ML19275A570
| ML19275A570 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1979 |
| From: | Steptoe P COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910040670 | |
| Download: ML19275A570 (4) | |
Text
A c'
en NN
$N..a d
Y4
\\3lS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
$g-9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
4s 12 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Commonwealth
)
Docket Nos.
Edison Company (Zion Station,
)
50-295 Units 1 and 2)
)
50-304 LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO THE NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW Commonwealth Edison Company (" Licensee") does not object to the modifications to Licensee's proposed findings suggested by the NRC Staff, with the following exceptions:
Paracraphs 4, 5, 6 and 41 of the Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reflect the Staff's position that Intervenor's Contention 2(b) places in issue only the fifth factor (public interest) specified in the Commission's " Notice of Intent to Prepare Generic Environ-mental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel," 40 Fed. Reg. 42801.
The last paragraph of that Notice of Intent states:
The Commission expects that any licensing action intended to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity during this interim period would be accompanied by an environmental impact statement (10 CFR 551.5(a)) or impact appraisal (10 CFR 551.;(c)) tailored to the facts cf the case.
1101 288 y,1oo4067o a
J
. Since the Commission's general conclusions with respect to the five factors, as set forth above, may not fit the factual circum-stances of particular licensing actions, the five factors will be applied, weighed and balanced within the context of these state-ments or appraisals in reaching licensing determinations.
(emphasis added).
While Licensee believes the Staff's Environmental Impact Appraisal (Staff Exhibit 1B) contains a careful, thorough, and adequate treatement of the Commission's five factors, it is the Licensing Board, and not the Staff, which must make the ultimate licensing determination in this case.
Therefore we believe the better reading of the Commission's Notice of Intent is that it requires the Board itself to " apply, weigh and balance" the five factors as they are discussed in the Environmental Impact Appraisal in reaching its determination, regardless of whether all of these five factors were placed in issue by the parties.
Addressinc paragraph 7 of the Staff's proposed findings, there is a minor discrepancy between Mr. Pliml's testimony and the Staff's Environmental Impact Appraisal in respect of dates for loss of full core discharge and subsequent shutdown dates for the Zion units.
While this discrepancy is probably not significant, Licensee believes it advisable to bring it to the Board's attention.
Paragraph 12 of the Staff's proposed findings proposes the addition of a finding with respect to Mr. Toalston's 1101 289
UNITED STATES CF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Commonwealth
)
Docket Nos.
Edison Company (Zion Station,
)
50-295 Units 1 and 2)
)
50-304 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response to the NRC Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" dated August 10, 1979, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 10th day of August, 1979:
John F.
Wolf, Esq.
Richard Goddard 3409 Shepherd Street Steven Goldberg Chevy. Chase, Maryland 20015 Myron Karman Office of the Executive Susan N.
Sekuler Legal Director Assistant Attorney General U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Control Commission Division Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of the Attorney General Dr. Forrest J.
Remick 188 West Randolph Street 305 East Hamilton Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60601 State College, Penn. 16801 Dr. Linda W.
Little Atomic Safety and Licensing 5000 Hermitage Drive Appeal Board Panel Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C.
20555 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard E. Webb, Ph.D.
Washington, D.
C.
20555 2858 lllth Street Toledo, Ohio 43611 Rick Konter 671 Piper Lane Lake Villa, Illinois 60046
~ 2 ', C
%w Philip P. Stegtoe ~'
I i101 290
. testimony on energy conservation.
Licensee suggests this finding should instead be substituted for Licensee's proposed finding 61.
Addressing paragraph 26 of the Staff's proposed findings, the transcript is not clear on whether the Board held that Mr. Cleary was not qualified to offer an expert opinion on Question 4(b).
The Licensee moved on voir dire to strike Mr. Cleary's testimony, first, because it did not address Board question 4(b) and therefore was irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding, and second, because Mr. Cleary lacked the qualifications to address the subject which his testimony purported to address.
(Tr. 1593).
The Staff supported Licensee's motion on both grounds (Tr. 1600).
The motions to strike were sustained, but the only discussion by the Board was with respect to the responsi\\eness of Mr. Cleary's testimony.
(Tr. 1610-11).
Licensee concurs in the NRC Staff's discussion of Minnesota v.
- NRC, F.2d
, No's. 78-1269, 78-2032 (May 23, 1979).
Respectfully submitted, A( (*
l/f/
LL3(
E B/Tx One of the At Lorneys fq r Commonwealth Edison Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 558-7500 1101 291