ML20010E046
| ML20010E046 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1981 |
| From: | Gleason J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS, PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8109030007 | |
| Download: ML20010E046 (3) | |
Text
,ft-ibN N
g&&
lg r
10 I >
l 2::rd:rf a
/
E P 0 2 gggt p *._
s g
tecs -
x
" R.i:a s
o Q
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,,5 % on 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'j g
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD A
Before Administrative Judges:
SERVfg e James P. Gleason, Chairman AP jJg Paul W. Purdom Glenn 0. Bright
)
In the Matter of:
)
Docket Nos. 50-387 OL
)
50-388 OL i
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
)
and
)
ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
)
August 31, 1981 l
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
i MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS I
This Order relates to several of the motions pending before the Board.
i Due to the number of motions for summary disposition filed and the necessity for adequate time to prepare for the forthcoming hearings in October, the Board will supply the reasons for its decisions here and for other summary motions at a subsequent date.
The Board will not accept any motions for summary disposition filed after September 10, 1931.
1.
Motions filed by the Applicant for suamary disposition of Conten-tions S, 8, 7a, 7d and li are approved.
No answers have been received in response to the motions and there is no issue of material f act to be heard with respect to the contentions.
1 50h 9
5' # l 8109030007 sloe 31 I
PDR ADOCK 050003e7 G
- 2.
No response to a prior Order having been received from Colleen Marsh, et al, on ConLer.ticr.14, no direct testimony on the conten+'on from the Intervenor will be permitted at the hearing.
3.
The motion of Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers for a protective order against discovery requests by the Applicant on the chlorine portion of Contention 2 is denied. We fail to see how the interrogatories submitted are unreasonable or represent an undue burden or expense.
The motion of the Applicant to have Contention 2 dismissed as a result of CAND's f ailure to respond is also den;?d.
The Intervenor is entitled, under the Rules, to request a protective Order and the contention still has viability under a prior Order of the Board. However, the Intervenor is directed to respond to the interrogatories of the Applicant within a five day period of receipt of this Order.
4 The Applicant's renewed motion for summary disposition of the remaining portion of Contention 17 is denied. Although the purpose of summary disposition motions is to evaluate the genuineness of issues for administrative hearings,--and the Rules are silent on the frequency that such motions can be submitted--it is obvious that some termination date must be produced, if hearings on the matter in controversy are to proceed.
With a hearing date set for this proceeding in early October, that point has been reached here.
Although a motion for summary disposition is interlocutory in character, there is no requirement for licensing Boards to continuously adjudicate such motions.
And this is particularly true where the movant is not prejudiced by the Board's refusal, and where, as here, a time period of l
l
, nearly three months has elapsed since the Board's decision on the earlier summary disposition motion.
ORDERED FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
,,W
/w
/
James P. Gleason, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 31st day of August 1981.
1 1
L