ML19345H360

Motion for Continuance of Evidentiary Hearings Scheduled for 810713-24 Until After PSC of Sc Hearings on Util Application for Adjustments in Schedules,Tariffs & Contracts Completed. Simultaneous Litigation Would Prejudice Intervenor Rights

ML19345H360
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	05/12/1981
From:	Ruoff J FAIRFIELD UNITED ACTION
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19345H361	List: ML19345H360 ML19345H362 ML19345H364
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8105200199
Download: ML19345H360 (4)

Text

~

9 4 O @ 5%< // s e coexaso s

Q' a wdb ~ us,re

~

3d @,~ [2 E MAY 141981 * -2

C "A p y ! UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c3,c,gy,[t, ccy a g*

44v:

4*y ,;} NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,; q 4\ c=h d O' g L. ,BEFORE

-/ \, q THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD cn In the Matter of:

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, ET AL. Docket No. 50-395-OL (Virgil C. Sumer Nuclear Station, Unit 1) May 12, 1981 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE Intervenor Fairfield United Action ("FUA") hereby moves for a continuance of the evidentiary hearings in the above-captioned pro-ceeding scheduled for the period July 13 to July 24, 1981, until af-ter the conclusion of hearings before the South Carolina Public Service Comission on the " Application of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company for Adjustments in Electric Rate Schedules, Tariffs and Contracts" l

! (SCPSC Docket No. 81-72-E).

i INTRODUCTION During the Final Prehearing Conference in the above-captioned proceeding, the Board established a hearing schedule for the evidentiary hearings. That schedule calls for hearings to comence on June 22, 1981, to run through July 3,1981. Should further time.be: required.to com-plete thoso evidentiary hearings, those hearings would recomence on July 13 to continue through July 24, 1981, under the Board's announced schedule.

8105% g

l

\

l By " Partial Order Following Prehearing Conference . . . " dated April 30,1981, the Board admitted FUA as an Intervenor in this proceed-ing.

l At the Final Prehearing Conference, Dr. John C. Ruoff, non-attorney member of FUA, having filed a" verification" of his status on March 23, 1981, appeared as the Authorized Representative for FUA and argued the merits of its contentions. Robert Guild, Esq., member of the South Caro-lina Bar, antered an appearance to argue the merits of FUA's intervention.

Ruoff shall represent FUA during the evidentiary hearings in this proceeding.

Guild has committed to be available to FUA to assist the Intervenor with legal issues raised during the hearings and to represent FUA in arguing those issues if needed.

On February 27, 1981, Applicant South Carolina Electric & Cas Com-pany ("SCE&G") f' led with the South Carolina Public Service Commission

("SCPSC") an " Application . . . for Adjustment in Electric Rate Schedules, Tariffs and Contracts'.' (SCPSC Docket No. 81-72-E).

Intervenor FUA, John C. Ruoff on his own behalf, and Rcbert Guild as attorney for South Carolina Welfare Rights Organization ("SCWR0") each petitioned for and was granted Intervenor staus in that proceeding by the SCPSC.

( None of the above-named FUA,.Ruoff, or Guild was consulted regar-ding the scheduling of evidentiary hearing in the SCPSC proceeding. Ap-plicant SCE&G may have had discussions with members of the SCPSC or its Staff regarding the scheduling of those hearings.

,y.y , ,y--y- - p .--4 y , u.-, , - a -+.% .% ,, -.,,,.,,.-..w g.--,. ,y,, , p w.-,e. ,. p ee.= r we-* . -w-..,r-g r- e -,-ey

l .3 DISCUSSION In both the instant proceeding and the rate proceeding before the SCPSC, Intervenor FUA petitioned to intervene in order to protect the vital interests of its members.upon information and belief that adverse actions in either of those proceedings would result in direct and personal injury to its members. The only suitable means to protect those interests lay in full participation in those hearings, including having the right i to present evidence, to make procedural motions, to confront and cross-i examine evidence tendered by other parties, and to except from decisions .

of the adjudicatory body deemed adverse to it. In granting its petitions to intervene, this Board and the SCPSC ruled .that those interests existed

' and recognized the right of FUA to protect those interests through full participation in the hearings before them.

FUA is a comunity organization required to place most of the burden of participation in the instant proceeding on its members, especially its Authorized Representative Dr. Jahn-C. Ruoff. FUA has been able to avail itself and may require during the conduct of these I

hearings the pro bono publico legal assistance of attorney Robert Guild.

Neither Dr. Ruoff nor Attorney Guild can be in two places simultaneously.

To represent FUA's and his own interests before this Board.would require Dr. Ruoff to surrender protection of his interests before the SCPSC. . At-torney Guild is obligated to be before the SCPSC representing the interests l

of another client, SCWR0. Like Operating License hearings, rate hearings before the SCPSC are all day affairs stretching over several weeks.

1 1

}

. . _ . - . . . _ . . ~ . . _ . . , _ . _ . _ _ . , . _ . . . . . . . _ , . . _ ...___ _ __.~ . _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ - . - . _ . . _ _ . . . . . , _ _ . . _._ .

Simultaneous litigation of both the instant proceeding and the rate case before the SCPSC could only prejudice the interests of Intervenor FUA.

The Applicant SCE&G would not.be prejudiced by simultaneous litigation of these two cases because it has the resources to - and has -

engaged separate counsel to litigate the cases. Indeed, the division of FUA's resources can only redound to the benefit of the Applicant. FUA cannot be certain that Applicant did not suggest such timing to the SCPSC or its Staff in order to obtain unfair advantage over these parties.

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, FUA requests this Board to re-quire that Applicants' choose to go forward with either this proceeding or with tha rate proceeding before the SCPSC on July 13, 1981. If re-scheduling of the SCPSC rate proceeding is either unacceptable to Appli-cant SCE&G or impossible, then FUA requests this Board to continue the recoamencement of the hearings in the instant proceeding until after the completion of the rate proceeding.

1

! A Motion for Continuance in SCPSC Docket No. 81-72-E has simultane-l l ously been filed with the SCPSC and is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

1 phnC.Ruoff,Ph.D/j,tive /)

Authorized Represe m Fairfield United Action l P.O. Box 96 l Jenkinsvillc, SC 29065 803-345-3514 l

l

__