ML20080E819

Motion for Increase in Page Limitation to File Brief Up to 120 Pages.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20080E819
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	02/06/1984
From:	Steptoe P COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8402100149
Download: ML20080E819 (5)

Text

• February 6, 1984 00CKtTED U; HC b

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 84 FEB -9 A10 :48 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD kr7FE cr D. T ><

CCC:(Eii:,d - cir' .

BRAfMH In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. STN 50-4S4 OL

) STN 50-455 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )

)

(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR AN INCREASE IN PAGE LIMITATION Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.762(e), Commonwealth Edison Company (" Appellant") respectfully requests permission to file a brief of up to 120 pages in length in this case. Appellant emphasizes that it will make every effort to keep the brief shorter than 120 pages, and indeed as short as possible.

The ne'ed for the increase in the usual 70 page limit has become apparent as Appellant's counsel has begun drafting the brief. At the present time Appellant expects its brief to include the following, in addition to various required tables which do not count towards the 70 page limit:

(1) A statement of the case, with relevant procedural history. See Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-388, 5 NRC 640 (1977).

l 1

1 8402100149 840206 PDR ADOCK 05000454 G PDR

i l

• (2) An argument that the Licensing Board ignored  ;

the weight of the evidence in finding that l j Intervenors had prevailed on League Contention 1A and that Appellant's quality assurance over-sight of various contractors was inadequate.

i See Initial Decision ("ID"), 1s D-429 to D-449  !

I and pp. 4-7, 409. [

t

! (3) An argument that the Licensing Board erred in l

! concluding that completion of Appellant's rein- l l spection program was a matter which could not be j left to the Staff for post-hearing verification.  !

See ID, 1s D-418 to D-428. l 1

(4) An argument that the Licensing Board violated

) Appellant's rights, including its right to due 1 i process, in holding an ex parte, in camera hearing, with representatives of tee Office of i l Inspection and Enforcement, Region III and the Office of Investigations to learn the status of pending inspections and investigations. See j

- ID, 1D-440, and footnote 75. NotwithstandIng

). the Licensing Board's statement that it did not

! use this secret information in its decision, i Appellant will argue that the Board was improperly influenced by it.

I j (5) An argument that even if the Licensing Board was

~

correct in concluding that the record was in-I sufficient to support issuance of operating licenses,

] it erred in denying Appellant's application rather j than reopening the record for further evidence.

See ID, p. 410.

(6) A motion to reopen the record to permit Appellant 4

to provide further evidence on.its reinspection program and any other matter as to which the .

Appeal Board should find the record is inadequate.

I As Appellant drafts its brief, it is finding that i

i the weight of the evidence argument, in particular, (Item 2

! above) is inherently lengthy. To effectively present Appellant's position, as well as to be of any use to'the Appeal' Board, this portion'of Appellant's brief must contain a' painstaking and!

detailed analysis of the record. The Appeal Board has of-i course already indicated in the January.27-telephone' conference l

1

i

• its desire that the briefing in this case be thorough.

'Intervenors' counsel and NRC Staff counsel have both stated to Appellant's counsel that they have mo objection to the requested increase in page limit. The NRC Staff notes that it may find it necessary to request a commensurate ex-pansion of the page limitation for its brief after reviewing the briefs filed by Commonwealth Edison and Intervenors. In-tervenors' counsel expressed a similar reservation.

There is one other matter, not directly related to this motion, which Appellant would like to bring to the Appeal Board's attention. In connection with the fourth matter listed above, Applicant will object in its brief to the Appeal Board's reviewing the unexpurgated transcript of the Licensing Board's in camera, ex parte session on August 9 and 10. At least until such time as the Appeal Board has the opportunity to consider the arguments in Appellant's brief, Appellant respectfully

• /

requests the Appeal Board not to look at that transcript.-

1 bmi Ied ,

Res[-

~ ,

bM h 149 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 3 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 Dated: February 6, 1984

• There is a version of that transcript which has been " sanitized" with numerous deletions. Appellant has no objection to.the Appeal Board's looking at the " sanitized" transcript.

9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. STN 50-454 OL

) STN 50-455 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )

)

(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Philip P. Steptoe, one of the attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company, hereby certify that a copy of

" Appellant's Motion For an Increase in page Limitation" was served upon all persons shown in the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 6th day of February, 1984. Expedited means were used where indicated.

C ~'-

Philip g Steptch SUBSCRIBED AND S before me this/IjgRN TO-day of February, 1984.

• e ee ) -

Notary Public My Commission Expires Japaq R W 1

l

SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Chairman *Mr. Richard J. Rawson Administrative Judge Ms. Mitzi A. Young Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Road Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Bethesda, Md. 20814 Administrative Judge Room 9604 Union Carbide Corporation P. O. Box Y Atomic Safety and Licensing Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio!

Dr. Richard F. Cole Washington, D. C. 20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Panel Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissiot Washington, D. C. 20555 Joseph Gallo, Esq. t Isham, Lincoln & Beale Docketing & Service Section Suite 840 Office of the Secretary 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio:

Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 Region III - " ' '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Office of Inspection & Enforcement . . .. . .

799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

• Christine W. Kohl Administrative Judge Ms. Betty Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing 1907 Stratford Lane Appeal Board Rockford, Illinois 61107 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio!

4350 East-West Highway Ms. Diane Chavez Bethesda, Md. 20814 SAFE 3rd floor - call 492 7663 326 N. Avon Street Rockford, Illinois 61103 *Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy '

Administrative Judge Dr. Bruce von Zellen AtomicSafety and Licensing Appeal Department of Biological Sciences Board Northern Illinois University U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio!

DeKalb, Illinois 60115 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Md. 20814 j *Douglass W. Cassel, Jr., Esq. 3rd floor - call 492 7663 Jane M. Whicher, Esq.

BPI

• Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 109 N. Dearborn St.; Suite 1300 Atomic Safety and Licensing Chicago, Illinois 60602 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissiot Ms. Patricia Morrison 4350 East-West Highway 5568 Thunderidge Drive Beth sda, Md. 20814

} Rockford, Illinois 61107 3rd floor - call 492 7663

• service by Federal Express or messenger l