ML20215D924
| ML20215D924 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1987 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3746 79-410-03-OL, 79-410-3-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8706190188 | |
| Download: ML20215D924 (2) | |
Text
Uni:ii c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA thter ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'87 JUN 16 A10:25 Before Administrative Judges:
Orrt ;r
.;.7 00CFfiih64 a;3y Ivan W. Smith, Chairman WNW Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. Richard F. Cole SERVED JUN 161987 In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-456-OL 50-457-OL COMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY ASLBP No. 79-410-03-OL (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and.2)
June 15, 1987 MEMORANDUM ON LICENSING BOARD JURISDICTION f-In our Memorandum and Order of June 10, 1987, we denied for want of l
jurisdiction Intervenors' May 6 motion to file late-filed contentions on financial qualifications.
That determination was made in part under the incorrect assumption that Commonwealth Edison had not yet filed an
{
application to amend its operating license to change the ownership and financing arrangement for the Braidwood units. We have since learned that Commonwealth Edison applied for the respective operating license amendment on May 28, 1987.
In the view of Licensee's counsel, the l
filing of the application invalidates Licensee's earlier jurisdictional objection to Intervenors' motion.I I
Letters Joseph Gallo to Licensing Board, May 29 and June 3, 1987.
8706190188 870615 PDR ADOCK 05000456 Q
PDR DV'
4 I' Although the Licensing Board sees no present reason to disturb its June 10 order because of the filing of the amendment application. we shall defer final ruling on the matter until the parties have had an 2
opportunity to petition for reconsideration or until the Board has had an opportunity to reconsider sua sponte the June 10 order.
Accordingly, jurisdiction over the Intervenors' motion is retained until further action of the Licensing Board.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1
Ivan W. Smith,{hairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland June 15, 1987 2
Since the Board's order of June 10 was to have been its final decision in the proceeding, we would have entertained petitions for reconsideration in accordance with the time schedule set out in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.771. However, during a conference among the Chairman and counsel for the parties on June 12, 1987, the Chairman suggested to counsel for Intervenors that five days for service by mail would be added to the time for filing petitions for reconsideration. Section 2.771, however, does not provide for extra time for service.
In any event, the Board extends until June 25, 1987 the time within which petitions for reconsideration must be filed. Any responses to petitions shall be filed within the i
time periods set out in Section 2.771.
i