ML20079N557: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _          .            . _ _ _          _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
{{#Wiki_filter:- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                                                                       Oggf NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g27 kl N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL                                                                                               ARD In the Matter of                                                                                                                      )
Oggf UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g27 kl N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL ARD gU bg?%
gU bg?%
3RM CM In the Matter of
3RM CM
)
                                                                                                                                                                              )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY                                                                                                           )   Docket No. 50-454
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                              )               50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)                                                                                                         )
)
INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR
Docket No. 50-454
                                                '                EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION Intervenors support expedition of Edison's appeal of LBP-84-2 (Initial Decision) dated January 13, 1984.                                                                                                   The economic consequences of Edison's inadequate quality assurance program at Byron, a           set forth at length in Edison's Motion for Expedited Consideration, filed January 24, are such that expedition is important to Edison ratepayers, including the members of Intervenors' organizations.
)
50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION Intervenors support expedition of Edison's appeal of LBP-84-2 (Initial Decision) dated January 13, 1984.
The economic consequences of Edison's inadequate quality assurance program at Byron, a set forth at length in Edison's Motion for Expedited Consideration, filed January 24, are such that expedition is important to Edison ratepayers, including the members of Intervenors' organizations.
However, we oppose the unfair schedule proposed by Edison, and offer an alternative.
However, we oppose the unfair schedule proposed by Edison, and offer an alternative.
The Board's decision was issued on January 13, 1984                                                                                                   Edison's Notice of Appeal was filed 10 days later.                                                                                                   If Edison had prompt-ly filed its notice of appeal, its brief would be due in 30 days (10 C.F.R. 52.762(b)) or on February 13, the same date proposed in Edison's schedule.           Intervenors would then have 30 days to B401300261 840125                                                                                                                                                             '>
The Board's decision was issued on January 13, 1984 Edison's Notice of Appeal was filed 10 days later.
PDR ADOCK 05000454 O                   PDR                                                                                                       .
If Edison had prompt-ly filed its notice of appeal, its brief would be due in 30 days (10 C.F.R. 52.762(b)) or on February 13, the same date proposed in Edison's schedule.
g o                                                                                                                                                                                             -    __ -.        __
Intervenors would then have 30 days to B401300261 840125 PDR ADOCK 05000454 O
PDR g
o


v   ,
v
    * * ^'     respond, or until March 14.   ($2.762(c)) Thus, under normal
^'
              ' Appeal Board practice, all briefing would have been completed by March _14.
respond, or until March 14.
In contrast, Edison has proposed a schedule that expedites only Intervenors' and the staff's briefs. Moreover, Edison has added 'seven. additional days to the end of the schedule for a reply brief, even though no reply is contemplated under the regulations. Accordingly, Intervenors propose the following schedule, which would conclude briefing by the same date proposed by Edison:
($2.762(c))
Edison's Brief:                           February 13, 1984 (30 days from service of the licensing board's decision on Edison.)
Thus, under normal
Intervenors' and Staff Briefs :           March 12, 1984 (28 days from service of Edison's brief.)
' Appeal Board practice, all briefing would have been completed by March _14.
In contrast, Edison has proposed a schedule that expedites only Intervenors' and the staff's briefs.
Moreover, Edison has added 'seven. additional days to the end of the schedule for a reply brief, even though no reply is contemplated under the regulations.
Accordingly, Intervenors propose the following schedule, which would conclude briefing by the same date proposed by Edison:
Edison's Brief:
February 13, 1984 (30 days from service of the licensing board's decision on Edison.)
Intervenors' and Staff Briefs :
March 12, 1984 (28 days from service of Edison's brief.)
While economic considerations require expedition, this Board's paramount concern - the safety of the Byron plant -
While economic considerations require expedition, this Board's paramount concern - the safety of the Byron plant -
requires sufficient time for responsible briefing. Intervencrs'
requires sufficient time for responsible briefing.
<              schedule would allow fair and adequate time for all parties ,
Intervencrs' schedule would allow fair and adequate time for all parties,
whereas Edison proposes expedition at the expense of other parties. Edison's proposal is inconsistent with a full and fair adversary presentation to this Board. We accordingly ask the Board to adopt intervenors ' proposed schedule, or any other
whereas Edison proposes expedition at the expense of other parties.
Edison's proposal is inconsistent with a full and fair adversary presentation to this Board.
We accordingly ask the Board to adopt intervenors ' proposed schedule, or any other
[=
[=
4
4
              ' schedule which allows for full and fair briefing on an exnedited basis.
' schedule which allows for full and fair briefing on an exnedited basis.


t j                                                                        Respectfully submitted,
t Respectfully submitted, j
;                                                                                ,C JANE M. WHICHER i
,C
([J(h
. ([J(h JANE M. WHICHER i
                                                                                                            ~ '
~
h *,
h *,
.                    .                                                  Attorney .for Intervenors Rockford League of Women Voters and DidRE/ SAFE 109 North  
Attorney.for Intervenors Rockford League of Women Voters and DidRE/ SAFE 109 North  


==Dearborn,==
==Dearborn,==
  #1300 January 25, 1984                                         Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 641-5570 d
  #1300 January 25, 1984 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 641-5570 d
e i
e i
k 4
k 4
j J
j J
f e                                           A
f e
A


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of                         )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
                                                    )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY             )   Docket No. 50-454
)
                                                    )                 50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)           )
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify this 25th day of January,1984, that copies of "INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION" in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class , or, as indicated by an asterisk, by Federal Express.
)
* Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman                 Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Administrative Judge                         Adminis trative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing                   Atomic Safety and Appeal Board                                 Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                       U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                   Commission Washington, D.C.       20555                 Washington, D.C. 20555
Docket No. 50-454
* Christine N. Kohl                           Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Judge                         Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing                   Unic' Carbide Corporation Appeal Board                               P.O. Sex Y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                       Oak Ridge, TN   37830 Commission Washinrton, D.C.       20555                 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge
)
          *Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy                       Atomic Safety and Administrative Judge                           Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing                   Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                       Alan P. Bielawski, Esq.
50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
Couaission                                 Bruce Becker, Esq.
)
Wa shingt or. , D.C. 20555                 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Chicago, IL 60603 m_ _
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify this 25th day of January,1984, that copies of "INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION" in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by Federal Express.
* Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Administrative Judge Adminis trative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Appeal Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
* Christine N. Kohl Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Unic' Carbide Corporation Appeal Board P.O. Sex Y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Commission Washinrton, D.C.
20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge
*Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Atomic Safety and Administrative Judge Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Alan P. Bielawski, Esq.
Couaission Bruce Becker, Esq.
Wa shingt or., D.C.
20555 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Chicago, IL 60603 m_


Richard J. Rawson, Esq.                             .0ffice of the Secretary Mitzi A. Young, Esq.                                   of the Commission Office-of the General Counsel                       ATTENTION: Docketing and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                               Service Section Conunission                                       U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555                               Commission Washington, D.C.       20555 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Richard J. Rawson, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale                               David Thomas , Esq.
.0ffice of the Secretary Mitzi A. Young, Esq.
1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.                         77 South Wacker Drive Room 325                                             Chicago, IL     60621 Washington, D.C. 20036
of the Commission Office-of the General Counsel ATTENTION:
                                                                                . 1   .  ,
Docketing and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Service Section Conunission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
e .. .cAC4         A'l /         dd h ,$b
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
                                                              " JANE M. WillC ER January 25, 1984 I
20555 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale David Thomas, Esq.
1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
77 South Wacker Drive Room 325 Chicago, IL 60621 Washington, D.C.
20036 1
e...cAC4 A'l /
dd h,$b
" JANE M. WillC ER January 25, 1984 I
v}}
v}}

Latest revision as of 23:00, 14 December 2024

Motion for Expedition of Util Appeal of 840113 Initial Decision LBP-84-2 Re Inadequate QA Program.Aslab Should Adopt Intervenor Proposed Schedule Which Allows for Full & Fair Briefing on Expedited Basis.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20079N557
Person / Time
Site: Byron  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 01/25/1984
From: Whicher J
DEKALB AREA ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ROCKFORD, IL, SAFE ENERGY FOR NEW HAVEN, WHICHER, J.M.
To:
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
LBP-84-2, NUDOCS 8401300261
Download: ML20079N557 (5)
v • d • e


Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Oggf UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g27 kl N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL ARD gU bg?%

3RM CM In the Matter of

)

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-454

)

50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION Intervenors support expedition of Edison's appeal of LBP-84-2 (Initial Decision) dated January 13, 1984.

The economic consequences of Edison's inadequate quality assurance program at Byron, a set forth at length in Edison's Motion for Expedited Consideration, filed January 24, are such that expedition is important to Edison ratepayers, including the members of Intervenors' organizations.

However, we oppose the unfair schedule proposed by Edison, and offer an alternative.

The Board's decision was issued on January 13, 1984 Edison's Notice of Appeal was filed 10 days later.

If Edison had prompt-ly filed its notice of appeal, its brief would be due in 30 days (10 C.F.R. 52.762(b)) or on February 13, the same date proposed in Edison's schedule.

Intervenors would then have 30 days to B401300261 840125 PDR ADOCK 05000454 O

PDR g

o

v

^'

respond, or until March 14.

($2.762(c))

Thus, under normal

' Appeal Board practice, all briefing would have been completed by March _14.

In contrast, Edison has proposed a schedule that expedites only Intervenors' and the staff's briefs.

Moreover, Edison has added 'seven. additional days to the end of the schedule for a reply brief, even though no reply is contemplated under the regulations.

Accordingly, Intervenors propose the following schedule, which would conclude briefing by the same date proposed by Edison:

Edison's Brief:

February 13, 1984 (30 days from service of the licensing board's decision on Edison.)

Intervenors' and Staff Briefs :

March 12, 1984 (28 days from service of Edison's brief.)

While economic considerations require expedition, this Board's paramount concern - the safety of the Byron plant -

requires sufficient time for responsible briefing.

Intervencrs' schedule would allow fair and adequate time for all parties,

whereas Edison proposes expedition at the expense of other parties.

Edison's proposal is inconsistent with a full and fair adversary presentation to this Board.

We accordingly ask the Board to adopt intervenors ' proposed schedule, or any other

[=

4

' schedule which allows for full and fair briefing on an exnedited basis.

t Respectfully submitted, j

,C

. ([J(h JANE M. WHICHER i

~

h *,

Attorney.for Intervenors Rockford League of Women Voters and DidRE/ SAFE 109 North

Dearborn,

  1. 1300 January 25, 1984 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 641-5570 d

e i

k 4

j J

f e

A

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

)

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-454

)

50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify this 25th day of January,1984, that copies of "INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION" in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by Federal Express.

  • Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Administrative Judge Adminis trative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Appeal Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555

  • Christine N. Kohl Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Unic' Carbide Corporation Appeal Board P.O. Sex Y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Commission Washinrton, D.C.

20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge

  • Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Atomic Safety and Administrative Judge Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Alan P. Bielawski, Esq.

Couaission Bruce Becker, Esq.

Wa shingt or., D.C.

20555 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Chicago, IL 60603 m_

Richard J. Rawson, Esq.

.0ffice of the Secretary Mitzi A. Young, Esq.

of the Commission Office-of the General Counsel ATTENTION:

Docketing and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Service Section Conunission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.

20555 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Joseph Gallo, Esq.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale David Thomas, Esq.

1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

77 South Wacker Drive Room 325 Chicago, IL 60621 Washington, D.C.

20036 1

e...cAC4 A'l /

dd h,$b

" JANE M. WillC ER January 25, 1984 I

v

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20079N557&oldid=4385471"