ML19309F322
| ML19309F322 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1980 |
| From: | Goddard R, Karman M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004290217 | |
| Download: ML19309F322 (23) | |
Text
__
8 0 0A 29 0 217 G
'T = rco UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4/25/80 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454
)
50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF ANSWER TO REVISED CONTENTIONS OF ROCKFORD LEAGUE OF WOMEN V0TERS On March 10, 1980, the Rockford League of Women Voters (League) filed re-vised contentions in this proceeding.
By Order dated March 26, 1980, the Applicant was granted up to and including April 18, 1980 to respond to the League's revised contentions. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff) was granted up to and including April 25, 1980 to file its responses.
INTRODUCTION In view of the 146 paragraphs submitted by the League as contentions in its 4
March 10, 1980 filing, the Staff is of the opinion that some background recital of facts might prove useful as an introduction to the Staff's answer to the League.
The Application of Commonwealth Edison Company (Applicant) for an operating license was published in the Federal Register (43 Fed. Repq. 58659) on Decem-ber 15, 1978. The League filed a timely petition for leave to intervene which the Staff agreed had demonstrated standing within the purview of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 and agency decisions. The Staff, Applicant and representatives
. of the League met on several occasions to discuss the submission of conten-tions. The League was not represented by counsel at that time, nor at any time prior to the submission of the March 10, 1980 filing. At the Special Prehearing Conference held in Rockford, Illinois in August of 1979, the Board ruled that the League had standing as an intervenor, and that further meetings should be held between Applicant Staff and the League to refine proper contentions for the proceeding. Additional meetings were held and informal contentions were served by the League, to which informal comments were made by the Applicant and Staff.
A Notice of Appearance of Mr. Myron Cherry was filed at the time of filing of the revised contentions.
Since the Board ruled at the Special Prehearing Conference (Tr.104) that the parties were to get together to refine contentions "as have been brought forward," the Staff will, in its response, point out where the revised con-tentions go beyond matters first submitted by the League or initiate new contentions without complying with the Commission's Rules relative to late filed contentions (10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1), and the factors to be balanced upon a request for grant of late filed contentions.
To be admissible as a contention in a Commission licensing proceeding, such contention must fall within the scope of issues set forth in the Federal Register Notice of Hearing (Notice of Hearing) in that proceeding and comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. B 2.714(b) and applicable Commission case law. See, e33[., Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island, Units Nos. 1 and 2),ALAB-197,6AEC188,194(1973); aff'd BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir.1974); Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley, Unit No. 1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 242, 245 (1973); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach l
I
. Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 1230-21 (1974).
10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) requires that a list of contentions which intervenors seek to have litigated be filed along with the bases for those contentions set forth with reasonable specificity. A contention must be rejected where:
(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regu-latory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the in-l tervenor's views of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudica-tion in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),
ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).
The purpose of the basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 is to assure that the contention in question does not suffer from any of the infirmities listed above, to establish sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant f
further inquiry of the subject matter in the proceeding, and to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally
~
what they will have to defend against or oppose." Peach Bottom, supra at 20.
From the standpoint of basis, it is unnecessary for the petition "to detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention."
Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and' 2),
ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973).
Furthermore, in examining the contentions and the bases therefor, a licensing board is not to reach the merits of the contentions.
Duke Power Co. (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773 -
. Transportation of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-528, 9 NRC 146,151 (1979); Peach Bottom, supra at 20; Grand Gulf, supra at 426.
Nonetheless, it is incumbent upon the Intervenors to set forth contentions which are sufficiently detailed and specific to demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible and that further inquiry is warranted, and to put the other parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against or oppose.
This is particularly true at the operating license stage, as here, where a hearing is not mandatory, in order to assure that an asserted contention raises an issue clearly open to adjudication. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co.(WilliamH.ZimmerNuclearPowerStation),ALAB-305,3NRC8,12(1976)l;-
Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974). ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 768-69 (1977). The Ste.ff is aware of the recent decision of the Appeal Board (ALAB-590, April 22,1980) in the Allens Creek case where a more liberal view is taken with respect to basis.
It is also to be noted that, in light of the requirement for reasonable speci-O ficity in the Commission's Rules and case law, the League has submitted approxi-mately 22 of its 146 contentions as almost word-for-word copies of contentions filed by another intervenor in another Commission proceeding. Consumer Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) (1,3,4,5,7,8,10,11 through25). The Board must look askance at verbatim transpositions of contentions from one case to another while determining the specificity of such contentions for this Byron p.-oceeding.
In addition, many of the remainder of the revised contentions almost admittedly do not refer specifically to the Byron appli-cation, and these will also be referred to in our Answer herein.
l l
. CONTENTIONS Contentions 1, 3, 4, 49 The Staff objects to the League's Contentions 1, 3, 4, and 49 because they are vague, overly broad and constitute a generalized attack on the methods used by the Staff to insure compliance with Comission's regulations. There are no specific instances of noncompliance with Commission directives cited by the League, nor is it obvicus what the relevance of these contentions is to the ultimate issues which must be decided by this Board in this pro-ceeding.
Contentions 2, 5, 10, 88, 89, 90, 116 These contentions relate to quality assurance / quality control. They are so broadly framed that, as currently worded, would cause great difficulty for the parties to prepare evidentiary matter for hearing with respect to such contentions.
Quality assurance / quality control is a subject which, if properly framed, would result in a litigable cantention. The Staff has met with and discussed with Applicant and the League the possibility of refining the di-verse and disparate quality assurance / quality control statements into one litigable contention. We have previously agreed not to object to a proposed contention which would read as follows:
Intervenor contends that Commonwealth Edison Company does not have the ability and/or the willingness to comply with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, as evidenced by its past history of noncompliance.
In addition, Commonwealth Edison's quality assurance program does not require complete independence of the quality assurance functions from other departments within the company.
l
j
. Contentions 6, 82, 121 The Staff objects to League Contentions 6, 82, and 121 on the basis that (1) this is a new issue not revised from earlier contentions, and bases for late filing were not provided; (2) neither of these three contentions meets the requirement of specificity of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714.
Rather, they only constitute a recitation of generalities regarding ACRS issues and the generalized function of ACRS letters in the licensing process. As such, l
each of the above contentions is tr S vague and generalized as a basis for i
i resolution of particular specifi(d issues.
Contentions 7, 11, 12 13, 79, 118, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 139, 140..
Each of the above contentions is opposed by the Staff on the basis that they do not deal with the direct environmental costs of operation, as opposed to non-operation, of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2.
Rather, they attempt to deal with the economic costs of constructing the facility and the question of whether the power from Byron Station is needed at this point in time. The emphasis in several of these contentions is upon reanalyzing Applicant's original demand forecastiag, which is irrelevant, as the precise timing of the need for a proposed or constructed facility is largely immaterial to the decision of whether to operate at such time as the plant is available.
See Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4), CLI-79-5, 9 NRC 607 (1979). Similarly, Contention 140, dealing with potential non-availability of uranium fuel supply, is not germane to o
the operating license proceeding. Contention 131, which deals with impacts caused not by operation of the station but rather with the environmental l
i
. impacts which might be associated with the ultimate use of the electric power generated by Byron Station, is an impact outside the jurisdiction of the Board to consider under the National Environmental Policy Act as are the impacts caused directly by the licensing of Byron Station, and Applicant would have little control over the use of electrical energy whether generated by Byron or by other sources of electrical power located within the service area.
In any event, the Commission has spoken on the issue of end user contentions, finding them too speculative to be considered in the licensing process.
See Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-5, 7 AEC 13, 28 (1974).
x-Contentions 8, 62 The Staff objects to these two contentions, dealing with failure to assess the consequences of Class 9 accidents. As neither the NRC Staff has recom-mended nor the Commission ordered such consideration of Class 9 accidents in this case, the contentions should be dismissed under the recent Commission 5
decisions in Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), CLI-79-9, 10 NRC 257 (1979), and Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), Li. V T a, slip op., March 21, 1980. The Staff has not found special circumstances nor has the League identified such special circumstances to allow these contentions to be admitted.
Contentions 9, 45, 119, 126, 127 j
The Staff opposes the above contentions, dealing with the question of finan-cial qualifications, on several bases. The contentions are vague and lacking
. in the requisite specificity. While an applicant is only required to demon-strate the availability of a reasonable financial plan for construction (Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1 (1978)), intervenors have tended to frame their contentions in terms of excessive (i.e., uneconomic or extravagent) costs of future financing. To the extent a contention might be submitted on financial quali-fications, dealing with the question of whether applicant is financially qualified to operate the facility in a safe manner, the Staff would not oppose such a limited contention.
Contentions 14, 15, 16, 17, 83, 134, 136, 137 c -
The Staff opposes these contentions as attempting to raise environmental im-pacts from the uranium fuel cycle, and they constitute a challenge to the validity of 10 C.F.R. 5 51.20, Table S-3.
To the extent that Contention 17 goes further, alleging some unspecified inadequacy of the Applicant's Environ-mental Report, it is too vague and lacking in specificity to serve as a basis for litigation.
Contention 18 This contention relates to an allegation that the Applicant is building Byron facility primarily for sale of electricity to wholesale users and persons outside of Illinois, the contention is without basis and is wholly outside the scope of this operating license proceeding and the Board's jurisdiction under the Notice of Hearing and applicable Commission rules and decisions.
m.
_9 Contentions 19, 78, 108, 146 The thrust of these contentions is that the Applicant has not complied with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E relative to Emergency Planning.
In view of the Comission's active interest in emergency planning and rule-making procedure being followed, the Staff recomends that the Board defer ruling on these contentions at this time. Based on the projected schedule for the issuance of Staff documents (SER 6/81 and FES 2/81) we feel there will be sufficient time for the Commission to have acted on any new emergency planning rules prior to the hearing in the Byron case.
Contentions 20 through 48, 61, 63, 69, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80, 82, 86, 112, 106, 142 Each of the above contentions is opposed by Staff on the basis that they con-stitute a mere recitation of unresolved safety issues, or generic items, with-out attempting to demonstrate any nexus between the issue and particular de-ficiencies in the facility license application. A mere " laundry list" of task action plans or TSAR items is not sufficient to raise an issue for d
litigation.
Colf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760 (1976).
In no way has Intervenor attempted to satisfy the basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 as interpreted in ALAB-444. This is true notwithstanding detailed comunications between Applicant and Staff and Intervenor with regard to requirements imposed upon someone seeking to litigate an unresolved generic technical safety item in individual licensing i
proceedings.
While it is true that an appropriate remedial action must be taken in the individual case, and reviewed and accepted by the NRC licensing
. staff, this in itself does not entitle intervenors to demand a hearing on these issues absent the filing of a contention meeting the tests set forth in River Bend.
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-491, 8 NRC 245 (1978).
Contention 51 This contention does not assert any basis for connecting the asserted TMI deficiencies with Byron. To the extent that it asserts generic defects, it appears to be cumulative of the assertions pleaded in subsequent Conten-tions 52-60.
x -
Contentions 52 through 59, 63, 74 These contentions are acceptable to the Staff for litigation in this pro-ceeding.
Contention 60 This contention is a direct challenge to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.44 and is not to be litigated in this licensing proceeding.
Contentions 66, 70, 72, 105 The Staff opposes these contentions which allege that the Byron design does not comply with Staff regulatory guides. Again, as in River Bend, the League does not attempt to set forth specific deficiencies in the Byron Station de-sign, or to demonstrate why noncompliance with regulatory guides is unac-ceptable within the confines of this particular case. Applicants are free
. to select other methods to comply with general design criteria than strict adherence to regulatory guides or Staff positions. The general design criteria of the regulations are intended to provide engineering goals rather than precise tests by which reactor safety can be measured.
Petition for Emer-gency and Remedial Action, CLI-78-6, 7 NRC 400, 406-07 (1978).
Contentions 64, 65 These contentions relate '.o Staff documents NUREG-0578, NUREG-0410, and certain staff testimony in the Black Fox proceeding and o'.ner " unresolved safety probl ems. " Again, the League has failed to demorstrate any nexus between the alleged safety problems and Byron and has thus failed to present conten..
tions which are admissible in this proceeding in accordance with the River Bend decision cited above.
The fact that an item was discussed in another proceeding or that a problem is listed as a Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-556 and STN 50-557, unresolved safety issue, does not supply the requisite nexus.
Contentions 67, 70, 71, 72, 76 The Staff opposes these contentions which allege noncenpliance with general l
l design criteria of either the Staff or Applicant. The principles set forth in River Bend, supra, are controlling here as well. Absent an identifica-tion of specific deficiencies in the Byron Station design, contentions asserting general noncompliance with the general design criteria, just as l
in the case of noncompliance with regulatory guides, should be dismissed.
I
. Contention 81 This contention relates to ECCS injection and shock to the pressure vessel.
The League as.terts that proper findings under the Atomic Energy Act, NEPA and the Commission's regulations cannot be made. The Staff objects to this contention beciuse it is vague and does not relate with any degree of speci-ficity to the lyron proceeding.
Contention 83 The contention alludes to certain unspecified accidents which may occur during the transportation and handling of radioactive material. Again, the League vaguely refer to "the Act, NEPA, and the Regs," in attempting to show noncompliance. The contention is vague, unspecific and appears to challenge Table S-4 of 10 C.F.R. 5 51.20.
Contentior. 55 The League has specifically cited a possible loss of flow accident where reactor coolant pumps cavitate' and the reactor does not scram.
It is stated accurately that the Applicant's FSAR does not consider such an accident.
The Staff considers that the contention is reasonably specific within the purview of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 to the Byron proceeding.
It should be admitted as a contention.
C i
I
l Contention 87 l
This contention alleges a defect in core design. The League, however, has failed to specify what the alleged defect is in accordance with the Byron FSAR. The contention lacks specificity for litigation in this proceeding.
Contentions 91, 92, 93 These contentions are highly generalized statements of Applicsnt's inability to resolve outstanding problems without specifically delineating the reasons for such contentions. They are vague and lack the required specificity to allow litigation.
Contention 91, while being vague and unspecific, relates to the Applicant's technical qualifications (page 5 herein), and might be absorbed into the contention questioning Applican.t's technical ability and quality control / quality assurance programs.
Contention 94 The League attempts to litigate the question of low level waste storage within the confines of the Byron proceeding.
It is a speculative conter, tion not based on any application for such storage and not a proper contention for this case.
j Contention 95 This contention refers to an alleged insufficiency in the evaulation of the structural integrity of the reactor pedestal concrete.
It would appear that this contention relates to a BWR and, unless the League can demonstrate 2
a.
. how such contention directly affects the safety of a PWR (Byron), it cannot be litigated in this proceeding.
Contention 96 The League herein recites matters related to industry and Commission methods and practices.
It is not directly to the Byron proceeding.
It is vague.
and unspecific and not a valid contention.
Contentions 97. 98, 99 These contentions again deal with generic and TMI issues without any basis for inclusion in this proceeding and without specificity of the individual -
generic items.
Contention 100 This contention relates to the proximity of Byron to the Greater Rockford Airport and the possibility of being in the flight path of jumbo jets. While it may be true that the Commission Regulatory Guides set minimum distances from airports for construction, an allegation of overflights of jumbo jets at Byron can be litigated in this proceeding.
Contention 101 This contention dealing with Staff and Applicant obligations relating to unresolved safety issues and recommendations is without merit as submitted because it is vague, unspecific and not litigable.
)
\\
Contentions 102, 103 These contentions relate to sufficiency of formulations in the soil and de-sign of structure of walls. As indicated by the League, these matters are being discussed by the Applicant and the Staff, and are proper matters for litigation in this proceeding.
Contention 104 The League specifically refers to a safety matter in Byron relating to post tension wires. This is a valid contention.
Contention 107 This contention relates to the expanded fuel pool storage capability. While it is true that there has been a change from the Construction Permit authori-zation for the fuel pool, it is incumbent upon the League to specifically attempt to demonstrate where any particular deficiency exists at Byron.
The contention, at worded, is a generalized attack on the expanded fuel pool and too unspecific 'or litigation in this proceeding.
Contention 109 The League raises matters relative to hydrology impacts on the Rock River as a result of Byron operation as justification for consideration of these matters, which had been examined and ruled on at the Construction Permit stage of this proceeding, the League vaguely refers to "recent events."
As submitted, there is nothing specific submitted which would show why the CP evaluation was not presently correct.
Contention 110 This contention appears to be a challenge to Appendix I Part 50 in that it asserts failure to comply with NEPA and Part 50 generally without any assertion with respect to conformance with Appendix I.
If it is intended as an assertion that the failure for various reasons will not satisfy Appen-dix I, it does not do so. This contention as submitted cannot be litigated in this proceeding.
Contention 111 This contention asserts a failure to comply with the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
j El 50.34(a) and 50.36(a) with respect to monitoring of radioactivity in the. -
environment. As submitted, it is not clearly a challenge to the Commission's regulations. There are aspects which may develop to be challenges to the monitoring requirements articulated in Appendix I.
However, these can be treated at a later time when the matter becomes clearer. This contention should be admitted.
Contention 113 l
This contention relates to cumulative exposures from Byron and other stations such as Dresden, LaSalle, Ouad Cities, and Braidwood. The Staff recommends that this contention relating to an alleged violation of 40 C.F.R. Part 190 is sufficiently stated to be admitted at a contention in this proceeding.
Contention 114 This contention relates to the possibility of chemical decontamination at some time during the life of the plant. At the present time, there is nothing l
l l
l
i before the Staff with respect to chemical decontamination for the Byron Station. This contention is outside the scope of this proceeding and cannot be admitted.
Contention 115 This contention relates to the environmental effects of 765 KV transmission times. This Board admitted a similar contention in the Braidwood proceeding at the preliminary conference. This contention should be allowed in the Byron proceeding.
Contention 117 d -
The League in this contention raises matters related to the assessment of the economic and environmental effects of natural draft and mechanical cooling towers. These matters were admittedly covered in the CP proceeding and the Intervenor does not specify what "new facts" are present which would allow for admission of this contentiun.
Contention 120 This contention relates to the validity of cost-benefit analysis in connec-tion with all Intervenor's contentions herein. This contention is too vague and unspecific to allow for proper litigation.
Contentions 122 through 124 These contentions deal generally with unresolved problems and failure to i
build the plant properly. As submitted, these are not valid contentions l
l i
l
1 for this proceeding. The Staff, however, feels that the Intervenor is attempting to demonstrate Applicant's lack of technical qualifications.
The Staff is willing to have admitted as a contention in this proceeding something akin to a statement that the Applicants have demonstrated an inability or lack of commitment to comply with the applicable regulations established to protect the health and safety of the public, sufficient to assure that they will adequately comply with the environmental and safety regulations associated with the operation of a nuclear facility.
Contention 125 This contention relates to the Price Anderson Act and Applicant's ability to pay damages in the event of legislative repeal. The League has not sub-mitted a valid contention in this respect because it is an implied attack on the Act itself and 10 C.F.R. 5140.
Contention 129 This contention dealing with the possibility of using cryogenic transmission 3
or storage is vague and lacks requisite specificity to be included as a contention in this proceeding. Again, the League uses the words "new facts" without saying what they are.
Contention 135 This contention relates to costs of decomissioning. The Commission has a generic rulemaking proceeding before it (43 Fed. Reg.. 10370(1978).
. Since the League is seeking to litigate decommissioning concerns beyond the Licensee's compliance with existing regulations and encompassing matters within the scope of the generic issues considered by the proposed rulemaking, then such issues are under the reasoning of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
(Vermont Yankee), ALAB-56, 4 AEC 930 (1972) and ALAB-179, 7 AEC 159 (1974),
rev'd NRDC v. NRC, 547 F.2d 663 (D.C. Cir.1976), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978), and are precluded from litigation in this proceeding.
Contention 138 This contention raises matters relating to choices between particular sources, of energy and the policy to be followed by the Country. This is vague, ambiguous, nonspecific and should not be admittet as a contention in this proceeding.
Contentions 141, 144 These contentions appear to imply that the Applicant is not complying with Appendix I to Part 50, but lack the degree of specificity required by the Commission's rules for admission as contentions.
If it is to be interpreted as a challenge to Appendix I, then it would be barred from this proceeding under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.758.
Ccntention 143 The League has listed seme matters which it claims should have been covered by the Applicant in its enumerated submissions. Such items include wild-life, esthetics, population projection effects on fish, etc. These matters
. and the others cited were in the Applicant's ER at the CP stage; in the Staff's DES and FES at the CP Stage, and covered in the hearing. They have also been submitted by the Applicant in this OL stage. The League's citing these subjects without any clarifying reason for inclusion as a contention does not satisfy the specificity requirement.
In addition, the allegation of psychological fear akin to the TMI accident has no basis as a contention in this proceeding, Contention 145 l
This contention relates to living in a plutonium society. There is really no contention to be litigated in that respect in this proceeding.
9..
Contention 50 This contention relates to certain specific Westinghouse turbine problems which may be pertinent to Byron. This contention should be admitted.
In addition to other infirmities listed above, the following appear to be late filed contentions and m st be examined under the good cause provisions of u
10 C.F.R. E'2.714.
1, 3, 6,17,18, 40, 78, 87,100,122,123,124,125,131,145 and 146.
CONCLUSION The Staff recommends that the Board accept the following contentions as issues in the Byron proceeding.
The Staff rewrite consolidating Contentions 2, 5,10, 88, 89, 90, and.116; Contention 50;
. Contention 52 through 59; A consolidation of Contentions 9, 45,119,126,.and 127 to comport with Staff recommendation on page 9 herein; Contention 63; Contention 74; Contention 85; Contention 100; Contentions 102, 103; Contention 104; Contention 111; Contention 113; Contention 115; A rewrite of Contentions 122-124 as stated on page 18 herein as indicated above. All the other contentions should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted, Myr Karman Counsel for NRC Staff y ; -_=
! _ ^ ^ ^&
Richard J.
ard Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of April, 1980
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS510N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of C0m'OL'EALTil EDIS0N COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-454 50-455 1
(Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWER TO REVISED CONTENTIONS OF ROCKFORD LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regu-latory Commission's internal mail system, this 25th day of April,1980.
c
- Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman
. Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing 1907 Stratford Lane Board Panel Rockford Illinois 61107 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Julianne Mahler
- 1219 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan 807 Ridge Drive Union Carbide Corporation DeKalb, Illinois 60115 P. O. Box &
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. Richard F. Cole U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C.
20555 Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C.
20555 Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza
- Docketing and Service Section Chicago, Illinois 60603 Office of the Secretary of the Commission Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cherry, Flynn & Kanter Washington, D. C.
20555 One IBM Plaza, Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611
. [
t I
l'enneth F. Levin Ceatty, Levin, Holland, Basofin & Sarsany 11 South LaSalle Street Suite 2200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 l
--A=
n 7
f Myron Karman M unsel for NRC Staff c -
)
1 l
l 1
1
.