ML20133G975
| ML20133G975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1985 |
| From: | Rorem B ROREM, B. |
| To: | Brenner L, Callihan D, Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#485-783 OL, NUDOCS 8510160208 | |
| Download: ML20133G975 (2) | |
Text
'
00L,KETED
.c 117 florth Linden Street Essex, Illinois 60935
- 85 (CT 19 A10:18 8 October 1985 0FFIE OF SECnt du 00CKETiNG & SERVICL BRANCH Herbert Grossman, Esquire, Chairman Lawrence Brenner, Esquire Administrative Law Judge Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 i
Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Law Judge Administrative Law Judge 102 Oak Lane Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re:
In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457)OL Gentlemen:
Applicant's motion to restrict the meaning of my contention (Rorem Contention 1 (a)) should be denied. The language of the contention, as accepted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in August 1979, should be evaluated on the basis of 10 CFR 50.47 (a)(1):
"Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by fiRC that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective meas-ures can and will be taken in the event of a radiolog-ical emergency."
Since notification of the public, both before and during an accident, is an integral part of any reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency, public noti-fication activities at the time of an accident should not be excluded from consideration.
I have expressed concerns about public notification at the time of an accident to both Mr. Gallo and Mr. Copeland, attorneys for Applicant, and Ms. Chan, !!RC staff attorney.
A_t the July 23 prehearing conference, Ms. Chan approached me during the lunch break and asked that I agree to limit the issues contained in my contention 1 (a) to the matter of the public information brochure.
I responded that I was concerned about public information and notification to a muchgreater extent than that, and I 851016020e 851000 PDR ADOCK 05000456 G
PDR h03 1
~
t 8 October 1985 Page 2 related several of my specific concerns. Ms. Chan walked off, declaring, "There is simply no working with you."
In the afternoon portion of the prehearing conference, Ms. Chan com-plained that I was suddenly bringing up new matters of concern, and I re-sponded that I had addressed those concerns in my responses to Interroga-tories. Judge Brenner agreed that he remembered that I had done so.
(July 23,1985 Prehearing Conference Transcript 178-181.)
When I received Mr. Gallo's August 15 motion, I felt that his argu-ments inaccurately described my concerns and how I had addressed those Concerns.
iiowever, after rereading the motion, I realized that thd arguments contained in the motion, and the language which Mr. Gallo sought as a substitute for the accepted language of the contention, did not fit to-gether as well as he thought they did.
Therefore, I called Mr. Gallo and told him I would agree to the language.
That the language Mr. Gallo sought in his motion is not as exclusion-ary as he desired is shown by the fact that in the September 30 telephone conference call, he refused to accept my signature on the stipulation without the language added by Ms. Chan.
To my knowledge, no party to this hearing can restrict the meaning of my contention without asking for summary disposition, which Applicant has not done.
I:r. Gallo's October 2 letter leaves the impression that I have been dilatory in advising the parties and the Board of my position.
Ms. Chan had also expressed skepticism that I had not received the stipulation, signed by her and by Mr. Gallo, which she had sent to me by Federal Express.
When I asked that she trace it, she found that it had been delivered to a neighbor, who had forgotten to deliver it to me.
I did not receive it until several days before the conference call.
i Sincerely, c& $& k&nu' Bridget Little Rorem bir/bir copies to service list