ML20133L080

Statement of Position on Proposed License Condition Re 756-kV Transmission Line Issue.Board Lacks Jurisdiction to Impose Condition Limiting Const of Transmission Line in Vicinity of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20133L080
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	08/07/1985
From:	Gallo J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20133L073	List: ML20133L069 ML20133L080
References
OL, NUDOCS 8508120491
Download: ML20133L080 (6)

Text

'o L

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA a9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) DOLKETED

) Docket Nos. 50-4560L USNRC COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) 50-457

)

(Braidwood Nuclear Power ) '85 AUG -9 A10 57 Station, Units 1 and 2) )

GFFFE C; U. R ..m DOCRIt% a SE8V!1 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF POSITION ERAl!CH REGARDING A PROPOSED LICENSE CONDITION Commonwealth Edison Company (" Applicant") and Intervenor Bob Neiner Farms, acting through their respective counsel, have engaged in several discussions for the purpose of reaching agreement on a license condition in connection with the 765 kV transmission line issue. Despite these efforts, it is now clear that no agreement is possible. The parties must therefore stand on their respective legal positions.

The Applicant believes that the Licensing Board lacks jurisdiction to impose a condition on the Braidwood Station operating license limiting construction of a 765 kV transmission line in the vicinity of Braidwood. As explained more fully in Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition, the environmental impacts of a future transmission line that may be constructed to transmit power from additional units at Braidwood or elsewhere are not foreseeable impacts of the federal action under the Licensing Board's review, which is the operation of Braidwood Units 1 and 2. Such potential environ-mental impacts are therefore not within the Board's NEPA jurisdiction.

7 85081204918508h456

{DR ADOCK 0500 PDR

O

- em

/

Mr. Bock, on behalf of his client, proposes the following condition:

1. The electricity generated by Braidwood Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2 will be transmitted over 345 kV transmission lines.

2. No electricity will be transmitted from Units 1 and 2 by 765 kV transmission lines, and no 765 kV line will be constructed on the Braidwood to Wilton Center Transmission Substation right-of-way unless and until other units are constructed at Braidwood Station or at other locations on the licensee's system. The construction of those future

~

units, if it occurs at all, will not occur sooner than 18.5 years.

3. Applicant will give personal notice to Intervenor at the time of applying for a construction permit for any additional units, nuclear or nonnuclear, cx1 the licensee's system.

In addition to the jurisdictional objection noted above, this proposal is objectionable because it imposes a burdensome restriction on Applicant's future construction program for electric generating capacity that is not supported by the record before the Board. The testimony does not support the imposition of a license condition for any period 1 of time, let alone the time period advocated by Mr. Bock's client.  !

l

The second sentence of Condition 2 would impose a prohibition on the construction of future generating capacity on Applicant's system for a period of 18.5 years.

In fact the sentence would impose a longer construction moratorium, since construction could not commence prior to the expiration of 18.5 year period. Thus, given the 7 or 8 year lead time for fossil plants and the 12 to 15 year lead time for nuclear plants, the moratorium would actually last between 25 to 33 years. Such a provision is unreasonable.

Moreover, the record does not support such a condition.

Mr. Getty testified only that (1) presently Applicant did not intend to install any additional capacity at Braidwood Station or the associated 765 kV transmission lines for about 25 years; and (2) that based on the most likely long-range o scenarios, installation of 765 kV in the vicinity of Braidwood due to other future generating units would not occur before this time.

Condition 1 and the first sentence of Condition 2, standing alone, are mere surplusage and any operating license that may issue for the Braidwood Station should not be freighted with this excess baggage. This leaves the notice provision of Mr. Bock's Condition 3. As stated, the condition goes too far. The Applicant would be required to give notice to Intervenor at any time in the future of any generating b

unit anywhere on its system. The condition on its face has

i no connection with this contention or this proceeding.

Applicant would, however, accede to the imposition of a more limited notice provision. Such a condition would pre side :

Licensee will give personal notice to Bob Neiner Farms, Inc. at the time of applying for any construction permit for the addition of one or more nuclear units at 4

the Braidwood Station.

Although Applicant believes that even this provision goes beyond the scope of the Licensing Board's jurisidiction in this proceeding, Applicant would not object to its imposi-tion as a condition to an operating license for Braidwood Units 1 and 2. Any further restriction, even assuming the Board had jurisdiction to impose it, would be unreasonable and should be rejected by the Board.

Respectfully submitted, ISRAM, LINCOLN & BEALE BY t/

Ode of the Attorneys for COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY Joseph Gallo ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 840 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 833-9730 Dated: August 7, 1985

1 i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-4560L DDLEETED COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) 50-457 USNRC

)

(Braidwood Nuclear Power )

Station, Units 1 and 2) ) 15 AW -9 A10 57 0FFicf 0F SELat!Ar CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 00CXETinG & SEPvio BRANCH I, Linda J. Nosal, a non-attorney, do hereby swear on oath that copies of MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OUT-OF-TIME and NPMJCANT'S STATEMENT OF POSITION REGARDING A PROPOSED LICENSE CONDITION were served on the persons listed below and identified with one asterisk by Federal Express / Zap Mail; the persons identified with two asterisks by Federal Express and the remaining persons listed below by depositing the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 7th day of August, 1985.

Lawrence Brenner, Esq. Stuart Treby, Esq.

Chairman Elaine I. Chan, Esq.

Administrative Law Judge Office of the Executive Legal Atomic Safety and Licensing Director Board United States Nuclear Regulatory United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Richard F. Cole Board Panel Administrative Law Judge United States Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, DC 20555 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel United States Nuclear Regulatory Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Commission Administrative Law Judge Washington, DC 20555 102 Oak Lane Oak Ridge, TN 37830

r 3 o 1

Mr. William L. Clements Robert Guild Chief, Docketing and Services Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Timothy W. Wright, III Commission BPI Office of the Secretary 109 North Dearborn Street Washington, DC 20555 Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60602

• C. Allen Bock, Esq.

P.O. Box 342 Ms. Lorraine Creek Urbana, IL 61801 Route 1 Box 182 Manteno, IL 60950 Ms. Bridget Little Rorem 117 North Linden Street P.O. Box 208 Charles Jones, Director Essex, IL 60935 Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency 110 East Adams Springfield, IL 62705

,/

b-.

LINDA J. {pSAL SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 7th day of August , 1985.

e xpgl NOT RY PUBLIC Wy Commissi:n Expires D::: c.t:- 2? ::3