ML19225A307
| ML19225A307 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1979 |
| From: | Bielawski A, Murphy P ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907180828 | |
| Download: ML19225A307 (6) | |
Text
7 t y 9
'G2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUtl111873 > @
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION eryigfj NP4 PUBLIG DOGUMEm goey
)
)
t' In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
APPLICANT'S MOTION REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD ESTAELISH A SCHEDULE FOR THE FILING OF CONTENTIONS Commonwealth Edison Company
(" Applicant") hereby moves the Board to exercise its authority pursuant to 10 CFR S2.711 and require that final contentions in these proceed-ings be filed on er before July 2, 1979, and that responses, if any, thereto be filed on or before July 20, 1979, or establish its own reasonable schedule for the filing of final contentions.
The grounds for this motion are as follows.
A"'3UMENT On April 18, 1979, Applicant requested that the Board establish a date for a special prehearing conference.
This motion was supported by the NRC Staff.
The Board has l_/
" Motion Requesting That The Board Schedule a Prehearing Conference," dated April 18, 1979.
2/
"NRC Staff Response to Applicant's Motion Requesting That The Board Schedule a Special Prehearing Conference,"
dated May 4, 1979.
/> 0 9 233 wousco3
not, as of this time, established such a date which may well be due to scheduling conflicts of Board Members.
A notice of hearing in this proceeding was pub-lished in the Federal Register on December 15, 1978.
(43 F.R. 58659).
Various timely petitions to intervene were filed, and on March 22, 1979, this Board entered an order granting leave to intervene to the Petitioners.
- Thus, Petitioners have had actual notice of the hearing for at least six months, and notice of their status as participants in these proceedings for approximately two months.
- Hcwever, Petitioners have not filed any amended contentions or 1tated their intention to stand on their previously filed conten-tions.
In all probability, any amended contentions will not be forthcoming until a deadline is set by the Bos: -
As a result, preparation for these proceedings by the n.
Enter-vening parties has come to a standstill.
Therefore, if it is impossible for the Board to schedule a special prehearing conference, the Board should adopt the alternate mechanism proposed in the present motion.
Some of the possible benefits which would flow from an order such as the one proposed by Applicant are as follows:
(1)
Informal discovery on contentions as to which no objections are posed could commence immediately upon the filing of Petitioner's contentions.
(2)
Negotiations regarding the contentions as to which objections are posed might well result in agreements (Ol
with respect to the acceptability of certain modifications to these contentions or possibly voluntary withdrawal of ccatentions.
Stipulated contentions would focus upon the specific matters which are truly contraverted, thereby significantly limiting and clarifying the legal and factual issues which the Board will eventually have to rule on at the special prehearing conference.
(3)
If Applicant determines that certain con-tentions are meritorious, Applicant could modify its plans and thereby alleviate some, if not all, of Petitioners' concerns.
(4)
As the Appeal Board has recognized, the pro-visions of 10 CFR S2.714(b) may r.ot permit sufficient time to formulate adequate contentions.
Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 2 CCH Nucl. Reg. Rptr. at 28, 942 fn. 16 (April 4, 1979).
An order such as the one proposed herein would avoid any such possibility of procedural unfairness.
(5)
The proposed schedule would give Applicants and the Staff a realistic opportunity to examine and respond to the final contentions.
As Applicant has previously indicated, Peti-tioners have had more than ample time to formulate their final contentions.
"[A] petitiiner can and should use the period following the filing of his petition to gather the material and do the analysis necessary to prepare adequate an:
b contentions."
Allens Creek, ALAB-535, supra, at 28, 942 fn.
16.
Therefore, the establishment of time limits for the filing of contentions would not abrogate any of Petitioners' substantive or procedural rights, and may even serve to rectify what has ceen characterized as an " obvious gap" in the rules.
Ibid.
WHEREFORE, Applicant respectfully moves the Board to exercise its authority pursuant to 10 CFR S2.711 and require that final contentions be filed on or before July 2, 1979, and responses be filed on or before July 20, 1979, or, in the alterna ive, establish a date for the special pr e-hearing conferente as previously requested.
DATED:
June 7, 1979 Respectfully submitted, O
,1
/
J:
,)n
,,n n
j f.
f//D c)', !,
ei:
/
si
/
- / /ja.
Paul M.
Murphy
/
j
/
/
/
/
/
/
L ---
' Alan P.
Bielawski ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Attorneys for One First National Plaza Commonwealth rdison Company Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312)558-7500 mn/
O LJO
[r u /
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Alan P.
Bielawski, one of the attorneys for Com-monwealth Edison Company, certify that copies of " Applicant's Motion Requesting That The Board Schedule A Special Prehearing Conference" have been served in the above-captioned matter on the following by United States mail, postage prepaid, this 7th day of June, 1979:
Edward Luton, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr.
A.
Dixon Callihan Union Carbide Corporation P.O.
Box Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Franklin C.
Daiber College of Marine Studies University of Delaware Newark, Delaware 19711 Myron Karman, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wa.shington, D.C.
20555 Richard J.
Goddard, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legul Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Danel United States Nuclear Regulatory Coma,ission Washington,
.C.
20555 409 237
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary cf the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Chief Hearing Counsel Office of the Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 C.
Allen Bock, Esq.
P.O.
Box 342 Urbana, Illinois 61801 Thomas J.
Gordon, Esq.
Waaler, Evans & Gordon 2503 South Neil Champaign, Illinois 61820 Ms. Bridget Little Rorem 117 North Linden Street Essex, Illinois 60935 DATED:
June 7, 1979
,77 I
/l
~
L~ -
u-- J Alan'P. Bielawski 8
l' c