ML19210B949
| ML19210B949 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1979 |
| From: | Karman M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Johnson P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911130083 | |
| Download: ML19210B949 (3) | |
Text
.
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMEE EGGM f
fo UNITED STATES g
y
)e g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565 O
g
\\
d' r
October 22, 1979 k/-
/<,.g A
o 4-W w(q I
/.
Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson s
^#
1907 Stratford Lane s
Rockford, Illinois 61107 y
j NO in the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docxet Nos. 50-454 and 50-455
Dear Mrs. Johnson:
As the Staff indicated during our meeting with you and Mr. Myron Cherry in Chicago on September 26, 1979, this letter presents the NRC Staff s position on the conten-tions of the League c.,f Women Voters of Rockford, as amended, with due regard M Applicant's counsel's letter to you dated October 8,1979. Since no Notice of Appe tr-ance has been filed by Mr. Cherry, we are sending him a copy of this letter to you and will send him copies of any pleadings or documents filed by the Staff relative to our attempt to negotiate contentions for the Byron proceeding.
Our position with respect to your contentions is as follows:
Contention 1.
As we have previously indicated, it is the Staff's position that this proposed conten-tion, in its present form, is inadmissible, as it provides a list of generic reactor issues without providing the required nexus in each case. The discussion of " nexus,"
in the River Bend decision at 6 NRC 773 should be of help to you.
To the extent that a sr.dsfa :+.ory nexus is demonstrated with regard to any of these generic items as it relates to the Byron facility, such issues may be considered ap-propriate for litigation in thi.= proceeding. All applicable outstanding generic issues will be discussed in the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report which will be issued later.
Contention 2.
The Staff is in agreement with Isham, Lincoln & Ber.le in its response to your Con-tention 2, and would support the revised contention mentioned in their letter.
1322.516 7911130 033 G
Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson October 22, 1979 Contention 3.
The Staff opposes Contention 3 as drafted on several bases. We do not agree to liti-gate Class 9 accidents at this time. The contention lacks the required specificity.
Portions of the contention, to the degree that their meaning is understandable, would appear to constitute a dire t challenge to the Commission's regulations. We will await your redrafted cor'enEon or contentions concerning certain of the items con-tained in the present pcoposed Contention 3 which you vish tc litigate.
Contention 4.
The Staff response is the same as that expressed by Mr. Murphy in his letter to you.
We would not oppose a contention drafted in the form of Applicant's proposed Con-tention 4.
Contention 5.
The Staff agress that the subject matter r ontention 5 is proper for litigation in this proceeding, and we would not oppose ontention drafted i.. the form of Appli-cant's proposed Contention 5.
Amended Contention 6.
The Staff must oppose admission of this contetion as submitted. There is no specifi-city with respect to those matters which were not covered during the Construction Permit proceedir.g for this station.
Contention 7.
The Staff would not oppose a contention drafted in the form of Applicant's proposed Contention 7. (Applicant's reference to subpart 4 of your contention should be to subpart 3.)
Amended Centention 8.
Our position is basically in accordance with Applicant's on this contention, and we would not oppose a contention drafted in the nature of Applicant's proposed Conten-tion 8, 8a and 8b.
Contention 9.
Absent any showing of a factual basis to assume midterm chemical decontamination of the Byron facility will be required, the Staff does not feel this is a litigable issue.
1322 317
Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson October 22, 1979 Contention 10.
The Staff positic,a is that where there is an impact from transmission lines which have either become known or have been developed since the Construction Permit proceeding, these impacts would be relevant in this proceeding. We, too, are awaiting.
Applicant's advice as to whether they plan to install 765 KV lines to tie the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, into their transmission system.
Contention 11.
The Staff does not oppose a contention on this issue and would support a contention drafted in the form of Applicant's proposed Contention 11.
Contention 12.
As stated, Contention 12 is not admissible. You must show where these effects in your contention were not considered in the Construction Permit proceeding.
Contention 13.
The Staff position is the same as that expressed by Mr. Murphy in his letter to you.
We would oppose subparts 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the contention as presently drafted.
During our meeting, it was suggested that subpart 4 of this contention be presented as a separate contention, and it is our understanding that you are considering re-drafting of this subpart.
It is hoped that me Staff comments herein and the letcer from Mr. Murphy to you, as well as the discussions which took place in Chicago on September 26, will asat s
you and Mr. Cherry in the formulation of revised contentions.
Upon resubmission of such revised contentions, the Staff will respond to these in a formal manner.
Sincerely,
h l
.w Myron Karman Counsel for NRC Staff ec: Paul Mur phy, Esq.
Myron Cherry, Esq.
1322 318