. M6rris y gg
~
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 28th day of July, 1987.
,