ML20202G085
| ML20202G085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1986 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202G058 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8607150298 | |
| Download: ML20202G085 (20) | |
Text
r 7
3 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CCt+1ISSION Before the Ccmnission In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Ccr@any
)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
LICENSEE'S ANSWER 'IO PETITION BY ERIENDS OF THE EARTH TO REOPEN THE RECORD AND REQUEST mR SANCTIONS Preliminary Statement In a petition filed June 24, 1986, intervenor Friends of the Earth
("NE") has sought to reopen offsite emergency planning hearings in the operating license proceeding for the Limerick Generating Station
(" Limerick").
ECE also seeks to disqualify counsel for Licensee Philadelphia Electric Ccrnpany (" Licensee") frcm the proceeding.
FOE's request sterrs fran a :tenorandum fran William L. Clements, Chief, Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Docketing and Service Brarch, dated June 2,1986, which is discussed belcw.
Although ECE's petition is addressed jointly to the Ccanission and the presiding Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board"),
only the Ccmnission has jurisdiction to reopen the emergency planning h
P ase of hearings in which ECE participated. ECE's petition for review of AIAB-836, which pertains to that phase, is now pending before the Ccmnission.
In any event, ECE has totally failed to shcw that any significant safety issue exists or that any safety issue would be 8607150298 860710 PDR ADOCK 05000352 G
- r decided differently as a result of reopened hearings.
Finally, ME has shown no basis for disqualification of Licensee's counsel or any other sanction.
i Argument l
I.
Only he Ccmnission Has Jurisdiction To Reopen h e Proceeding On ME's Emergency Planning Contention.
Because NE has sought relief before the Appeal Board as well as the Ccmnission, Licensee first discusses why only the Corrission has jurisdiction to consider ME's request for relief. As the Appeal Board noted in AIAB-836, ME's only contention related to offsite emergency planning, NE Contention 1, was ccznbined with Li_merick Ecology Action
(" LEA") Contention 24. The joint contention asserted:
There is no assurance that plans for evacuation of the ten mile radius will not be irrai-1 by traffic congestion in the vicinity of Marsh Creek State Park, Exton area (involving Route 100) and Valley Forge Park, King of Prussia area.
hese areas should either be included in the Emergency Planning Zone or adecuate plans for traffic control and direction should be made to avoid adverse effects on EPZ evacuation.1/
In AIAB-836, the Appeal Board rejected each of LEA's and ME's claims on appeal relating to their joint contention, except for the 1
establishment of an additional traffic control point.2/
The Appeal 1/
Philadelphia Electric Ccrpany (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), AIAB-836, 23 NPC (May 7, 1986) (slip op. at 16-17 n.19).
2_/
In this regard, the Appeal Board directed that traffic control measures be established in the area of Foute 100 a.M the Downingtown interchange of the Pennsylvania Turnpixe.
Id.
at 24-26.
- t Board rejected IEA's and NE's renaining arguments as to the adequacy of traffic control for areas adjacent to the EPZ,3/ the size of the plume exposure emergency planning zone ("EPZ"), including the role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FDR") in sizing the EPZ,b and ccrtplaints as to limits upon cross-examination.5/
Except for one issue on remand unrelated to NE's contentionb! and other unrelated contentions pertaining to the State Correctional Insti-tution at Graterford still pending review, AIAB-836 ruled upon all intervenors' contentions relating to offsite emergency planning and preparedness for Limerick.
Petitions for review have been filed by Licensee and NE with the Ccs: mission. By Order dated June 24, 1986, the Ccmnission extended the time within which it may act to review AIAB-836 until July 25, 1986.
Under the circumstances, the subject of NE's motion to recpen is currently pending before the Ccxtmission. Conversely, it is well settled that the Appeal Board does not retain jurisdiction over issues it has decided and therefore lacks jurisdiction on a motion to reopen the record en decided issues, absent a reasonable nexus to scme discrete 3/
Id. at 16-23.
4/
Id. at 26-32, 5/
Id. at 32-36.
6_/
The Appeal Board reversed the finding below of reasonable assurance as to a sufficient number of bus drivers willing to respond during an emergency at Limerick, insofar as the Spring-Ford and Owen J.
Roberts School Districts are concerned.
Id. at 72.
. 1 issue still pending before it.7/ Thus, only the Cm mission has juris-diction over ME's motion.
II. The Distribution Of 'Ihe legal Monograph Was Not An Ex Parte Comunication.
ME cites a recently published legal monograph as cause to disqual-ify Licensee's counsel and reopen the instant. proceeding.
Licensee addresses the disqualification motion first because it involves the root issues as to why receipt of the legal monograph by certain NRC etployees did not constitute an ex parte comunication or a basis for reopening.
The legal monograph cited by NE is a generic analysis of basic emergen-cy planning and preparedness issues cmmon to all proceedings and was not, in its transmittal to certain NRC etployees, associated with any particular proceeding.8/
Just like any other law review type article, the legal monograph was widely distributed by the Washington Iegal Foundation to potentially interested readers in Congress, the Administration, major corporations, foundations, the nuclear industry and the media, as well as to the NRC and FD%.
It was also publicly available to any number of other potentially interested individuals.
Like a law review article, it was
-7/
See generally Icuisiana Power & Light Ca pany (Haterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), AIAB-792, 20 NBC 1585, 1588-89 (1984),
clarified on recensideration, ALAB-797, 21 h%
6, 8
(1985);
Metropolitaii Edison Capany (Tnree Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.
- 1), AIAB-766, 19 NBC 981 (1984); Waterford, supra, AIAB-753,18 NBC 1321,1329-30 (1983).
8_/
See R. Rader, "Offsite Dnergency Planning for thiclear Power Plants:
A Case of Governmental Gridlock" (Washington Iegal Foundation, April 1986) (hereinafter " legal monograph"). Mr. Rader is a mernber of the firm of Conner & Wetterhahn, P.C., counsel for Licensee.
an exposition of the state of the law with reemmendations for inprovements based upon the author's insights frm particular cases.
Also like a law review article, the legal monograph discussed recent decisions as a means of demonstrating why basic changes in the law applicable to all proceedings should be effected.
The legal monograph is indistinguishable frm the hundreds of law review texts and similar journals found on the shelves of judges' libraries and in their charbers.
Thus, the legal nonograph was not an g parte comunication irre-spective of whether or not it was received by certain NRC employees. To be g carte under the rule, the comunication must present facts or argument in an effort to persuade the decisiomaker as to the outcme, i.e., the " merits," in a particular proceeding. None of this is present here.
The monograph discusses nothing but the facts of record in the cases discussed and expresses points of view on issues of generic application. Sane of the subjects discussed, for example, reduction of the 10-mile plume exposure emergency planning zone and environmental analysis of severe accidents, have been the subject of Cmmission rulemaking and policy sta*m ents.
To consider such material as g parte is specious. Otherwise, the i
1 Cccmission's adjudicatory personnel could not read trade publications, NRC staff papers or even the public press, all of which camenly discuss the viewpoints of the nuclear industry, opponents of nuclear power and the NFC Staff. Reductio ad absurde, a umber of a board or a Ccanis-sioner could not even discuss such generic subjects with a colleagu&.
As far as counsel is aware, there are two documnts which relate to the legal monograph's status before the Ccumission.
In a letter dated
May 19, 1986 to the Washington Legal Foundation, Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chanan, Atmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel, stated that he
" appreciated your courtesy in sending me a copy" of the monograph, but did not, however, suggest that any g parte ccxmunication had been made.1 The second document is a menorandum dated June 2, 1986 frm William L. Clements, Chief, Docketing and Service Branch, forwarding a copy of the legal monograph to the boards and parties in this and two other cases.
Mr. Clements' remorandum states only that the Office of the General Counsel finds that the nonograph falls within the prohibi-tion of 10 C.F.R. 52.780 because it " presents arguments on several issues which are currently in litigaticn in the above-mentioned proceed-ings." 'Ihe memorandum provided no analysis or opinion frm the Office of the General Counsel supporting its conclusion.
As noted, Licensee finds the legal nonograph indistinguishable frm public statements by industry spokesmen, anti-nuclear groups, Congressmen and other various groups and individuals, including intervenors in NBC licensing proceedings.
The prohibition against g parte ccumunications is contained in 10 C.F.R. 52.780.
As the Appeal Board is aware, the Ccm ission has 9/
Mr. Rosenthal complained that Mr. Rader had not disclosed his representation of utilities in proceedings before the NRC and, in particular, his association with the Limerick proceeding.
Mr.
Rader's original sutunission of the monograph to the Washington Legal Foundation for publication in fact included a biographical sketch which stated that his law practice includes the licensing of nuclear power reactors. The Foundation misplaced this page, as it was not included in the final publication.
Although requested by Mr. Rader to send out the biographical information to anyone who had been sent the nonograph, the Foundation has not done so.
recently proposed a new regulation governing ex_ parte comunications to clarify the rights and obligations of parties and cannission adjudica-tory enployees under the rule.10/ The proposed rule provides consider-able insight because it expressly states that prohibited ex parte 11 comunications " relevant to the merits of the proceeding" / excludes, inter alia:
Comunications regarding generic issues involving public health and safety or other statutory respon-sibilities of the agency (e.g.,
rulenakings, con-gressional hearings on legislation, budgetary planning) not associated by the Ccmrission adjudica-tory employee or the interested person with the resolution of any proceeding under this subpart pending before the NBC.12/
As noted in the proposed rule, this exclusion corresponds to the exclu-I sion under the existing rule of comunications concerning "[gleneral health and safety problems and responsibilities of the Ccmnission."b In explaining its proposed reworded exemption for discussion of generic health and safety issues, the Ccanission makes it clear that the proposed rule, like the rule previously proposed in 1979, was intended to allow an exposition of differing views on generic health and safety issues as long as the comunication was not "a means of circumventing 10/ See Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable to ForTnal Adjudicatory Proceedings, 51 Fed. Peg. 10393 (March 26, 1986). The Ccmnission has extended the ccment period in the rulemaking proceeding. 51 Fed. Peg. 19067 (May 27, 1986).
H/ 10 C.F.R. 52.780(a), as proposed, 51 Fed. Peg. at 10401.
212/ 10 C.F.R. 52.780(f) (1), as proposed, 51 Fed. Pag. at 10401.
1_3/ 10 C.F.R. 52.780 (d) (2).
t..
adjudicatory process."l_4/
In other words, a discussion off the the record with adjudicatory ertployees of generic health and safety issues, such as emerger g planning and preparedness, is permissible as long as neither the writer nor adjudicatory ertployee " associates" the ccrmunica-tion with the resolution of specific issues in a pending proceeding.15/
The legal monograph is precisely this kind of pennissible generic discussion.
Whether or not one shares the views expressed, it is evident to any disinterested reader that the author's objective is not to influence the outccare of any particular proceeding, but rather to discuss a basic restructuring of the roles of the hT and FDR in evaluating and approving offsite etergency plans, in part, by eliminat-ing hearings before the hT or reducing the areas of contention in hearings. The monograph is therefore indistinguishable frcrn any number of si:rilar articles in law reviews, trade and industry journals, or legal and scientific publications to which the Ccurmissioners and their adjudicatory e:ployees routinely have access and presumably read as a matter of scholarly interest.
It would be unfortunate if vigorous debate over the Ccr:rrission's regulatory requirements in such publica-tions were to be stifled by the constant threat of accusations that an ex parte ccumunication has been made.
The Appeal Board long ago determined that a licensing board mem-ber's authorship of a
publication which generically discusses 14/ 51 Fed. Peg. 10397 1_5] Such adjudicatory issues "are to be resolved solely on the basis of 5
the factual record and applicable law and policy."
Id.
. t adjudicatory issues does not require his disqualification.
In the Midland proceeding, the Appeal Board held that a law review article by a licensing board manber which analyzed the impact of the National Environmental Policy Act on reactor licensing did not evidence any personal bias or prejudgment of environmental issues before the board in that case.
/
Like the legal monograph, the law review article in 16 Midland questioned the workability of NRC licensing procedures. b But the Appeal Board concluded that a board mernber's expression of such views were not disqualifying:
Reviewing the entire law review article,... we find no evidence of prejudgment of any facts in issue.
Nor do we find any appearance of prejudg-ment.
All that we find is an individual who may have certain crystallized views - indeed, who may possess an " underlying philosophy" - on the appli-cation of NEPA to the Ccmnission's licensing pro-cess.
Previous decisions of this Board and the Ccmnission have explicitly recognized this situation as nondisqualifying.g/
M/ Consumers Power Canpany (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), AIAB-101, 6 AEE 60 (1973).
-17/ As the Appeal Board observed, "the article expressed skepticism regarding whether the requirements of NEPA could be fulfilled in the existing licensing process." Midland, supra, ALAB-101, 6 AEC at 65.
The Appeal Board ruled that "the exposition of such thoughts (by a hearing officer in a published article] was sanctioned by the Supreme Court" in United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 (1941) (Secretary of Agriculture not disqualified frcm participating in proceeding on remand where he had publicly l
criticized the court decision orderirs the remand) and PIC v.
Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683 (1948) (permitting FIC members to participate in a proceeding despite previous expression of views in reports to Congress and in Congressional testimony on the subject of the hearing). M.
18/
Id. at 66 (footnote cmitted).
i
, t More recently, the Appeal Board quoted this passage fra Midland with approval in rejecting the same argument in the Shoreiwm proceeding E l If authorship of a law review article on reactor licensing issues does not disqualify a board ma=har frcm hearing the case, it is surely unobjectionable for the menber to read such an article off the record in the course of a licensing prMing. NBC Ca missioners and administra-tive judges are not flabby creatures any more than judges....
Both may have an underlying philosophy in approaching a specific case.
Both are... men of con-science and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis ofitsowncircumstances."p/
The legal monograph is also analogous to position papers prepared by the NFC Staff which discuss individual pr M ings in the context of principles or policies generically applicable to all nuclear power plants. In the Three Mile Island proceeding, the Ca mission rejected an intervenor's allegation that the Cmmission's review of such documents constituted an ex parte cmmunication by the Staff.
The Cmmission stated:
Finally, SECY-82-lll, Illa and lllB involve proposed emrgency response capability requirenents for all plants. Nothing in these documents relates uniquely to 'IMI-1.
Discussions of "[g]eneral health and safety problens and responsibilities of the Ccm-missions" are not ex parte.
10 CFR 2.780(d). 'Ihese generic discussionls which did not arise frm and i
p/ See Iong Island Lighting Capany (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), AIAB-777, 20 NBC 21, 34 (1984).
_2_0/ Midland, supra, AIAB-101, 6 AEC at 64, quoting United States v.
0 N rgan, 313 U.S. at 421.
t.
are not directly related to the Restart proceeding, are not ex parte.2_1_/
Assming arguendo that the legal monograph were enempassed by Section 2.780, Mr. Clments has already furnished a copy of the document to each of the parties and board members in the proceedings deened to be affected.22/ Further action is unjustified and unnecessary.
III. EVE Has Not Met '1he Requirements For Reopening A Closed Pecord.
EDE's request to reopen the proceeding on offsite emergency plan-ning is deficient on its face.
Its thrust is simply to state strong i
disagreement with the views expressed in the legal monograph which, as noted, has been distributed to a wide range of potentially interested readers in the private ard public sectors, including the NRC.
Nowhere does EVE explain how the opinions and conclusions expressed in the monograph constitute a significant safety matter.
Nor does EDE even state what " evidence" it wishes to present which it believes would change the outccrae of the proceeding.
In short, EDE has failed to assert, much less demonstrate, the existence of any significant safety matter and it has not demnstrated why the outccne of reopened hearings would be any different.
As the Appeal Board is aware, the Cm mission has recently adopted a new rule in 10 C.F.R. 52.734 which institutionalizes the three tradi-tional requirments for reopening a closed record:
H/ Metropolitan Edison Ccrpany (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-83-3,17 NRC 72, 74 (1983).
22/ Both the existing rule in 10 C.F.R. 52.780(b) ard the proposed rule (Footnote Continued)
_ _ _ _ t (1) h 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) h motion must address a significant safety or environnental issue.
(3) h motion must dernonstrate that a materially different result would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially. 23/
Even if EVE's request is deemed timely, it clearly fails to meet the remaining two criteria for reopening.
First, EDE has failed to assert any significant safety issue. It is true that " workable emergen-cy plans to protect the health and lives of the public in the area surrounding the Limerick plant in the event of a nuclear accident are essential,"El but this unrernarkable proposition does not show how the distribution of the legal monograph created any significant safety issue. No evidence of any safety problem has even been alleged.N (Footnote Continued) in subsection (c) state that a written ex parte ccernunication shall be served on the parties and placed in the public record of the proceeding.
2_3/ 10 C.F.R. 52.734 (a) (1)-(3). h criteria stated in the regulation 3
derive frcrn long accepted standards under NFC case law.
See Cleveland Electric Illuminating Ccunpany (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-07, 23 NPC 233, 235 (1986).
Licensee believes that the regulation is controlling, even though it became effective several days after the filing of the petition by EDE, because the Ccanission and its adjudicatory boards, like courts, are required to follow the procedural rules in place at the time they are called upon to act. Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U.S.
268, 281-82 (1969).
24/ EVE Petition at 2.
M / See 10 C.F.R. 52.734(b).
In Pacific Gas and Electric Ccmpany (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), AIAB-775, 19 (Footnote Continued)
t.
Further, there is no showing by FOE that the outcme of the pro-ceeding would be different if hearings were reopened.
Its claim that the hearings and the appellate process were scrnehow affected is untena-
)
ble. The monograph was published well after certpletion of hearings and the issuance of the Licensing Board's decision on ME's single emergency planning contentien. ':1.ere is no evidence that any member of either the i
Licensing Board or Appeal Board in the Limerick proceeding has even read the legal monograph, much less read or been influenced by it prior to decisionmaking.26/
In view of Mr. Clements' letter, the Camissioners have presumably received appropriate guidance frcm the Office of the General Counsel as to any possible restriction under 10 C.F.R. 52.780 applicable to the monograph.
In any event, NE has failed to show any relationship whatsoever between its claims before the Appeal Board and the Cmmission on its contention and any discussion in the monograph.
Hence, NE has not demonstrated that any different result or conclusion would be reached if hearings were reopened.
(Footnote Continued)
NBC 1361, 1366-67 (1984), the Appeal Board stated that, at a minimum, "new material in support of a motion to reopen must be set forth with a degree of particularity in excess of the basis and specificity requirenents" for admitting contentions and "must be tantamcunt to evidence," i.e., "it must possess the attributes set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.743 (c) defining admissible evidence for adjudicatory proceedings."
M/ To our knowledge, the Cmmissioners and the Chairmen of the Appeal Board and Licensing Board Panels were the only adjudicatory atployees to whcn the monograph was distributed. The exact date is unknown, but it is believed that the monograph was mailed to those individuals on or about May 1, 1986.
_ 14 _
- s Conclusion For the reasons d_scussed above, ME has failed to meet the re-quirements for reopening the prwing and has shown no basis for disqualifying Licensee's counsel.
Respectfully subnitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
C.
3 Troy B. Conner, Jr.
Mark J. Wetterhahn Nils N. Nichols July 9, 1986 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
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 " Licensee's Answer to Petition by Friends of the Earth to Reopen the Record and Request for Sanctions," dated July 9, 1986 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 9th day of July, 1986:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Christine N.
Kohl, Chairman Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Washington, Appeal Board D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas M.
- Roberts, Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Gary J. Edles Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory James K. Asselstine, Commission Commissioner Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Frederick M. Bernthal, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisalon Washington, D.C.
20555
4.
Helen F. Hoyt, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairperson Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board U.S.
Commission Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dr. Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq. Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Dr. Jerry Harbour Legal Director Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Angus Love, Esq.
107 East Main Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Norristown, PA 19401 j
Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
Commission Sugarman & Hellegers Washington, D.C.
20555 16th Floor, Center Plaza 101 North Broad Street Philadelphia Electric Company Philadelphia, PA 19107 ATTN:
Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Vice President &
Director, Pennsylvania General Counsel Emergency Management Agency 2301 Market Street Basement, Transportation Philadelphia, PA 19101 and Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. Frank R.
Romano 61 Forest Avenue Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq. City of Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Philadelphia Municipal Services Bldg. 15th and JFK Mr. Robert L. Anthony Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Friends of the Earth of the Delaware Valley 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065
. 9 9
Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
325 N.
10th Street Associate General Counsel Easton, PA 18042 Federal Emergency Management Agency Phyllis Zitzer, Esq.
500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 Limerick Ecology Action Washington, DC 20472 P.O. Box 761 762 Queen Street Thomas Gerusky, Director Pottstown, PA 19464 Bureau of Radiation Protection Barry M. Hartman, Esq.
Department of Environmental Deputy General Counsel Resources Commonwealth of 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.
Pennsylvania Third and Locust Streets P.O. Box 11775 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17108 j
James Wiggins Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
U.S.
Senior Resident Inspector Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 631 Park Avenue P. O. Box 47 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Timothy R.S. Campbell Mr. Ralph Hippert Director Pennsylvania Emergency Department of Emergency Management Agency Services B151 - Transportation 14 East Biddle Street Safety Building West Chester, PA 19380 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Theodore G. Otto, Esq.
Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel P.O. Box 598 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, PA 17011
\\-
Nils N. Nichols
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Answer and Suggestion of Lack of Jurisdiction of the Appeal Board to i
Consider Friends of the Earth's Petition dated. June 24, 1986" dated July 10, 1986 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 10th day of July, 1986:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary
- Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear
- Dr. Reginald L.
Gotchy Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Washington, Appeal Board D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas M.
- Roberts, Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- Gary J. Edles i
Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory James K. Asselstine, Commission Commissioner Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Frederick M. Bernthal, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Hand delivered - July 10, 1986
- s Helen F. Hoyt, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairperson Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board U.S.
Commission Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dr. Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq. Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Dr. Jerry Harbour Legal Director Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulato?.y Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Angus Love, Esq.
107 East Main Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Norristown, PA 19401 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
Commission Sugarman & Hellegers Washington, D.C.
20555 16th Floor, Center Plaza 101 North Broad Street Philadelphia Electric Company Philadelphia, PA 19107 ATTN:
Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Vice President &
Director, Pennsylvania General Counsel Emergency Management Agency 2301 Market Street Basement, Transportation Philadelphia, PA 19101 and Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. Frank R.
Romanc
)
61 Forest Avenue Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq. City of Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Philadelphia Municipal Services Bldg. 15th and JFK Mr. Robert L. Anthony Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Friends of the Earth of the Delaware Valley 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 l
i
Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
325 N.
10th Street Associate General Counsel Easton, PA 18042 Federal Emergency Management Agency Phyllis Zitzer, Esq.
500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 Limerick Ecology Action Washington, DC 20472 P.O. Box 761 762 Queen Street Thomas Gerusky, Director Pottstown, PA 19464 Bureau of Radiation Protection Barry M. Hartman, Esq.
Department of Environmental Deputy General Counsel Resources Commonwealth of 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.
Pennsylvania Third and Locust Streets P.O.
Box 11775 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17108 James Wiggins Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq. U.S.
Senior Resident Inspector Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 631 Park Avenue P. O.
Box 47 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Timothy R.S. Campbell Mr. Ralph Hippert Director Pennsylvania Emergency Department of Emergency Management Agency Services B151 - Transportation 14 East Biddle Street Safety Building West Chester, PA 19380 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Theodore G. Otto, Esq.
Department of Corrections Of fice of Chief Counsel P.O. Box 598 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 c
A crs S-V Trpy B.
Conndr, Jr. (/
_