ML20211C192
| ML20211C192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1986 |
| From: | Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1132 OL, NUDOCS 8610210293 | |
| Download: ML20211C192 (18) | |
Text
- - _ _ _ - .
f)$ h I
D0t.KE TE D USNHC October 14, 1986 1E OCT 17 P12:28 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFKE F n.: .t 00CHEta+ ... "JiLF BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD B R /M" 1
In the Matter of )
)
PHILADELPIIIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352 O l--
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO DEL-AWARE'S MOTION TO REOPEN PROCEEDINGS I. INTRODUCTION In a document dated September 23, 1986, Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. ,
(" Del-Aware") an intervenor in an earlier phase of the Limerick operating
! license proceeding, moved to reopen the record for further consideration of impacts of the operation of the Bradshaw Reservoir. II Del-Aware's motion is based on recent changes to the proposal to construct the reser-voir, specifically on the proposal to reduce the capacity of the reservoir from 70 million gallons to 25 million gallons. 2,/ For the reasons discussed below, the NRC staff opposes Del-Aware's motion and urges the Licensing Board to dismiss it.
-1/ Motion to Reopen Proceeding for Further Consideration of Environ-mental Impacts of Proposed But Not Yet Incurred Construction ,
September 23, 1986.
2_/ Id. , at third page of attached Application.
8610210293 DR 061014 ADOCK 05000352
! PDR .
I
$0
'2-II. BACKGROUND Del-Aware was admitted as a party to the Limerick proceeding 3_/ 9, the Licensing ' Board's Special Prehearing Conference Order of June 1, 1982. O Four of Del-Aware's proposed contentions were admitted for litigation, b The Licensing Board subsequently reconsidered .and denied admission of one of these contentions. Memorandum and Order, slip op.
at 5 (July 14, 1982) (unpublished) . Del-Aware's three admitted conten-tions concerned the environmental impacts of the operation of the supple-mentary cooling water system ("SCWS"), which would pump water from the Delaware River at Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania, to the Bradshaw Res-ervoir and thence to the East Branch Perkiomen Creek. Two contentions, the first concerning the impact of changes to the proposal since the con-struction permit review on two species of finh, American shad and shortnose sturgeon, and the second concerning the impact of noise from the operation of the pumping station on the proposed historic district of Point Pleasant, were litigated. The third contention, which concerned the
' effect of seepage from the Bradshaw Reservoir on groundwater, 6_/ ,,,
~
3/ A Federal Register notice of August 21, 1981, announced the NRC's receipt of Philadelphia Electric's application for a license to operate the Limerick Generating Station and the opportunity for interested persons to file petitions to intervene. 46 Fed. Reg. 42557 (1981).
4/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A,15 NRC 1423 (1982).
5,/ Id. ,15 NRC at 1479.
6/ Contention V-16b, as admitted for litigation, states: " Seepage of water and toxics from Bradshaw Reservoir will cause a risk of groundwater contamination and hydraulic saturation." Id. , 15 NRC at 1479.
withdrawn by Del-Aware pursuant to a stipulation among the parties to that phase of the proceeding, Del-Aware , the Applicant and the NRC j staff.II
$ In its Partial Initial Decision (LBP-83-11, supra, n.5), the Licensing i
Board found that contrary to Del-Aware's contention, the operation of the ,
l intake would not have a significant adverse impact on the fish species of concern. With respect to the alleged noise impacts of pumping station i operation, the Licensing Board held that if tests showed that there would be an adverse impact, such impact should be mitigated. 17 NRC at 416.
a On Del-Aware's appeal, the Appeal Board sustained the Licensing Board's determinations regarding the admitted contentions. 8,/ However, holding that the Licensing Board had erred in rejecting two of Del-Aware's con-tentions, regarding increased salinity in the Delaware River as a result of the operation of the intake and adverse aesthetic impacts of the pumping i
station on the proposed historic district, the Appeal Board reversed and I
1
-7/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LB P-83 -11, 17 NRC 413 at 418 (1983), the Partial Initial
. Decision (On Supplementing Cooling Water System Contentions). The stipulation stated:
Del-Aware agrees to withdraw its Contention V-16b and :
understands that it does not thereby waive any right it j might have to raise contentions concerning the Staff en-
- vironmental documents when they are issued. The Staff will include water quality considerations associated with i discharges from the Bradshaw Reservoir, once it becomes operational, in its Environmental Review in connection l with the Limerick application, ff. Tr. 2371.
! 8/
~
Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 j and 2), ALAB-785, 20 NRC 848 at 878-81, 885 (1984).
i.
remanded on those issues. SI The Appeal Board directed the Licensing Board to afford Del-Aware an opportunity to file contentions on the re-manded issues, the contentions to be specifically addressed to the Staff's Final Environmental Statement ("FES"), which had been published subse-quent to the issuance of the Licensing Board's decision on Del-Aware's contentions. 10/ In an unpublished order of November 8, 1984, the Licensing Board rejected Del-Aware's proposed contentions for lack of specificity and basis. On Del-Aware's appeal, the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's action. E The Commission declined review of ALAB-785 on February 22, 1985; on May 20, 1985, it declined to review l ALAB-804.
III. DISCUSSION A. The Licensing Board does not have jurisdiction to decide the matters raised by Del-Aware.
As the Commission declined review of ALAB-785, that decision be-came final agency action. The issues remanded in ALAB-785 were decided against Del-Aware in an unpublished Licensing Board decision of November 8,1984, a decision affirmed by the Appeal Board in ALAB-804 on April 10, 1985. As the Commission did not take review of ALAB-804, that decision became final agency action. Del-Aware did not pursue an appeal of either decision in the Court of Appeals. Thus, even though 9/ Id., 20 NRC at 866-70, 874-78, 885.
10/ Id., 20 NRC at 869, 876, 885, i -
11/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-804, 21 NRC 587 (1985).
. - _ - - _ ~ __.._ ____ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __._.-_ __ - _. _
I
] the Licensing Board currently has a discrete issue rcgarding emergency
. planning pending before it for decision, its jurisdiction over the matters l adjudicated in the Partial Initial Decision (On Supplementary Cooling Water i System Contentions) and the November 8,1984 order has long since ter-minated. See, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station , Units 1 and 2), A LAB-513, 8 NRC 694, 695 (1978); Public Ser vice Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-530, 9 NRC 216, . 262 (1979). The Licensing Board should, 1
therefore , dismiss Del-Aware's motion to reopen for lack of jurisdiction over the matter.
B. Even if the Licensing Board had the jurisdiction to grant Del-Aware's motion, it should deny it for failure to satisfy the re-quirements of the Commission's regulation governing motions to I reopen.
i The standard for reopening the record is a three part test: (1) Is
! the motion timely? (2) Does it address significant safety (or environmen- i tal) issues? (3) Might a different result have been reached had the new-t l ly proffered material been considered initially? Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-598,11 NRC 876, 879 (1980), cited with approval in Metropolitan Edison Co.
l (1985). This test has received judicial approval. Oystershell Alli i ance v. NRC, No. 85-1182 (D.C. Cir., September 9, 1986) Three Mile Island Alert. Inc. v. NRC, 771 F.2d 720, 732 (3d. Cir.1985), cert. de- .
I nied sub nom. , Aamodt v. NRC, U.S. (1986). The test has re- ,
i f
i
. cently been codified in a Commission rule,10 C.F.R. I 2.734. 51 Fed.
Reg. 19535 (May 30, 1986); 51 Fed. Reg. 23523 (June 30, 1986). b
- 1. Timeliness Section 2.734(a)(1) requires that motions to reopen not be granted unless they are timely, except that an exceptionally grave issue
-12/ The Commission's regulation governing consideration of motions to reopen,10 C.F.R. I 2.734, states:
(a) A motion to reopen a closed record to consider ad-ditional evidence will not be granted unless the following criteria are satisfied:
(1) The motion must be timely , except that an exceptionally grave issue may be considered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if untimely presented.
(2) The - motion must address a significant safety or environmental issue.
(3) The motion must demonstrate that a materially different result would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially.
(b) The motion must be accompanied by one or more affidavits which set forth the factual and/or techni-cal bases for the movant's claim that the criteria of paragraph (a) of this section have been satistled.
Affidavits must be given by competent individuals with knowledge of the facts alleged, or by experts in the disciplines appropriate to the issues raised.
Evidence contained in affidavits must meet the ad-missibility standards set forth in I 2.743(c). Each of the criteria must be separately addressed, with a specific explanation of why it has been met. Where multiple allegations are involved, the movant must identify with particularity each issue it seeks to litigate and specify the factual and/or technical bases which it believes support the claim that this issue meets the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section.
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
_7_
may be considered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if un-timely presented. Del-Aware states that the revision to the Bradshaw Reservoir has been proposed by the Licensee within the last ninety days
, and was not brought to the attention of Del-Aware "until more recently."
Motion at 4. Del-Aware does not discuss the circumstances surrounding its learning of the proposed revision and does not offer the Licensing Board any basis for determining whether or not the motion is timely.
2 That being the case, Del-Aware has not carried its burden of demonstrat -
ing that the motion was timely filed and has failed to make the showing required by 10 C.F.R. I 2.734(a)(1).
- 2. Significance of the Issue Raised Section 2.734(a)(2) provides that a motion to reopen will not be granted unless it addresses a significant safety or environmental issue.
Del-Aware's motion for the most part addresses concerns raised in the contention that it withdrew pursuant to a stipulation. That contention concerned scepage from the proposed reservoir and its effect on ground-water. Del-Aware now expresses concerns about destabilization of the (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
(c) A motion predicated in whole or in part on the alle-gations of a confidential informant must identify to the presiding officer the source of the allegations and must requer,t the issuance of an appropriate
, protective order.
(d) A motion to reopen which relates to a contention not previously in controversy among the parties must also satisfy the requirements for nontimely conten-tions in 6 2.714(a)(1)(1-v).
I
, , _~- -a, - ,-- - , - , - - , ~ - ---,------------,-----,wwy- -,-------e, , -- ~ +-
banks and potential collapse of the reservoir. Motion at 2. The motion also mentions erosive effects on the East Branch Perkiomen Creek. Mo-tion at 3. Del-Aware states, without support, that the matters raised in its motion "are necessary to be considered by the Commission in light of its respontdbility under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Act ( sic] . " One is left to speculate as to why Del-Aware believes that NEPA requires Commission consideration of a matter which according to Del-Aware is before the Pennsylvania Depart-ment of Environmental Resources. Motion at 2; Exhibit A. Del-Aware falls to carry its burden of demonstrating that its motion raises environ-mental concerns of significance to the NRC. Moreover, as regards any safety significance of the proposed amendment that might be within the NRC's jurisdiction by virtue of its responsibilities under the Atomic Ener-gy Act, it has been held repeatedly in this proceeding that the SCWS, of which the Bradshaw Reservoir forms a part, is without safety significance for the Limerick facility. See Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-789, 20 NRC 1443,1449 (1984);
Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), DD-82-13,16 NRC 2115 at 2128 n.27 (1982).
Thus, Del-Aware has failed to make the showing required by 10 C.F.R. I. 2734(a)(2).
- 3. Likelihood of a Different Result Section 2.734(a)(3) requires the movant to demonstrate that a materially different result would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence -been considered initially. Del-Aware states without support that the matters it raises would have a significant and substantial effect on
. the conclusions of the Commission. Motion at 4. However, it makes no attempt to demonstrate why this is so. Thus, Del-Aware has failed to make the showing required by 10 C.F.R. I 2.734(a)(3).
- 4. The Requirement that the Motion Be Accompanied By Affidavits Section 2.734(a)(4) requires that a motion to reopen be accom-panied by affidavits setting forth the factual and/or technical bases for the movant's claims that the criteria of f 2.734(a) have been satisfied.
Del-Aware has not accompanied its motion with the requisite affidavits.
- 5. Del-Aware Has Not Satisfied the Requirements for Non-timely Contentions Section 2.734(d) requires that a motion to reopen that relates to a contention not previously in controversy among the parties must satisfy the requirements for nontimely contentions in 5 2.714(1)(1-v). Del-Aware seeks to raise two contentions which although previously proposed were not litigated. Del-Aware states that it wishes to litigate the contention it previously withdrew pursuant to 'a stipulation, V-16b, regarding seepage and potential collapse and that is seeks to have admitted a new contention relating to the erosive effect on the Perkiomen of the discharge from the modified reservoir and the availability of alternatives to the SCWS. Mo-tion at 5. Del-Aware speaks of a "new contention" however, the matters it now raises are neither new nor are they stated as contentions. As noted above, Del-Aware raised and then withdrew by stipulation a conten-tion relating to seepage from the Bradshaw Reservoir. With respect to potential harm to the Perklomen Creek and the need to consider alterna-tives , in LB P-82-43 A , the Licensing Board denied Del-Aware's
Contention V-16e relating to adverse effects of discharges from the opera-tion of the SCWS on the Perkiomen. See 15 NRC at 1486.1_3,/
The question of alternatives to the SCWS was raised by Del-Aware in nontimely contentions rejected by the Licensing Board in an unpublished order of March 8, 1983. The Appeal Board addressed the matter at length in ALAB-785, affirming the Licensing Board's rejection of Del-Aware's proposed contentions regarding Schuylkill River alternatives for the SCWS at Point Pleasant. See 20 NRC 848 at 681-883. What the Appeal Board said there in addressing Del-Aware's motion to set aside LBP-83-11 based on "new evidence" is equally relevant here. The Appeal Board stated:
What Del-Aware is seeking, in fact, is an order directing PEco to abandon Unit 2 and to rely on a source of sup-plementary cooling water for the remaining Unit 1 other than the Delaware River via the river-follower method.
But we have no legal basis here for making such an order. . . . [W]e now have before us PECo's applica-tion for a license to operate two units , using the river-follower method to supplement the plant's cooling water system. We have previously approved the river-follower method in ALAB-262, supra. The purpose of this proceeding, in that regard, is consideration of the impacts of any subsequent changes relating to that sup-j' picmentary cooling system. Except for two matters that we have determined should have been, but were not, litigated, we agree with the Licensing Board's conclusion that the impacts of the subsequent changes are not sig-nificant. In the absence of a finding to the contrary,
, we are without the legal predicate to dictate to PECo that it must pursue other options.
13/ The Licensing Board held not only that V-16e lacked specificity but also that impacts on the Perkiomen and Schuylkill from discharges from the SCWS had been considered at the construction permit stage and changes alleged in the filings did not appear to affect discharg-Id. Del-Aware did not
- es into the Perklomon or the Schuylkill.
raise the issue of the Licensing Board's rejection of its proposed V-16c on appeal of LDP-83-11.
. Moreover, Del-Aware would have us act on the basis of rulings of other federal and state entities concerned with various aspects of Limerick and the PPD project. Apart from the facts that, in many instances, these rulings are not final and that overall the situation is rather dynam-fe, we must decide only the federal questions before us, without being unduly influenced by the decisions of oth-ers with differing concerns and responsibilities. . . .
As the history of this case over the last decade makes clear, the environmental impacts of the Limerick supplementary cooling water system have been the sub-ject of considerable attention both at this agency and in numerous other forums. Del-Aware's general assertion that there has been an effort to avoid review of these impacts or to conceal them in some . manner is without merit.
20 NRC 848 at 884-85.
Even though neither . Del-Aware's contention regarding seepage nor its contention regarding adverse effects on the Perkiomen and the need for alternatives is new, the proposed reduction in size of the Bradshaw Reservoir might be considered a new factor. EI The Staff
-14/ 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1) states in pertinent part:
Nontimely filings will not be entertained absent a deter-mination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the atomic safety and licensing board designated to rule on the petition and/or request , that the petition and/or .
request should be granted based upon a balancing of the following factors in addition to those set out in paragraph (d) of this section:
(1) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(11) The availability of other means whereby the peti-tioner's interest will be protected.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
addresses the five factors of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1)(1-v) because i 2.734(d) requires that they be addressed whenever contentions' not pre-viously in controversy are proposed by a motion to reopen.
(a) Good Cause The first factor to be considered in passing upon a late-filed petition is whether good cause has been shown for the nontimely filing. 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1)(i). The Appeal Board has indicated that the more compelling the justification for filing late, the more attenuated the showing may be with respect to the four other factors listed in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a). See, g, e Puget Sound Power a Light Co.
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-523, 9 NRC 58, 63 (1979). See also Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant , Unit 2), ALAB-420, 6 NRC 8, 22 (1977), aff'd, CLI-78-12, 7 NRC 939 (1978). Conversely, where good cause is not shown, the burden of justifying intervention on the basis of the four other factors necessarily -
is greater. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braldwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 244 (1986); Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-431, 6 NRC 460, 462 (1977); Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-74-4, 1 NRC 273 (1975). As discussed above under Timeli- l (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
l l
l I --
ness, Del-Aware has not addressed the circumstances surrounding its acquisition of information concerning Philadelphia Electric's July 9, 1986, application to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources to amend its plans for construction of the Bradshaw Reservoir. Therefore, Del-Aware has not shown that it has good cause for the late filing.
(b) The Availability of Other Means With regard to the second factor (the availability of other means whereby a petitioner can protect its interest), the Appeal Board has observed that this factor is accorded relatively less weight than fac-tors 6 2.714(a)(1)(1)(lii) and (v). Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707, 16 NRC 1760, 1767 (1982);
Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station , Units 1 j and 2), ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725, 1730-31 (1982); South Carolina Electric
& Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station , Unit 1), ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881, (1981). In fact, the Appeal Board has stated that "it is most difficult to envisage a situation in which [this factor] might serve to jus-tify granting intervention to one who fails to make an affirmative showing on the other . . . factors." Summer, supra, 13 NRC at 895. Del-Aware j has not- addressed this factor. However, there appear to be other forums available for Del-Aware to participate on Philadelphia Electric's amended j application to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PaDER). It is the Staff's understanding that PaDER will hold a meeting i
in Doylestown, Pa. on October 16, 1986, to consider comments on the application. Del-Aware may pursue its concerns through PaDER and the DRBC, which are agencies directly concerned with Philadelphia Electric's
/
l
, -- - - --,,-..,.-...-- -- --n - - . . ,--r-,.e---.r.,,,-.. --- ... -.-- ,-- , , - ~ - - .
authorization to construct the Bradshaw Reservoir. Thus, consideration of this factor does not weigh in Del-Aware's favor.
(c) Assistance In Developing A Sound Record The third factor, the extent to which petitioner can assist in developing a sound record, is accorded significant weight when balanc-ing the factors in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1). The proponent of an untime-ly contention must affirmatively demonstrate that it has special expertise that could aid in developing a sound record. B raidwood , supra, CLI-86-8, 23 NRC at 246; Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-743,18 NRC 387, 399-400 (1983); Summer, supra , 13 NRC at 892-93; Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H.
Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP-80-14,11 NRC 570, 576 (1980). The peti-tioner is required to " set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, identify its prospective witnesses and summarize its proposed testimony. Vague assertions regarding petition-
'er's ability . . . are insufficient." Grand Gulf, supra,16 NRC at 1730; Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project, No. 3),
ALAB-747, 18 NRC 1167, 1177-78, 1181 (1983): 18 NRC at 1182-83 (con-i curring opinion of Judge Edles). Del-Aware has not addressed this fac-tor. Therefore ,' consideration of the third factor does not weigh in Del-Aware's favor.
(d) Extent to Which Petitioner's Interest Will Be Represented By Existing Parties
Del-Aware states that no other participant or party can be expected to litigate this matter before this Board. Motion at 4. The Staff agrees that this is the case and that Del-Aware's; showing on the fourth factor weighs in its favor. ,
(e) Delay of the Proceeding The fifth factor, the extent to which a petitioner's partici-pation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding, also is given sig-nificant weight in balancing the factors of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1). The Commission's case law indicates that only the delay to the proceeding at-tributable directly to the tardiness of the petitioner is to be taken into account in applying this factor. West Valley, supra, 1 NRC at 276; Long Island Lighting Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station , Units 1 and 2), ALAB-292, 2 NRC 631 and n.25 (1975). Del-Aware does not ad-dress this factor. In the Staff's view, because all the proceedings to which Del-Aware's' proposed contentions related have long since become final agency action of Del-Aware's contention would cause delay by the imposition of additional proceedings. Therefore, this factor weighs against Del-Aware. Ilowever, since Unit 1 is now operating and Del-Aware has not sought a stay and Unit 2 is not expected to be opera-tional for some years, . Del-Aware's motion, while it would delay completion of the proceeding, would have little effect on delaying the operation of the facilities involved.
As discussed above, the only factor that weighs in Del-Aware's favor is the fourth. The Licensing Board should not, therefore, even if it concludes that it has jurisdiction, grant Del-Aware's motion to reopen to admit new contentions, i
l L
. IV. CONCLUSION As discussed Nbove, the Licensing Board should dismiss Del-Aware's motion for lack of ju'risdiction, or, if the Licensing Board should conclude that it has jurisdiction, it should deny the motion for failing to satisfy the requirements of the Commission's regulations governing motions to reopen.
N Respectfully sulmitted, h .
Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 14th day of October,1986
(
h 1
4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ((Nhck NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '86 0CT 17 P12:28 In the Matter of ) [0CbiS*$h~
) BRANCH PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket' Nos. 50-352
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, ) ,
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO DEL-AWARE'S MOTION TO REOPEN PROCEEDINGS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, ,
or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 14th day of October,,1986:
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson (2) Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Administrative Judge .Vice President a General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel - Philadelphia Electric Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2301 Market Street Washington, D.C. 20555* Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dr. Richard F. Cole Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esq.
Administrative Judge Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel -Conner and Wetterhahn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. Jerry Harbour Ms. Phyllis Zitzer, President Administrative Judge Ms. Maureen Mulligan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Limerick. Ecology Action U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 762 Queen Street Washington, D.C. 20555* Pottstown, PA 19464 Mr. Frank R. Romano Charles E. Rainey, Jr. , Esq.
Air and Water Pollution Patrol Chief Assistant City Sclicitor 61 Forest Avenue Law Department, City of Philadelphia Ambler, PA 19002 One Reading Center 1101 Market Street, 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Thomas Gerusky, Director Barry M. Hartman Bureau of Radiation Protection Governor's Energy Council Dept. of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 8010 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Building 300 N. 2nd Street Third and Locust Streets Harrisburg, PA 17105 Harrisburg, PA 17120 l
l I -- - _
Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Director, General Counsel Pennsylvania Emergency Management Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency Room 840 Basement, Transportation a Safety 500 C Street, S.W.
Building Washington, D.C. 20472 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Robert L. Anthony Gene Kelly Friends of the Earth of the Senior Resident Inspector Delaware Valley U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 P.O. Box 47 Moylan, PA 19065 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Atomic Safety and Licensing Timothy R. S. Campbell, Director Board Panel Department of Emergency Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14 East Biddle Street Washington, D.C. 20555* West Chester, PA 19380 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal David Wersan Board Panel (5)
Consumer Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20555*
1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Jay Gutierrez U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555*
USNRC, Region I 631 Park Avenue Angus R. Love, Esq.
King of Prussia, PA 19406- Montgomery County Legal Aid 107 East Main Street Theodore G. Otto, III Norristown, PA 19401 Chief Counsel Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections P. O. Box 598 Camp Hill, PA 17011 W k aa 1 %
Ann P. Hodfdon Counsel for NRC Sta
- 1 l
i