ML17138A872

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Memorandum & Order Dismissing Intervenor Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers Appeal from ASLB 790824 Order Disposing of Certain Scheduling & Discovery Matters.Has Not Shown Sufficient Cause for Discretionary Appeal
ML17138A872
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  
Issue date: 09/19/1979
From: Bishop C
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:
References
ALAB-563, NUDOCS 7910190312
Download: ML17138A872 (3)


Text

UNXTED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMXSSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSXNG APPEAL PANEL Alan S. Rosenthal, Panel Chairman cp AN~

)f

~ 9 )g9>

~glclf C<6+ ~ a S""~

gob<

6'ERVED

$ $ P Q Q In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,.INC.

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)

~9?9

)

)

)

)

Docket; Nos.

50-387

)

50-388

)

)

)

)

)

Mr. Thomas J. Halli an, Scranton, Pennsylvania, for the z.ntervenor, Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers.

Messrs.

Ja E. Silber and'lan R.

Yus eh, Was langton, D. C.,

or the app zcants, Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, et al.

Mr. James M. Cutchi'n,'V, for the Nuclear Reg-u atory Commxssz.on staff.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER September 19, 1979 (ALAB-563)

This is an operating license proceeding involving Units 1

and 2 of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.

On August 24, 1979, the Licensing Board entered an order in which it disposed of a number of scheduling and discovery matters which had been presented to it by one or another of the parties to the proceed-ing.

Dissatisfied with the order, one of those parties (0,

F9101'9Q Q/, +

intervenor Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers (Citizens) seeks to take an appeal from it.

Xn view of the manifestly interlocutory character of each ruling contained in the August 24 order, the appeal must be dismissed as foreclosed by the Commission's Rules of Practice.

See 10 CFR 2.730(f);

Duke Power Co.

(Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-433, 6

NRC 469, 470 (1977); Public Service Com an of Okl'ahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-370, 5 NRC 131 (1977),

and cases there cited.

As the NRC staff points out, the appeal having been filed by a lay repre-sentative of Citizens (who quite apparently is wholly unfamiliar with the Rules of Practice), there might be warrant for 1/

treating it alternatively as a petition seeking directed certi-fication of those rulings under 10 CFR 2.718(i).

See Public Service Com an of New Ham shire (Seabrook Station, Units 1

and 2), ALAB-271, 1 NRC 478 (1975).

The staff is also right, Although appeal boards (and most licensing boards as well) extend special consideration to litigants appearing with-out benefit of counsel, it scarcely follows that such liti-gants are free of any obligation to familiarize themselves with those Rules.

To the contrary, all individuals and organizations electing to-become parties to NRC licensing proceedings can fairly be expected both to obtain access to a copy of the Rules and to refer to it as the occasion arises.

Xt might be added that, should such reference leave the pro se litigant or lay representative uncertain regarding precisely what procedural steps can or should, be taken by him in certain circumstances, he undoubtedly will be able to obtain the guidance of staff counsel.

Whether or not in agreement with the position of an intervenor on the merits of the issues presented in the particular pro-

ceeding, the staff traditionally has manifested a commenda-ble willingness to provide that type of assistance.

however, in its belief that insufficient cause has been as-signed by Citizens for laying to one side in this instance our general disinclination to grant interlocutory review of dis-covery and scheduling orders as a matter of discretion.

'See, e.cC.,

Lon Xsland Li htin Co.

(Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-318, 3

NRC 186 (1976); Toledo'Edison Co.

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station),

ALAB-300, 2 NRC 752,,769 (1975);

Consumers Power Co.

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2);

ALAB-344, 4

NRC 207 (1976); Public Service Com an of New 668 (1975).

Appeal dismissed.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL PANEL CHAIRMAN C. Je Bishop Secre ry to the Appeal Panel Chairman This action was taken by the Appeal Panel Chairman under the authority of 10 CFR 2.787(b)

.