ML20092N112
| ML20092N112 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1984 |
| From: | Gallo J, Lauer R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8407020504 | |
| Download: ML20092N112 (7) | |
Text
R5a June 27, 1984 4
C3; m. -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA J
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'8 A BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Sil IU8 In the Matter Of:
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwcod Nuclear Power
)
50-457 Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY's STATUS REPORT AND MOTION TO ESTABLISH A HEARING SCHEDULE By order dated June 8, 1984, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") requested all parties to submit information concerning the status of contentions and to submit recommendations regarding a proposed schedule.
Commonwealth Edison Company
(" Applicant") hereby provides the following updated information concerning the status of contentions and moves the Licensing Board to establish a schedule for the conduct of hearings.
Status Of Contentions At a special prehearing conference on August 23, 1979, the Licensing Board admitted two contentions proposed oy Intervenor Bridget Little Rorem, et al. and seven con-tentions proposed by Intervenor Bob Neiner Farms, Inc., et 1
8407020504 840627 PDR ADOCK 05000456 G
} $D
F al..
-The Licensing Board, at that time, deferred ruling on
.two other Neiner Farms contentions, Contention 4 (trans-portation of hazardous material near the site) and Con-tention 8 (necessity for including the transient population from a site recreational center for evaluation under 10 C.F.R. Part 100).
The Board has not yet ruled on the ad-missibility of either of these two contentions.
Applicant urges the Board to rule at this time on the admissibility of Contention 4.
The issue of the ad-missibility of Contention 4 has been briefed and argued by the' parties and is ripe for decision.-*/
Contention 8, as written, should be withdrawn or dismissed and the concern raised therein should be consoli-dated as a part of admitted Neiner Farm Contention 3 on emergency planning issues.
At the time Contention 8 was proposed, 10 C.F.R. Part 100 controlled the emergency plan-ning requirements for population centers outside the low population zone.
10 C.F.R. S100. ll(a) ( 3).
Contention 8 attempts to place into issue a recreational area located approximately 8 miles from the plant.
Subsequently, in the
' aftermath of the TMI-2 incident, the NRC developed the
- /
See Answer of Commonwealth Edison Company to the Contentions of Bob Neiner Farms, dated August 22, 1979; Special Prehearing Conference at Tr. 32-37 (August 23, 1979); Letter from Myron Karman to ASLB, dated September 12, 1979; Applicant's Supplemental Brief on Contention 4, dated September 13, 1979.
O 4
emergency planning requirements of 10 C.F.R. S50.47.
These requirements, inter alia, define generally a 10 mile plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone that necessarily encompasses the recreational center at issue in Contention 8.-
Therefore, the original concern raised in contention 8 that the recreational facility be subject to emergency planning procedures is addressed by the more recent re-quirements of 10 C.F.R. S50.47.
The question of whether or not' adequate protective action is being planned for the transient population at the recreational center under 10 C.F.R.
S50.47 is a prcper basis for a contention.
Con-sequently, this issue should be consolidated with the exist-ing Neiner Farm emergency planning contention 3.
Applicant, Staff, and Intervenors met in the last few months for the purpose of considering revisions or amendments to contentions and the question of schedule.
Counsel for Intervenor Rorem submitted revised contentions to Applicant, but no agreement was reached with regard to the proposed revisions on schedule.
Intervenor Neiner Farms did not participate in these meetings and discussions.
Motion ~ Requesting The Establishment Of A Hearing Schedule Almost five years have passed since the special prehearing conference in this proceeding was held.
Both the i L._
V Safety Evaluation Report and the Draft Environmental State-ment were docketed in December 1983.
Likewise, the Final Environmental Statement is scheduled to be issued in June 1984.
These developments, together with the number and complexity of the issues to be litigated in this proceeding, indicate the advisability of proceeding expeditiously with issue resolution and hearing preparation.
The first step in this process should be to define the contentions which are to be litigated and to establish a schedule for hearing and resolution of these contentions.
e To these ends, Applicant proposes the following schedule:
l Intervenors would have 14 days after issuance of the Board's rulings on this Motion and on the admissibility of Contentions 4 and 8 in which to propose, if they so desire, revisions to their contentions.
Applicant would have 10 days and Staff would have 15 days to file answers to any proposed revisions to contentions.
Discovery on all issues would close 45 days after the Board's ruling on the proposed revisions to contentions.
For environmental issues, discovery would remain open at least until 15 days after the receipt of the FES.
Responses to discovery re-quests would be due 15 days after the discovery is initiated.
Motions for summary disposition would be filed i
within 25 days after the close of discovery.
Replies to motions for summary disposition would be due 20 days after the filing of such motions.
Hearings would commence 45 days after the Board's l
ruling on motions for summary disposition with testimony being prefiled 14 days prior to hearing.
I L l
l r
t Applicant believes that a schedule such as the one proposed above is both a reasonable and a necessary way to proceed.
This proceeding was commenced five years ago and has been essentially dormant for the past two years.
The time has come to actively engage in the prehearing and i
hearing processes.
Efforts by the parties to informally agree on the contentions have not resolved the issues to be set for hearing, and it is now time for the Board to act to define the issues to be heard and to get the case underway.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the Board I
rule on the admissibility of Neiner Farms Contentions 4 and 8 and adopt the schedule proposed by Applicant.
F Respectfully submitted, v N 9.h b N ' fVe
(
p Jodbph Gallo Abten [. j-awly'c.
Rebecca J.
Lauer Attorneys For COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY i
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 840 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 833-9730 Three First National Plaza
. Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 3
(312) 558-7500 DATED:
' June 27, 1984.
P
41 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter Of:
)
I i
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Nuclear Power
)
50-457 Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
L CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Bertha Castro, certify that copies of Com-monwealth Edison Company's Status Report And Motion To Establish A Hearing Schedule have been served in the above-captioned matter.on those persons listed on the attached Service List and served as indicated on that Service List, this 27th day of June, 1984.
A Bertha Castro ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE f
Three First National Plaza.
Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 DATED:
June 27, 1984
s:
SERVICE LIST
~
- Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
- Mr.
Scott W. Stucky Chairman Chief, Docketing and Services j
Administrative. Law Judge United States Nuclear Regulatory
?
Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Office of the Secretary 1
United States Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555
- C. Allen Bock, Esq.
P.O. Box 342
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Urbana, IL 61801
[
Administrative Law Judge f
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Waaler, Evans & Gordon Commission 2503 South Neil Washington, DC 20555 Champaign, IL 61820 i.
- Dr. A. Dixon Callihan
- Ms. Bridget Little Rorem l
Administrative Law Judge 117 North Linden Street i
Union Carbide Corporation Essex, IL 60935 P.O. Box "Y" Oak Ridge, TN ~37830 l
- Jane M. Whicher, Esq.
BPI r
- Myron Karman, Esq.
109 North Dearborn Street
[
-Office of the Executive Legal Suite 1300 Director Chicago, IL 60602 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington, DC 20555
- Ms.
Lorraine Creek Route 1 Box 182
'*** Atonde Safety and Licensing Manteno, IL 60950 i'
' Board Panel United States Nuclear Regulatory
[
Commission
- Erie Jones, Director Washington, DC 20555 Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency 110 East Adams 1 *** Atomic. Safety and Licensing Springfield, IL 62705 Appeal Board Panel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 i
- . Sent by Federal Express on June 27, 1984 for delivery on June 28, 1984.
To be hand delivered on June 27, 1984.
- Sent by first class mail on June 27, 1984.
-