ML20079N382

Motion for Expedited Consideration of Appeal of ASLB Denial of Ol.Facility in Final Stages of Const & Will Be Ready for Fuel Load by 840315.Briefing Schedule Delineated

ML20079N382
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	01/24/1984
From:	Mark Miller COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML20079N384	List: ML20079N382 ML20079N397 ML20079N408
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8401300202
Download: ML20079N382 (6)

Text

'

1/24/84

'a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Uffkc ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD _

T4 JE 27 A10:34 In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. STN 50-454 OL

) STN 50-455 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )

'I'"~~"

)

(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.711, Commonwealth Edison Company (" Appellant") requests the Appeal Board to expedite its consideration of the appeal filed by Commonwealth Edison today. We request that, instead of the time periods shown in 10 CFR S 2.762, Appellant be given 21 days to file its brief, the Appellees and the NRC Staff be given 21 days thereafter for briefs in support or opposition. We also request that Appellant be given permission to file a reply brief within 7 days thereafter.1/ We ask that all pleadings be served by 2/

express nail or other expedited means.- Thus the requested briefing schedule would be:

Appellant's brief February 13, 1984 Appellees' and S'.aff's briefs March 5, 1984 Appellant's reply brief March 12, 1984 1/ See Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and

2) ALAB-282, 2 NRC 9, 10 n. 1 (1975) 2/ This would continue the practice which all parties have Eeen following at the Licensing Board level since the Licensing Board's Memorandun and Order of August 18, 1981.

l 8401300202 840124 PDR ADDCK 05000454 9 PDR

Commonwealth Edison also urges the Appeal Board to schedule

[ oral argument as soon as practicable after all briefs are filed.

There are three bases for expedited treatment of this appeal. First, Byron Station, Unit 1 is in the final stages of construction. Even if the Licensing Board's decision denying Commonwealth Edison's application for operating licenses is reversed and an operating license is issued for Unit 1, there is a potential for delay in start-up due to the licensing process which could cause significant, irreparable harm to commonwealth Edison, its stockholders and ratepayers.

It is, of course, the Commission's policy to avoid such delays. See Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452 (1981). A second consideration is the dramatic, unsettling effect which the Licensing Board's decision, along with other recent events, has had on the financial markets. A prompt decision from this Appeal Board is desirable to reduce the uncertainty engendered by the Licensing Board's decision. A third reason for expedited treatment is the likely impact of the Licensing Board's decision on other pending NRC operating license proceedings.

Attached in support of this motion are two affidavits from officers of Commonwealth Edison. Cordell Reed, a Vice President of the Company, describes the construction status of the plant. As he explains, Commonwealth Edison believes i

. l that there is a 50% probability that Byron Unit 1 will be ready for a fuel load license by February 15, 1984, and a 90% probability that Byron Unit 1 will be ready for initial 3

fuel loading no later than March 15, 1984. / These estimates are based on the reasonable belief that had the Licensing Board's decision been favorable, the NRC Staff would have been willing to defer certain preoperational tests until after fuel load, as they have in recent years for Commonwealth Edison's LaSalle Station and for other utilities' plants. As a result of the Licensing Board's adverse decision, the Company will defer fuel loading as long as possible within its final construction and start-up sequence. This can be done, for example, by completing all preoperational tests before initial fuel loading and conducting further tests to assure that the power ascention program is not interrupted because of the necessity for minor repairs to various plant systems.

Mr. Reed states that fuel loading can be postponed without significant adverse effect on start-up of the unit until July 1, 3984, at the latest.4 / July 1, 1984 therefore represents Commonwealth Edison's best estimate of the end of the period availe.ble for appellate review and, if necessary, further evidentiary hearings before significant costs due to 3/ Appellant's most recent target date for initial fuel loading at Byron Unit 1 was February 15, 1984. This was communicated to the Licensing Board by letter from Appellant's counsel, Michael I. Miller, dated October 3, 1983.

4/ Mr. Reed states that there is a good possi'.ility that all work that may be done prior to fuel load will be completed sooner, by July 1, 1984.

~

licensing delays will begin to accrue. Even on the expedited schedule proposed herein, it is unlikely that a decision could be rendered by the Appeal Board prior to June 1, 1984. Assuming that further evidence is deemed necessary it is Commonwealth Edison's present estimate that at least 60 days would be added to that date to account for the reopened hearings.

The affidavit of Ralph L. Heumann, another Vice President of Commonwealth Edison, estimates the increased costs associated with delay in starting up Byron Unit 1 would be approximately $17 million per month in AFUDC,

$5 million per month in overhead and standby costs, and $16 million per month in additional fuel and purchase power Costs.

Mr. Heumann's affidavit also describes the un-settling effect on the financial markets of the Licensing Board's January 13 decision. From its close at 27 on January 12 to its low point on January 16, 1984, the first full trading day following the issuance of LBP-84-2, the price of Commonwealth Edison's commen stock dropped 5-1/2 points, representing a loss in market value of more than

$900 million. By the end of the week the common stock wr.-

down 3.75 points, still a 14% loss in value. Throughout the week there was very active trading in Commonwealth Edison's 5/ There are of course circumstances beyond Commonwealth Edison's control which could affect the timing described above. In particular, we do not know the substance or the status of the Office of Investigation's pending investigations of certain worker allegations against Hatfield Electric Company, the electrical contractor at Byron. See LBP-84-2, l

pp. 301-302, and 302 n. 75.

- 6 common stock. / We believe that the market was shocked by two aspects of the Licensing Board's decision. The first is that an application for operating licenses was denied even though the Licensing Board did not find, nor has the NRC Staff reported, widespread hardware or construction problems at Byron. LBP-84-2, at pp. 3, 6-7, 270. The second extraordinary aspect of LBP-84-2 is that the Licensing Board issued a final decision denying the application without giving the applicant an opportunity to supplement the record. The point is not the effect of this market upheaval on the Company. At least in the short term, Commonwealth Edison can ride out such fluctu-ations in the prices of its securities. The damage done is to investors who may have bought or sold securities in uncertain reaction to the Licensing Board's decision, or who may do so in the future.

The Licensing Board's decision has also alarmed other applicants for operating licenses. LBP-84-2 states that Commonwealth Edison's evidentiary presentation was inadequate on several subissues. See e.g. LBP-84-2 at pp. 222, 241, 285-286, 290. Moreover, the Licensing Board issued a final 6/ It is impossible to know to what extent the market's behavior was attributable to the circumstances leading up to Public Service Company of Indiana's cancellation of its Marble Hill plant, which took place during the same time period. On the other hand, it is also impossible to say to what extent LBP-84-2 influenced the prices of securities of electric utilities, other than Commonwealth Edison, which own nuclear power plants under construction.

decision denying the application without any indication to the applicant and che Staff that the record before it was insufficient, and without providing them the opportunity to supplement the record with new evidence which the Board itself recognized would be material to its decision. Compare LBP-84-2, pp. 291-297, 300, 410 with 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A, Section V(g) (1) .

For all of the foregoing reasons prompt appellate review is desirable.

CONCLUSION Commonwealth Edison believes that expedited con-sideration of this appeal is in the public interest. We are authorized to state that the NRC Staff has no objection to the briefing schedule proposed herein. Counsel for Inter-venors DAARE/ SAFE and Rockford League of Women Voters has informed us that she objects to the proposed briefing schedule.

Respectfully submitted, lli

} f. Dt4 f l &

MichaerI. Miller Isham, Lincoln & Beale

3 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558 7500 dated: January 24, 1984 l

l l

- - - - - - . . . . . . - , - . _