ML20090C293
| ML20090C293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1984 |
| From: | Gallo J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Callihan A, Cole R, Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8407130236 | |
| Download: ML20090C293 (2) | |
Text
1 ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT LAW tt20 CONNECTICUT AVENUE.N W = SUITE 840 00Cf(gn WASHtNGTON. D C. 20036 TT UN LN.
8 THREE IRS T O AL PLA ZA WILLIAM G. BEALE, '885 1923 CHICAGO. ILUNotS 60602 TELEPHONE 312 558-7500
- h TELEX; 2-5288 July 11, 1984 QFe;t: y VIA HESSENGER UNYh "
BRANcp Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
Dr. Richard F. Cole Chairman Administrative Law Judge Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. A.
Dixon Callihan Administrative Law Judge Union Carbide Corporation P.
O.
Box "Y"
Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Re:
In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457 A (-
Dear Administrative Judges:
On July 5, 1984, attorneys for Intervenors Bob Neiner Farms, Inc., et al. ("Neiner Farms") responded to the Board's Order of June 8, 1984.
As part of this response, Neiner Farms requested leave to file a Quality Control contention and 90 days within which to file such a contention.
Since the request is in the nature of a motion, Applicant, Commonwealth Edison Company, is filing this response.
A party need not obtain leave to file a late-filed contention.
The Rules of Practice set forth the procedure to be followed by a party seeking admission of a late-filed contention.
10 C.F.R.
S2. 714 (a).
The proper procedure for Neiner Farms to follow if they seek to have a QA contention admitted is to submit the contention together with evidence that the contention should be admitted based on a balancing of the five factors specified in 10 C.F.R. 52.714 (a) (1).
The " motion" for 90 days within which to submit a Quality Control contention ignores this procedure and appears to be an attempt to escape the admissibility requirements for late-filed contentions.
Moreover, the 90-day period is excessive and inconsistent with the schedules proposed by the 84071.0236 04071105000456 PDR ADOch PDR e
SSoo a
o July 11, 1984 Page 2 Applicant and the NRC Staff.
For these reasons, the motion for leave to file a new contention within 90 days should be denied.
Neiner Farms did not submit any recommendations regarding a proposed schedule for resuming the hearing process.
In the absence of such recommendations and in the absence of a reply to Applicant's Motion to Establish a Hearing Schedule (dated, June 27, 1984) by July 12, 1984, it can be presumed that Neiner Farms do not oppose the schedule proposed by Applicant.
With regard to proposed Contention 4, Neiner Farms represent to be advising the Board of new information that they believe is relevant to the admissibility of the contention.
Accordingly, Applicant will seek leave to file an additional response to this proposed contention as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted, k
J9s$' h Gdllo W_ of the Attorneys for
~
Commonwealth Edison Company JG:sv cc:
Service List