ML19254D111
| ML19254D111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1979 |
| From: | Karman M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Callihan A, Cole R, Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, UNION CARBIDE CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910220387 | |
| Download: ML19254D111 (2) | |
Text
- -.
=g s' NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM g[
gnarco y,
,o UNITED STATES Q
y % vg 'j' g "J,
J g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- .-g% f /. ;
Nfvff j',
{
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\v
~
September 12, 1979 j:.?
n, c
2:
. l.
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Dr. A. Dixon Callihan
['W Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Union Carbide Corporation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coninission P. O. Box Y Was'.iington, D. C.
20555 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Richard A. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-456 & 50-457)
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the request of this Board at the Special Prehearing Conference held in Joliet, Illinois on August 23, 1979, the Staff hereby submits addi-tional information relative to its response to Contention Four submitted by Bob Neiner Farms, Inc., et al.
At a session of the evidentiary hearing on the application for a Construction Permit held in Bethesda, Maryland on November 11,1974 (copy of transcript enclosed) the Staff submitted as evidence a report on the suitability of the Braidwood site (pages 4-7 after Tr. 583) which concluded that "the probability of unacceptable damages to the proposed Braidwood station due to explosive traffic on the adjacent railroad is significantly less than 10-6 per year, and that with respect to nearby industrial, transportation and military facilities, the proposed site is suitable for reactors of the general type and size proposed."
Since the application for a Construction Permit was uncontested, the Licensing Board interrogated the Staff and the Applicant with respect to any effect the nearness of the Joliet arsenal would have on the proposed plant. Such matters as responsibility for maintenance of the track (Tr. 586-587); types of explosives nonnally carried on the railroad; probability of explosions on the railroad; effect of explosions; history of shipments from Joliet arsenal (Tr. 594-616) were part of the record of that proceeding.
The Staff remains of the opinion that Contention 4 of Bob Neiner Farms, Inc.,
et al, does not show changed circumstances or special interest factors which EuTd allow a rehashing of the matters which were before the Licensing Board during the Construction Permit hearing and were examined in detail during such hearing.
7919220 3 k C,-
2 359
l
-?
With respect to Contention 9, the Staff has already indicated that this con-tention on farm data has included within it the bases of a contention which should be admitted as an issue in the proceeding. We will await the promised submission by Counsel for the Neiners of new farm data to ascertain if any further statement need be made by the Staff.
Sincerely, Myr Karman Cou sel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl.:
Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
l Ms. Bridget Little Rorem C. Allen Bock, Esq.
Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.
i cc without/ encl.:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boa:'d Panel Docketing and Service Section 2
360