ML20055B114

Objects to Correspondence Between Comm Ed & Aslp.Ltrs Represent Unsworn Substantiated Representations by Party in Litigated Proceeding.Ltrs Should Not Be Sent to ASLB

ML20055B114
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	07/16/1982
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ROCKFORD, IL
To:	Callihan A, Cole R, Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20055B115	List: ML20055B114 ML20055B121
References
NUDOCS 8207200373
Download: ML20055B114 (1)

Text

.

. s.. u.

W'q -

e law orrices

. 00cnETE0 l USNRC l

C H E R R Y & FLY N N ..

TH R EC clRST N4flON AL PLAZ A 9 M. !9 Pi2:i)0 C HICAGO. ILLIN OIS 60 6 02 u,m o N u. c oe t a m e. e. c. * =

et t e n F LYN N. p. c.

68dI48V R o e c R T r. c u s M M A N. JR *

(3 sal 27a-asco E W..2 sggy;Cc M b July 16,1982 . -

...,,,..,.u.,........6, 1

Morton B. Margulies, Esq. Dr. A. Dixon Callihan l Administrative Judge and Chairman Union Carbide Corporation Atomic Safety and Licensing P.O. Box Y j Board Panel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i

Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel -

I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Byron Station, Units 1 & 2, Dkt. Nos. 50-454, 50-455

Dear Administrative Judges:

I should like to note my objection, on behalf of the Rockford League of Women Voters, with respect to a course of procedure which Commonwealth Edison (and perhaps the Staff) is following in this cause.

As exemplified by the attached July 6,1982 letter, every so often either counsel for Commonwealth Edison or the Staff sends to the Board information in letter form which amounts to correspondence between and among the Staff and Commonwealth Edison regarding outstanding matters. Presumably these letters are sent to the Board as evidence of some sort to support Commonwealth Edison's position (elsewise why the continued mail?). In reality, however, these are unsworn substantiated representations by a party in a litigated proceeding. While they may not be e_x x parte (in the sense that a copy is sent to the League), they nonetheless give a claim of legitimacy, and the Board may take the view that the League not responding means they are in agreement with such letters.

I believe this procedure is bad, and has a tendency to " muck up" the licensing process and the ultimate findings of fact. We believe the best procedure is that such letters (as the attached) should not be sent to the Board, and such information should be submitted in the normal fashion in a hearing, i.e.,

by filed testimony and exhibits.

If the Board wishes a motion to prevent this improper practice, please let us know. Ilowever, we hope calling this practice to the Board's attention will be sufficient. '

8207200373 920716 esp (etfully, PDR ADOCK 05000454 0 PDR MMC /dm Myror A . Cherry k cc: Service List Couns(el to the League k

2 503