ML20033B311
| ML20033B311 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1981 |
| From: | Lavin J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033B283 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8112010216 | |
| Download: ML20033B311 (15) | |
Text
.
EXHIBIT 8 CCLKETEf:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSIb SECRtTARf r
c:.sG & SERVICr.
~ ; RANCH
)
In the Matter of
)
)
' COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454-OL
)
50-455-OL (Byron Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
i State of Illinois
)
County of Cook
)
LAVIN i
John M.
Lavin, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and states and states as follows:
1)
My name is John M. Lavin.
I am employed by Commonwealth Edison Company in the project scheduling and cost control center.
As part of my responsibilities, I maintain various records on the budget for the Byron Nuclear Power Station now under construction by the Commonwealth Edison Company.
2)
In early September 1981, I had been contacted to aid in the preparation of responses to certain discovery requests initiated by the Rockford League of Women Voters in a proceeding then pending before the Illinois commerce Commission.
My responsibility was to locate and review various files containing documentation of the budget for the K Oh h U
PINT
+
vs-
h Cyron Station and provide written recponcos to certain League ICC interrogatories.
I discussed with Mr. Paul M.
1 Murphy, of Isham, Lincoln & Beale, the extent of materials in the project scheduling and cost control center which were within the scope of the request of the League.
Mr. Murphy asked me to participate in a meeting scheduled for September 10, 1981 with Mr. Myron Cherry, an attorney representing the League of Women before the Illinois Commerce Commission.
3)
On September 10, 1981, I met in a conference room in the offices of Isham, Lincoln & Beale with Tom Tramm, Leslie Bowen, Ken Ainger, Jim Westermeier, all employees of Commonwealth Edison Company and Paul Murphy and Alan Bielawski, attorneys with Isham, Lincoln & Beale.
4)
Beforu Mr. Cherry arrived at the meeting, Mr. Murphy briefed us on what would take place.
He indicated that thcre would first be some discussions with respect to outstanding matters involved in the pending hearings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Edison's application l
for an operating license for the Byron Station.
He stated that after these matters had been resolved there would be l
I discussions with respect to how Edison would respond to discovery initiated by the League of Women Voters before the Illinois Commerce Commission.
5 )'
MN. Cherry arrived at the meeting an hour and i
a half late.
One of the first mattera discussed concerned... _.
,t the possibility of consolidating the League's contentions.
Mr. Cherry stated that he would, under no circumstances, agree to any consolidation or combination of cententions, and there was no question in my mind that as of Septemb'er 10, Mr. Cherry had cut off all consideration of this matter.
6)
Mr. Murphy then raised the question of when i
the League would respond to interrogatories served by Edison in the operatin7 license proceeding.
In the following i
exchange, Mr. Murphy stated that the League had been ordered by the NRC to provide responses to Edison's NRC interrogatories, 4
that the NRC and ICC proceedings were totally separate and not dependent upon one another, and insisted that Mr. Cherry agree to answer or state that he refused to answer.
Mr. Cherry stated that he would respond to the interrogatories, but 4
that he would have to get back to Mr. Murphy on the question of the date by which the League would provide its answers.
Mr. Cherry identified a date on which he intended to get back to Mr. Murphy, at which point Mr. Murphy pulled out what appeared to be a note pad or pocket calendar and jotted I
down some information.
It was very clear to me from the discussion that Mr. Murphy, on behalf of Commonwealth Edison company, had absolutely rejected any concept that discovery pending in the operating license proceeding before the NRC would in any way be intertwined with or dependent upon i
discovery pending in a separate proceeding before the ICC..-
s 7)
The rest of the discussion involved discovery initiated by Edison and by the League in a proceed,ing now pending before the Illinois Commerce Commission.
The foregcing af?! davit is based on my own personal knowledge and is true in fact and in substance.
Dated:
November 23, 1981 Le John M.
Lavin SIGNED and SWORN to bef re e thip l
day of pgte h 1981 i
I M
' / Notary Publib(/
j J
A 4_
... ~... -.
aw 4%
M.-
eeh m+-w&*=
1,
% T7
]
j ISHAM. LINCOLN & BKp3 iW 0 i
COUN".,Clort" AT L AW tiret,esast eeAt:O r4 A L s t. A
- A
,0 ary-stcOs(O sLOOra C HIC AGO. H e 4015 6 r,0 3 ttLC f t*ONC 362
- Mu 7000 ' rtt r -
.w am wavese.ownN orrect a
.m.a. - we e N -
y,, y October 8, 1979 ' ' '[y 3gg;cE 5lJ,"o',7.,'c f','.1,,,s
, ;gn en.~.n... m Ms. Betty Johnson 1907.Stratford Lane Rockford, Illinois 61107
Dear Ms. Johnson:
As promised during our meeting on September 26, 1979, this letter identifies Applicant's position on your contentions and other matters discussed at the meeting.
A preliminary matter discussed was the relationship between Mr. Myron Cherry and yourself.
It is our understanding the.
Mr. Cherry does not represent you and is not acting as av attorney in this proceeding.
Therefore, we will continue to communicate directly with you as designated representative of the League of Women Vcters.
As an accommodation to yourself, we will send to Mr. Cherry copies of letters and pleadings relating to the purpose of the September 26
- meeting, i.c.,
the attempt to negotiate contentions.
As you will see from our discussion below con-cerning specific contentions, scme of the issues raised in your original contentions could be the subject of conton-tions to which Edison may be willing to stipulate as valid issues for hearing.
In an effort to further clarify our position regarding the form and substance of contentions as to which we would be willing to stipulate, we have included certain proposed draft contentions immediately following the iteration of our position regarding your original contentions.
We would be willing to stipulate to the admissibility of those proposed contentions, if you would agree to substitute these draf t contentions for your original contentions.
If you have problems with our proposed contentions, we are perfectly willing to discuss modification with you.
You will note that some of our proposed contentions do not address al] of the issues which are raised in your original contentions.
This is because we believe that certain subparts of your contentions raisc issues which are c1 carl; objectionable.
If you agree that our proposed contentions adequately ad-dress those portions of your original contentions as to which we have not objected, we would suggest that the par-ties stipulate to the proposed contentions, and that you raise those issues which we find objectionable in separate contentions.
In this way, the Licensing Board need address a
.I 7
NN ac 10/8/79 P ga Two itself only to those matters as'to which the perties are unable to reach agreement.
Furthermore, as I noted during tlje course of our meeting, Applicant is willing, in the spirit of compromise or in the instance where the basis is not in serious dis-pute, to waive the requirement of a stated basis with re-spect to certain contentions.
We will identify those con-
...tentions as to which we are willing to waive the basis
. requirement in our discussion below concerning specific contentions.
Applicant's position on your contentions, based on full consideration of our discussions at the meeting, is as follows:
Contention 1 Contention 1, we believe, is adequate to identify the NRC Task Action Plans to which you refer, but is inade-quate as a contention.
We b21ieve that the River Bond deci-sion quoted in Answer of Commonwealth Edison Company To The Contentions of the League of Women Voters of Rockford, Illinois and Answer of Commonwealth Edison Company to the Statement of Contentions of DAARE and SAFE. sets forth the requirements for raising the subject matter of Task Action Plans as a contention.
Contention 2 With respect to Contention 2, which deals with the fuel storage racks proposed for the Byron spent fuel pool, our position is that by virtue of the fact that the rack de-sign has been altered from that proposed at the CP stage, this issue is not precluded under the doctrine of res judi-cata.
Our position on the subparts of Contention 2 are as follows:
Subpart l'- This subpart docs not specify any inadequacies in the safety analysis or environmor.tal V
analysis of the spent fuel pool and is, therefore, deficient.
To the extent that the specific items raised in subpart 4 are meant to be the inadequacies alluded to in subpart 1, we believe that subpart 1 and subpart 4 should be combined and could constitute a
~
valid contention.
~
WW- -
.~
N By @Han 1
10/8/79 Page Three Subpart'2 - This subpart does not raise any issue at all but merely states the reason why the design of the spent fuel pool racks should not be considered to have j
been fully adjudicated at the CP stage.,
1 Subpart 3 - This subpart appears inherently unrealistic.
We could not stipulate to this portion of the contention unless you were prepared to present a supportive basis for your claim that the new rack configuration increases the possibility of spent fuel L
pool accidents.
l l
l Subpart 4 - We cannot accept the " include, but are not Timited to" language in this subpart.
However, in view of the fact that the rack configuration has been changed, we would be willing to litigate the question of spent fuel heatup nd the potential for radioactive releases in the event of a loss of water accident initiated by cooling system breakdown, cask drop accidents, criticality accidents, and site abandor.mont.
We are also willing to litigate the adequacy of the fuel pool to withstand or the need to design against earthquakes, sabotage, large airplane crashes and tornadoes missiles.
l Subpart 5 - We are willing to litigate the question of routine or accidental releases of radionuclides from the fuel pool.
However, this issue is, in our opinion, wholly unrelated to subparts (a) and (b) of subpart 5.
Moreover, we will not stipulate to any contention which contains those subparts because they are the subject matter of Commission Regulation and on going rulemaking proceedings.
Applicant's Proposed Contention 2 Applicant is planning to store more spent fuel.n the spent fuel storage pool than was included in the CP ap-plication by utilizing high density storage racks.
Use of these racks was not considered at the construction permit
's tage.
(1)
Applicant should be required to establish that the geometric configuration of the high density racks will be adequate to provent criticality in the fuel storage system.
(Sec 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 62).
m
+
Mt. B$ tty Johnt 10/8/79 Pago Four (2)
Applicant should be req" ired to establish that the spent fuel storage system, as modified, is either designed for or that there is no need to design against the following postulated accident conditions to assure adequate safety.to the public from the operation of the spent fuel storage system:
(a) spent fuel pool cooling water malfunctions; (b) drop ~of a spent fuel shipping cask into the spent fuel pool; (c) abandonment of the spent fuel pool area because of severe reactor accidents; (d) earthquakes, sabotage, large airplane crashes and tornado missiles.
Such assurance is necessary because loss of water accidents in the spent fuel pool may lead to zirconium clad-ding fire and/or zirconium. Steam reaction.
(3)
Applicant should be required to establish that it will not exceed the radioactive emission limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, as a result of routino operations involving the modified spent fuel pool.
Contention 3 Our discussion of Contention 3 terminated at the point that we informed you, through Mr. Cherry, that we would not agree to litigate Class 9 accidents.
Our position on Contention 3 is as set forth in our carlier pleading, a
position on which we may elaborate if Contention 3 is re-submitted to the Licensing Board as drafted.
Naturally, if you re-draf t Contention 3, our position may change.
Contention 4 Applicant is willing to accept as a valid conten-tion the proposition that full analysis of the Plum River Fault requires changes in the scismic design for the Byron Station.
With respect to all other matters raised in Con-tention 4, we believe these issues were fully resolved at the CP stage.
With respect to subpart 7, I pointed out to you that you are simply in error.
It is my understanding that you will voluntarily drop subpart 8.
i
~
Ms. Detty John-1
-10/8/79 Pago Fivo Applicant's Proposed Contention 4 Intervenor contends that the Plum River Fault was discovered after the construction permit sciamic analysis and findings were made, and that therefore the construction permit seismic analysis did not consider all pertinent information relating to the seismology of the plant site.
In light of this newly discovered information, Intervenor contends that an inappropriately low ground accelcration was assumed for the design of the plant's structures, sys-tems and components important to safety and that the radwaste building and seismic instruments should be designed to seismic Category I requirements.
Contention 5
, We believe that, except as set forth below, we can stipulate to admission of Contention 5.
We would request that you change the citation in your preambic~to Contention 5 to refer to Appendix E of 10 CFR Part 50.
It is our under-standing that you will redraft subpart 1 to clarify your intent.
It was my understanding that you intended to ques-tion the extent to which Applicant's emergency plan adequately interrelates with the plans of the various offsite agencies 3
which will be responsible to implement offsite emergency plans.
5 Subpart 4 - Wo. fail to understand the significance of the first two lines of this subpart, but we are willing to litigate whether it is necessary to plan to evacuate the transient population in the low popu-lation zone and, if this is necessary, whether ade-quate plans have been developed to do so.
Subpart 5 - We do not understand this subpart and, therefore, could not stipulate to admitting the issues sought to be raised.
We have amended your contention to reflect the emergency evacuation planning radius which has recently been suggested by the NRC/ EPA Task Force on emergency planning.
If you accept our proposed contention we would be willing to permit amendment-of the contention following the issuance of final NRC staff guidance regarding-the required planning radius, to raise issue (s)-concerning applicant's compliance with such guidance.
' Applicant's Proposed Contention 5
-Intervenor contends that Applicant's emergency response plans do not comply-with Appendix E'to 10 CFR Pa'rt 50 for the following reasons:
m
w Ms. Detty John i
10/8/79 Page Six (a)
ThIere is no discussion of the interrelation of Applicant's emergency plan with the plans of the variour offsite agencies which will be responsible for implementation of offsite emergency plans.
These agencies should include agencies which are responsible for implementing omergency response measures in which lic within a 10 mile radius of the
- Eyron. Site.
(b). There is no discussion of plans to evacuate the transient population in the low popula-tion zone during an emergency situation.
Amended Contention 6 This was fully considered at the CP stago, and wc will not stipulate to admission of this issue.
j Contention ",
We understand Contention 7 to assert that the radwaste control facilities proposed by Applicant fail to meet the as-low-as-reasonably-achievable requirements of 10 CFR SS50.34a and 50.36a in that available systems exist to better contain Krypton-85.
With the exception of Subpart 4, we would stipulate the admission of Contention 7 if the preamble is changed from "NEPA and 10 CFR 50" to "10 CFR
$550.34a and 50.3Ga."
Subpart-4 l
We are unaware of the " preliminary study" which is l
alluded to, and we have not been able to identify an independent l
basis for the assertions made in this subpart.
Therefore, we are unwilling to stipulate to this portion of Contention 7.
l I
l Applicant's Proposed Contention 7 l
Intervenor contends that Applicant has not met the low as reasonably achievable requirements of 10 CFR SS50.34a and 50.36a in that Applicant is not using the best available technology for containment of Krypton-85 which can achieve 99% containment.
(1)
It is important that Krypton-85 be contained because it is a gamma and beta emitter with a half life of 10.6 years.
When released into the atmosphere, it has worldwide distribution and build-up with no means of removal except by decay.
10/8/79 peg 3 S; van (2)
Kr-85 adversely affects living tissue in two ways:
Build up in atmosphere increases external (cloud) radiation gamma and beta rays.
Inhalation distributes it throughout the body along with non-radioactive inert Krypton, where it participates in ionic or covalent bonding, forming clothrates, and is highly soluble in non-polar solvents including body lipids.
Ordinary values and estimated doses are based on external dose received, which does not take into account the more dangerous internal absorption or concentration.
(3)
Available methods to remove Kr-85 from stacks which are not being used by the Applicant include:
(a)
A low-cost solvent extraction process; (b)
Absorption onto activiated charcoal at cryogenic temperaturcs; (c)
Condensation in liquid nitrogen followed by fractural distillation; (d)
Selective permcating through cellulose acetate or silican rubber membrane.
Amended Contention 8 As I indicated at the September 26 meeting, amended Contention 8 is generally acceptable, subject to two minor '
changes:
the reference to "NEPA and 10 CFR Part 50" should be changed to "10 CFR SS50.34a and 50.36a," and the subject matter in subparts iib and IId should be broken out as a separate contention because radiation doses to workers are covered by an entirely different regulation than that which relates to doses to the general population.
On more careful review of your amended Contention 8, subpart iib, I notice that you raise the issue of the so-called overlapping circles of radiation from several nuclear facilitics.
This issue is one which we agreed to litigate with DAARE and SAFE and language for a very definite and specific contention was agreed on with them.
I would suggest that you adopt the DAARE-SAFE contention, if it is acceptable to you.
Applicant's Proposed Contention 8 Intervonor contends that Applicant has not met the requirements of 10 CPR SS50.34a and 50.36a because Applicant has not adequately monitored and provided a design base for'the Byron plant which will koop radiation levels as low as reasonably achievable as required for operation of the plant to protect the health and safety of the public.
To keep radiation levcis as low as reason-ably achievable, Applicant should provide and utilize:
e t
UD. tJo@sy WMnDF" 10/3/79
. Pagh Eight A.
More adequate environmental and discharge moni-toring of radioactive emissions from the Byron plant, which j
. include:
^
(1)
Monitoring devices at more locations within and without the plant site.
(2)
Provisions for more frequent reading of t
l monitors by independent analysts.
(3)
Better monitoring devices which include:
~
(a)
An automatic system of monitoring l
that notifies local authorities by an alarm l
when discharge emission exceed design limits; (b)
Monitoring devices that measure dif-forences in alpha, beta and gamma dose levels,
' fhich presently aren't being adequately con-sidered and measured; (c)
Monitoring and recording of emissions cf all dangerous long lived radionuclides, in-ciuding especially I-129 and Plutonium; (d)
Bioaccumulative testing in a ticred system to assess the uptake of radi'onctive and chemical polutants from bottom sediments or soil i
to lower organisms and to contamination of the food chain of man and other life.
B.
More accurate calculation of design doses which can be accomplished by utilizing information from the im-
. proved monitoring suggested above and also by:
l (a) including in calculation of doses the large l
transient populations in the low population zones around the plant, including school children when pre-l sent in 11 schools and others participating in recre-l ational facilities; i
(b) including internal radiation doses cau. sed by inhaled and/or ingested radionuclide,s which are i
deposited in different parts of the body where they give repeated radiation or until they are climinated l
l from the body.
l
.~m.....,
.._w.,.
+r
=t
)
M3. Betty ~Joh-on 10/8/79 l
Page Nine Applicant's Proposed Contention Da Intervenor contends that Applicant has not met the as-low-as-reasonably-achievable requirement 6f 10 CFR S20.l(c) in that there is inadequate record keeping of radiation exposures to workers on site and inadequate train-ing of transient workers to minimize radiation exposures.
y Applicant's Proposed Contention 8b Intervonor contends the cumulative radiation exposure to Rockford area residents from the Byron Station in addition to Zion Station, Dresden Station, LaSalle Sta-tion, Guad Cities and Braidwood exceeds the limits set forth in 40 CFR 5190.
Contention 9 We cannot agree to litigate as a safety or an environmental issue any proposed chemical decontamination of the Byron Station for the simple reason that we are not requesting authorization for any such procedure in this proceeding, and there is no reason to believe at this time that any such chemical cleaning will ever be necessary.
Contention 10 Effects of transmission lines and transmission system alternatives were fully analyzed and considered at the CP stagc.
At the September 26, 1979 meeting, you indicated a willingness to dolote references to 765kv lines if we would provide a statement from the Company that there exist no plans to install 765kv lines to tic Byron Station Units 1 and 2 into Edison's transmission system.
We will advise you in the very near future whether we can provide such a statement.
Contention 11 Contention 11, we believe, questions the ability and willingness of the Company to comply with the quality j
assurance regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
]
B, in light of the noncompliance items identified in the contention.
We would be willing to stipulate to a conten-tion which sccks to litigate the Company's ability and willingness to operate Byron Station in compliance >ith 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
We do not seriously dispute the fact that there may be an adequate basis for this conten-tion.
Thus, we would be willing to waive this requirement with respect to this Contention.
9 Ms. Betty John 1-1
'10/8/79 Page Ten Applicant's Proposed Contention 11 Intervenor contends that Commonwealth Edison Company does not have the ability and/or willingness to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B as evidenced by its past history of non-compliance.
In addition, Common-wealth Edison's quality assurance program does not require complete independence of the quality assurance functions-from other departments within the Company.
Contention 12 Effects of cooling towcrs were fully analyzed and considered at the CP stage, and we would be ur willing to stipulate to a contention which seeks to relitigate such matters.
i i
Contention 13 Contention 13 raises a number of unrelated issues, each of which is inappropriate for consideration in this proceeding.
\\
Subpart 1 - This subpart partains to purely economic matters.
As we stated in our Answer to the League j
i of Women Voters' Contentions, such matters as raised have been held to be outside the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and thus we could not j
stipulate to this subpart.
Subparts 2 & 3 - A long line of decisions narrowly limit the need for power inquiry at the operating license stage.
Absent a preliminary showing that Byron Station will not be needed or useful in the forsecable future to meet demand, displace reliance on scarce or environmentally inferior fuel sources or to replace retired generating units, need for power is not.an issue at this stage of the proceeding.
Inasmuch as you have not made such a showing and since it is our opinion-that this showing cannot be mado, we cannot stipulate to n contention which seeks-to raisc the issues addressed in Subparts 2 and 3 of Contention 13.
2 v
w" r
W '..
M3. Betty Joh! in 10/8/79 i
Pega Eleven-I Subpart 4 - If the League can articulato an adequato supported basis for its assertion in Subpart 4 that Commonwealth Edison Company will not be financially l
capable to operate Byron Station, we would be willing to stipulate to the admissibility of such a contention.
i Subpart 5 - As we indicated in our Answer to the Contentions of the League of Women Voters, we believe l
- that to the extent the issues raised in Subpart 5 are relevant to this proceeding they may be covered by Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR S51.20.
Therefore, l
it is our position that litigation of these issues is l
precluded by 10 CFR S2.758..
The proposals set forth above are part of our j
cffort to compromise the matters in dispute between us.
They do not constituto an admission that there is any merit to the substance of proposed contentions or that l
such contentions fully meet the requirements of 10 CFR S2.714 of the Commissivns Regulations and prior decisions.
Please contact us at the earliest possible time to discuss any differences which may remain.
Also, we believe that a joint stipulation of all parties setting forth the pre-l cise areas of agreement and disagreement is the best form l
in which to present any redraf ted contentions to the Board.
l If negotiations remain ongoing as of October 15, 1979, we propose that the parties jointly inform the Board that negotiations are progressing and that stipulated contentions, if any, will be filed with the Board at the earliest possible l
l opportunity.
Sj.nc
- cly,
~
l h,
1 j.
r.,'
I'.
l f 'i Paul M. Murphy One of the Attorneys l
for Commonwealth Edison Company cc:
Myron Cherry, Esq.
Richard Goddard, Esq.
sa,e-m s w-m e -
w-
~n w
--o m u m
EXHIBIT 10
/
4' UNITED STATES COLKETED N
8 \\..(fj" },
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6
TV.E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
$*****[
'81 NOV 24 P3:46 October 22, 1979,
(
- .~ EECRFIARY
.WG & service iRANCH Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson 1907 Stratford Lane Rockford, Illinois 61107 In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455
Dear Mrs. Johnson:
As the Staff indicated during our meeting with you and Mr. Myron Cherry in
'.m on September 26, 1979, this letter presents the NRC Staff's position on the conten-tions of the League of Women Voters of Rockford, as amended, with due regard to Applicant's counsel's letter to you dated October 6,1979. Since no Notice of Appear-l 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.
i 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.
l To the extent that a satisfactory nexus is demonstrated with regard to any of these generic items as it relates to the Byron fa.:ility, such issues may be considered ap-propriate for litigation in this 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 I, Beale in its response to your Con-tention 2, and would support the revised contention mentioned in their letter.
DW6 &
O Wlr2oot3
l~
i k
Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson October 22, 1979 t
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.
Po' tions of the contention, to the degree that their meaning is understandable, would r
appear to constitute a direct challenge to the Commission's regulations. We will await your redrafted contention or contentions concerning certain of the ite,ms con-tained in the present proposed Contention 3 which you wish to litigate.
Contention 4.
The Staff recponse 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 of Contention 5 is proper for litigation in this proceeding, and we would not oppose a contention drafted in 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 proceeding 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 Contention 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.
1
.- October 22, 1979 Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson i
~
,j Contention 10.
I i
The Staff position 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 Ap'plicant's advice as to whether they plan to install 765 KV lines to tie the Byron I
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 the Staff comments herein and the letter from Mr. Murphy to you, as well as the discussions which took place in Chicago on September 26, will assist 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
& )%.wr My on Karman Counsel for NRC Staff cc: Paul Murphy, Esq.
Myron Cherry, Esq.
~ _...
..- -. ~ -.
e-
~
J' EXHIBIT ll pp aar a
c o
UNITED STATES l'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 t
c k, *. * *,0',
October 12, 1979 Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Union Carbide Corporation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P. O. Box Y Washington, D. C.
20555 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37630 Cr. Ricbc 4 F. Cole Atomic itfety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-454 & 50-455 Gentlemen:
In accordance with the Licensing Board's request for a progress report on continuing negotiations between Applicant, Intervenors and NRC Staff re-garding contentions in the Byron 1-2 operating license proceeding, the following report is submitted with the consent of all parties:
g 1.
On September 25, 1979, counsel for Staff and Applicant met with counsel and individual members of DAARE/ SAFE in DeKalb, Illinois. Draftsmanship and substance of Intervenors' conten-tions was discussed. Tne outcome of that meeting was that Intervenors would obtain technical assistance, consult with counsel, and forward revised proposed contentions to Applicant -
and Staff.
Further action by the parties will await receipt of those contentions, which are expected to be served by mail no later than October 22, 1979.
2.
On September 25, 1979, counsel for Applicant and Staff met.
with Myron Cherry, Esq., and individual representatives of the League of Women Voters of Rockford, Illinois, in Chicago, Illinois. Draftsmanship and substance of Inte venor's pro-r posed contentions was similarly discussed at this meeting.
The outcome of this meeting was that Applicant would submit to Intervenor and Staff a detailed statement of position on Intervenor's present proposed contentions. This document was mailed on October 9,1979. Subsequently, Staff will furnish to Intervenors its statement of position on the proposed con-tentions. Thereafter, Intervenors will submit a revised state-ment of proposed contentions to Applicant and Staff, which is expected no later than November 2,1979.
1 m4P6 of rygjorrom
4,
~ *
).
2-1
{
l 3.
After receipt of each Intervenors' revised submission of-proposed contentions, an attempt will be made to arrive at a stipulation of con +,entions for discovery and litigation with each Intervenor.
4.
The parties propose to notify the Licensing Board of the progress of their ongoing efforts 45 days from the date of this letter--November 27, 1979.
It is hoped that the parties will have concluded a11 negotiations by this time.
Sincerely, i
Myrc Karmar.
Coud'sel for NRC Staff cc:
Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Jerome Hughey, Esq.
Dr. Bruce von Zellen Ms. Beth L. Galbreath g-s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Docketing and Service Section O
O
EXHIBIT 12
' M'pmc,k u
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMf.ilSSION EY
.(*
g
}$,}yg, [,)
- * " 0" D C 2 555
%.',';'/
'81 NOV 24 P3:46 November 27, 1979
.7 SECRETtY
.-JWG & SERVICE BRA!iCH
~
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Union Carbide Corporation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P. O. Box Y Washington, D. C.
20555 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37833 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-454 & 50-455 Gentlemen:
In eccordance with the Licensing Board's request for a progress report on continuing negotiations between Applicant, Intervenors and NRC Staff regarding contentions in the Byron 1-2 operating license proceeding, the following is an update since the last report on October 11,1979.
Both the Staff and the Applicant have furnished all Intervenors with state-ments of position on contentions.
On November 26 ana November 27, 1979, Staff Counsel spoke with Mr. Myron Cherry who advised that he will be filing a Notice of Appearance on behsif He also of the League of Women Voters of Rockford within the next few days.
indicated that he will file revised contentions for the f.pplicant and Staff to examine shortly after the first of January 1980.
With respect to DAARE/ SAFE, Counsel for Applicant and Staff met again with representatives of DAARE/ SAFE in DeKalb, Illinois on November 13,1979 to discuss contentions.
It was agreed that DAARE/ SAFE would serve their revised statement of contentions by December 14,1979.
(
Dn P& O F 79ibo9M
lf ' '.
. 4 i
After receipt of the Intervenors' revised contentions, the Staff and Applicant will advise the Board as to the agreed upon contentions. " Formal responses by Staff and Applicant relative to the remaining contentions will be filed by February 9,1980.
Sincerely, 1
)
i Y
J Myro Karman Cou el for NRC Staff cc: Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Dr. Julianne Mahler Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Docketing and Service Section i
i O
e
,.m-
r EZE2[D1m LOJ j
i, s
ISHAM, LINCOLN & CEALE COUNELORS AT LAW t
ONE FIRef esATIONAL PLAaA FORTY-stcoNO FLOOR cNicAoO,etuNois sosoa TELEPMONE ata ssa-7soo itLtz:3.same
- o :==","..
stVENTM FLOOR maainovo=, o. c.a ooa s January 22, 1980 3
l Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Atomic Safety and Licensing Union Carbide Corporation Board Panel P.O. Box Y
}
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C.
20555 i
i Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
Washington, D.C.
20555
~
)
Re:
In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company I
(Byron Station, Units 1 and 2) l Docket Nos. 50-454, 50-455 i!
)
Gentlemen:
i j
In accordance with the Licensing Board's request for a progress report on continuing negotiations between 1
i the Applicant, intervenors and the NRC Staff regarding con-l tentions in the Byron Station operating licensing proceeding, the following is an update since the last report by letter dated November 27, 1979, from Myron Karman, counsel for the j
NRC Staff, to the Licensing Board.
1.
On January 22, 1980, representatives of the l
Applicant, NRC Staff counsel and Dr. Julianne Mahler, spokes-j person for DAARE and SAFE, held a telephone conference call regarding the DAARE and SAFE contentions.
Dr. Mahler indi-j cated that the " Statement of Contentions" dated December 10, 1979, filed in this proceeding and served on all parties, j
were not intended to represent the final contentions of j
DAARE and SAFE.
Counsel for the Applicant and counsel for the NRC Staff had been previously advised that said " State-ment of Contentions" reflected draft contentions 5 for nego-j tiation.
Both the NRC Staff and the Applicant have forwarded to Dr. Mahler writ':en comments and statements of positions j
with respect to these draft contentions.
Dr. Mahler indi-I cated that, based on the comments of the Applicant and NRC staff, together with additional information requested of the i %
i Dal% O F M 2-12.0 W.L
i i
Applicant, DAARE and SAFE would be prepared to determine its This final position on all contentions by February 8, 1980.~.
l time frame is acceptable to both the Applicant und the NRC j
i Staff.
Although the parties have not fully discussed all j
ministerial details, it is anticipated that very shortly after February 8,1980, the parties will present their posi-j tions on the final contentions of DAARE and SAFE, possibly~
in the form of e stipulation between all parties, and submit l
j briefs in support of their positions within a reasonable time thereafter.
2.
With respect to the intervention by the l
League of Women Voters of Rockford, the status of negotia-tions remains as stated in Mr. Karman's letter of November 7, i
1979; that is, the parties ara awaiting receipt from the League of Women Voters of draft revised contentions to examine for the purpose of determining the possible areas of I
agreement.
This status is also identical to the status as i
reported in the October 12, 1979 letter from Myron Karman to the Licensing Board.
I was informed today by Mrs. Betty Johnson that Myron Cherry has been retained to act as counsel for the League of Women Voters in this proceeding and would
]
be filing shortly a notice of appearance and revised state-i ment of contentions.
I was unable to reach Mr. Cherry to
- (
learn when this filing would take place.
Respectf y,
l
> Id
[llt j't ~
Paul M. Murphy One of the Attorneys for 4
Commonwealth Edison Company 1
PMM/ sag cc:
All parties on attached l
Service List i
1
~
p--..-
w
__7
\\ Marchall E. Millcr, E:q., Chairman Dr. A. Dix 0n Callihan l
omic Safety and Licensing Board Union Carbide Corporation Panel P.O. Box Y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 W2chington, D.C.
20555 i
(
Dr. Richard F. Cole Myron Karman, Esq.
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal Panel Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wachington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 I
Richard J. Goddard, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission t.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Wachington, D.C.
20555 1
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Secretary Panel Attn:
Chief, Docketing and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Service Section W2chington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Chicf Hearing Counsel Ms.. Betty Johnson Office of the Executive Legal 1907 Stratford Lane Director Rockford, Illinois 61107 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, 2chington, D.C.
20555 W
I
\\-
Dr. Cruce von Zellen Ms. Beth L. Galbreath
?p2rtment of Biological Sciences 714 Parkview corthern Illinois University Rockford, Illinois 61107 DeKnib, Illinois 60115 4
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
Icham, Lincoln & Beale Isham, Lincoln & Beale Ona First National Plaza One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. Cordell Reed Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
C:mmonwealth Edison Company Cherry, Flynn & Kantor 5.0. Box 767 One IBM Plaza hicago, Illinois 60690 Room 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Dr. Julianne Mahler Canter for Governmental Studies Northern Illinois Un'.versity DeKalb, Illinois 60115 4
k,
o.
u 00(KET,ED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'81 NOV 24 P3:46 3
I
)
(
i SECF.EIt:.Y In the Matter of
)
..50. 4vivicE
)
Docket Nos.~:T0d,,,d 5 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
)
(Byron Nuclear ' Power. Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
MOTION FOR A RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ROCKFORD Commonwealth Edison Company (" Edison" or "Appli-cant"), pursuant to 10 CFR 52.730, moves tne Board to enter an order ruling on the admissibility of the contentions of f
filed l
the League of Women Voters of Rockford (the " League")
or, alternatively, to grant the parties 15 on July 28, 1979; In days to brief the admissibility of said contentions.
support of this Motion, Applicant states as follows:
The Notice of Opportunity for Hearing in this 1
proceeding was pub)ished in the Federal Register on Decem-Thereafter, on January 13, l
ber 15, 1978 (43 F.R. 58659).
l 1979, the League filed a Petition For Leave To Intervene l
By which was amended by letter dated February 3,1979 the Board ruled that the League Order dated March 23, 1979, had standing to intervene in this proceeding and reminded pursuant to 10 CFR $2.714 (b), they must the League that, l
file a supplement to their petition to intervene which should include a list of contentions the League seeks to l
g have litigated in this matter.
j pQ PE of O 7 0 0 '1. T l o 4 5 7
- ~..- -- -... _
-m--
]
(
2.
On July 28, 1979, the League filed a list of contentions.- Applicant answered the League in a pleading o file dated August 20, 1979, which the Board granted-leave instanter at the prehearing conference held in Rockford, Illinois on August 21, 1979.
As is set forth in the " Answer j
of Commonwealth Edison Company to the Contentions of the i
League of Women Voters of Rockford, Illinois," dated August 20, 1979, both the NRC Staff and Applicant had attempted on several occasions to negotiate with the League on a set of Following an extended discussion on stipulated contentions.
the record during the prehearing conference, the Board provided all the parties an additional opportunity to nego-tiate in an effort to refine contentions and requested that i
the results of said negotiations be communicated to the Board by October 15, 1979 (Tr. p. 114).
On September 26, 197E, representatives of the 3.
the NRC Staff and the Applicant met in Chicago,
- League, Illinois, in the offices of Myron Cherry, Esq., who was at the time aidAng the League in negotiations to refine con-Extended discussions were held with respect to tentions.
each of the League's contentions during which the Applicant and NRC Staf f presented orally and in detail their position At the on each contention and possible areas of compromise.
request of the League, Applicant, by letter dated October 8, 1979' (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A), and the NRC Staff, by letter dated October 22,1979 (a copy of which is
n
.o
'I attached as Exhibit B), provided in writing a detailed statement of position with respect to each League conten-t I
tion.
4.
As indicated in letters to the Board dated October 12, 1979, November 27, 1970, and January 22, 1979' (attached hereto as Exhibits C, D and E), there has been no progress whatsoever in negotiations between the parties with respect to the League's contentions since the September 26, I
1979 meeting and follow-up letters dated October 8, 1979 and October 22, 1979.
Alth ugh the League, through Mr. Cherry, has promised on several occasions to present in writing, by stated deadlines, amended contentions on behalf of the League, each deadline passed without action by the League.
In contrast, negotiations with DAARE and SAFE, the other i
parties intervening in this proceeding, have progressed to the point that a complete stipulation on contentions appears imminent.
5.
In viaw of the foregoing, Applicant believes that further attempts to negotiate with the League are un-1 l
warranted and that the Board should rule on the admissi-j bility of the League's contentions.
Wherefore, Applicant respectfully moves the Board i
to decide the admissibility of the contentions previously filed by the League based on the pleadings filed to date with respect to those contentions.
(We note that the Answer of Applicant omitted to state Applicant's opposition to I
3-
-+w
__y
League Contention 13 in the Conclusion, although in the body Alterna-of the Motion we clearly opposed the Contention.)
tively, Applicant requests that the Board set a brief g
schedule to allow each of the parties 15 days to more fully set forth arguments supporting their positions on the League's contentions.
Respectfully submitted, DATED: February 13, 1980 I
',p s
- jf b
Michael I. Miller
~
/9
/
J I
?
I i
./
e f
- / O
' l s./...
a.
Paul M. Murphy I
l.
/
M Alan' K Bielawski 4
Attorneys for 1
Commonwealth Edison Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE l
One First National Plcza I
Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312)558-7500 i
i 4
5 __ __ ;_
r---
--.7.-
\\ W _I I i m
\\
t UNITED STATES Oi AMERICA pocgETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISFION k
usNRG M2 THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR I.
I0treeM*
U&J G
~
Marshall E. Miller, Esquire,. Chairman b Dr. A. Dixon Callihan, Member
(
Dr. Richard F. Cole, Member 4
Q y
I In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454
)
50-455 (Byron Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
l ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFS ON CONTENTIONS OF LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS (February 21, 1980)
On February 13, 1980, Applicant C.ommonwealth Edison Company (Applicant) filed a motion to obtain a ruling on the admissibility of contentions filed by Intervenor League of Women Voters of Rockford (League).
Apparently counsel for the Applicant, Staff, and League have held several meetings in an effort to' refine contentions and These efforts have possibly to stipulate on some or all of them.
not been successful.
All interested parties are directed to file such briefs as they may desire concerning the contentions or amended cohltentions of the Such briefs shall be in the hand,s of the Board not later.-
League.
than March 14, 1980.
It is so ordered.
' FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD dit
- L' Y [ 7 f h [b 6., 1 Dated at Bethesda, Maryland
.Harshall E. Miller,rChainaan this 21st day of February 1980.
pfAr g o F a
2005140}30
EXHIBIT 16 00LMETED U itor.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'81 NOV 24 P3 46 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_'t
~.'~ SECRET /IY
)
In the' Matter of
)
.mG & SERVICE ERANCH
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454
)
50-455 (Byron Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
-)
APPEARANCE Please enter my Appearance in the above-captioned matter on behalf of Intervenor League of Women Voters of Rockford, Illinois.
I am a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of i
a the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sever th and D.C. Circuits, and I am licensed to practice
' law in the States of Illinois and California and the District of Columbia.
f e
) thf
[N
]
MYRON
- f. CH$RRY
/
/
CHER FLYNN & KANTER One Plaza, Suite 450 Chicago, Illinois 6061 (312) 565-1177
~
t 9
, bg P6 O f voo -39019 7 w
m
e c
e s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
l In the. Matter of
.)
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454
)
50-455 (Byron Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Appearance has been served, postage prepaid and properly addressed, on February 22, 1980, upon the Chairman and members of the t'
Licensing, Board, counsel for Commonwealth Edison Company, cognsel for the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the DAARE/ SAFE Intervenors.
fv Mnor caERRY f
_ _ _.