ML20137N913

Errata Correcting Page 9 to ASLB 860131 Memorandum & Order, Accepting Intervenor Offer of Proof Issues 2,3,4 & 6, Restricted to Matl Facts Contained in Intervenor 860121 Reply for Litigation.Served on 860203

ML20137N913
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	02/03/1986
From:	Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#186-921 79-410-03-OL, 79-410-3-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8602040288
Download: ML20137N913 (2)

Text

%l,

m j ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 8),W 9 /

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 94ISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g6[ Dac:m3 FEB -3 79ggdh Before Administrative Judges: 4 4 Herbert Grossman, Chaiman /h #

YM Richard F. Cole A. Dixon Callihan SERVED FEB 3 1986

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-456-OL 50-457-0L COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) ASLSP No. 79-410-03-OL

)

)

(Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. I and 2) ) February 3, 1986

)

ERRATA The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hereby issues the attached Corrected Page 9 to its January 31, 1986 Memorandum and Order (Accept-ing for Litigation Intervenor's Offer of Proof Issues 2, 3, 4 and 6, a5 Restricted to the Material Facts Contained in Intervenor's Reply of January 21,1986).

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD LluV % ~

Herbert Grossman, Chaiman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE h f>k $ D )

kb C

Sol

o

-9 proof in which they would present their respective positions on the merits of the issues raised by intervenor in the nature of motions for summary disposition. On the basis of those factual presentations by Applicant and Staff, the parties were ordered to confer with the view towards resolving or narrowing the issues where possible. Mrs. Rorem would then file her reply, going to the merits of the remaining issues. (Tr. 433-34, 457-58.)

The parties timely briefed the issues and conferred, pursuant to the Board's schedule as later amended. We commend counsel for Appli-cant, George L. Edgar, Esq., for his sustained efforts in arranging to confer with Mrs. Rorem.

As a result, we have before us four relatively focused issues, specifying their respective factual underpinnings, in place of the seven broad ones contained in the offer of proof. We believe that, in

the form presented, these issues appear material and subject to proof in a relatively succinct manner in a well-focused hearing. We make no final determination as to their legal sufficiency. Any further attack on their legal sufficiency can be offered in motions to strike filed before the scheduled hearing and/or in posthearing briefings.

We accept the issues for hearing at this juncture as a matter of Board discretion. We recognize that Intervenor failed to disclose these issues adequately in the two weeks before hearing from October CORRECTED PAGE (to 1/31/86 M&O)

._. -. .--