ML20087M979

Comments on 840327 Meeting in Chicago,Il Re Means for Resuming Hearing Process.Ruling on Contention 4 Requested by 840426.Related Correspondence

ML20087M979
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	03/30/1984
From:	Gallo J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Callihan A, Cole R, Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8404020249
Download: ML20087M979 (2)

Text

O  %

~

ac Lnf c D Conm.Si ONDENCE ', -

t,,~ -

. SD-WyVVh

'" '"'" "~

p $ l SHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE ,,

COUNSELORS AT LAW f}

• i 0. . . . _ .'

1t20 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N W.

• Suite 840 WASHINGTON.O C 20036 R 8 RT T UNC N 1 '2 g HREE i $ NATO AL PLAZA wituAu a sExtE. ws m3 gguys,eoeo:

TELEr a s2ss OFi k . ' E ra !!

!1 arch 30, 1984 000Elggi" Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Law Judge Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Union Carbide Corporation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box Y .

Washington, D.C. 20555 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:

A meeting was held in Chicago on March 27 among representatives of Commonwealth Edison Company, the NRC Staff and the Intervenors, Ms. Bridget Rorem and the Neiner Farm group.

Ms. Rorem was represented by Ms. Jane Whicher. Counsel for the Neiner Farm group were not present; however, Ms. Lorraine Creek acted as spokesperson. Mr. Myron Karman represented the NRC Staff.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the means for resuming the hearing process. Counsel for Commonwealth Edison suggested a procedural schedule leading to evidentiary hearings during October, 1984. However, Ms. Whicher indicated that Ms.

Rorem wished to revise or amend her contentions. Ms. Rorem presently has two contentions admitted to the proceeding. After some discussion, it was agreed that as the first procedural step to resuming the hearing process, Ms. Rorem would submit any revised contentions to the Licensing Board and parties by April 26, 1984. The Staff and Commonwealth Edison will submit replies by May 16. Thereafter, on or about May 24, the parties plan to meet for the purpose of attempting to reconcile any differences and establishing a schedule of future procedural milestones.

Counsel for Commonwealth believes it would be desirable to plan for a prehearing conference during the latter part of June.

t l

The representatives of the Neiner Farm group, being without counsel, were unable to state whether or not they desired to revise their contentions. Moreover, they understandably were unable to agree to the foregoing schedule without first consult-ing with their counsel, Messrs. Bock and Gordon. In sum, the 8404020249 840330 .  !

PDR ADOCK 05000454  !

O PDR i 9503  ;

e %

March 30, 1984 Page 2 ability of the participants to reach closure on the matters discussed during the meeting was seriously handicapped by the absence of Neiner's counsel. This outcome was particularly i

disappointing since considerable effort had been expended to obtain the attendance of either Mr. Bock or Mr. Gordon. I trust that Neiner's counsel will in the future see fit to attend to this case. The first step would be to adopt the schedule stated above.

The admissibility of two contentions proposed by the Neiner Farm group is pending before the Licensing Board. One, contention 8, concerns the application of the siting criteria in 10 C.F.R. Part 100. Counsel for Commonwealth Edison believes that the status of this contention will be reconciled during a future meeting among the parties. However, this is not the case with respect to Contention 4 concerning the consequences of an accident involving a train loaded with ammunition and high explosives bound for the Joliet Arsenal. This issue has been briefed and argued by the parties (See Neiner's " Petition to Intervene - Supplemental and Amended Contentions," dated August 7, 1979; the August 22, 1979 " Answer of Commonwealth Edison Company To The Cententions of Bob Neiner Farms," pp. 4-5; August 23, 1979 Special Prehcaring Conference, Tr. 31-37; Neiner's September 12, 1979 filing entitled " Supplemental Information";

NRC Staff Counsel's letter of September 12, 1979; and

" Applicant's Supplemental Brief on Contention 4," dated September 14, 1979. Counsel respectively requests that the Licensing Board issue a ruling on Contention 4 by April 26, 1984.

Sincerely, a b N j'

Joseph Gallo One of the Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company JG:sv cc: Service List

! l I

l l

l t

._ - - - -