ML20009A167
| ML20009A167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1981 |
| From: | Stamiris B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8107090110 | |
| Download: ML20009A167 (2) | |
Text
j
- :{..
,o
' o.,
s o
y c
.m 4,
)
y
.luL 6 1981
- ."]
)
- % g.. _..,,,
f'9
[
\\
S U.S. NUCLEAR REGUUiTORY COMMISSIOtt gA n, 17
\\t,
-J4' In the matter of Docket Nos.
O-329 i
CPCo. Midland Plant 50-330
[
- [/ 'g e-f S
3\\
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY F.LLCENSING APPEAL BO Q\\
7
.\\
r N
6/30/81 E
G gS 3 #[&n l
[
y INTERVENOP RErUEST FOR RULING ON APPROPRIATE TIME g, /.. _
d\\
APPEALS ON DISCOVERY RULINGS & CONFEREMCE CALL RULINGS WHICEh DENY ECUAL RIGHTS TO ONE PARTY IN THE PROCEEDING Although the nuestions which I am about to raise in this recuest do not affect "the basic structure of the proceeding"'in the 'hervasive and unusual manner" that my 6/29/81 recuests do, I believe their con ilned effect is that of" seriously harm (ing) the public intrest" by Ilmiting the full participation of one b
E party in a proceeding and thereby limiting the open and fair I
consideration of information relevant to that proceeding.
Respecting and understanding your reluctance "to enter the discovery thicket",as expressed on p. 5 of the Feb. 20, 1981 Thornburg Ruling, I will ask these questions in the abstract.
If the answer to any of these cuestions is yes, I will provide the
[
appropriate supporting evidence at your request.
0503 Would this Appeal Board entertain an interlocutory appeal 5
on any or' all of 'the following. issues?
/
1 8107090110 810630 3 PDR ADOCK 05000329-O PDR 3
v
+r
~
/*
=;..
u j
l Sj 55
- 1) A double standard for discovery, stated in writing, which sets T..j different parameters for acceptable discovery for different.
m3y parties.
a E) A ruling granting a motion for protective order without giving the party ruled against a chance to respond.to the motion.
- 3) A ruling of untim.11 ness on follow up discovery when that
}
untfaliness is due directly to the other parties failure to
~
answer initial discovery, and therefore unavoidable.
- 4) Denial of a request to see a document considered confidential by two parties.and relevant to this proceeding.
- 5) Denial of a recuest to be allowed to attend a meeting with URC Staff and Counsel and CPC Counsel, relevant to this proceeding.
- 6) Denial of a renuest for certain public documents from Applicant in the manner afforded all other parties.
Respectfully submitted, 4
}
cc: ASLAB Me:.rbe rs A5LE.'. embers Wm. P;too,NRC
?.f. Miller, CPCo.
Secretary, HRC Attorney Gen. Kelley