ML20027D578
| ML20027D578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1982 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211080092 | |
| Download: ML20027D578 (3) | |
Text
u d'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00(.KETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UStJRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 4 p7gj Administrative Judges:
6FFiCE OF SECREIARY DOCKEijt((g}ERVICE Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. W.
Reed Johnson Thomas S.
Moore SERVED NOV 041982
)
In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
}
)
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
Mr. Sherwin E. Turk for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
ORDER November 4, 1982 1.
On August 4, 1982, the Licensing Board issued an order in this operating license proceeding requiring the NRC staff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against it for the failure to have complied with prior Board directives.
Those directives had called upon the staff to disclose on the record the identity of certain individuals interviewed in connection with the staff investigation of allegations by an informer relating to quality assurance / quality control practices during Comanche Peak construction.
Additionally, the staff was in-structed to produce unexpurgated copies of signed witness state-ments prdcured during the investigation.
P213 0AOO92 921104
~
PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
1 r In its August 24 response to the show cause order, the staff sought reconsideration of the order.
On September 30, the Licensing Board denied that relief and renewed its prior
- directives.
It added that, " [i] f the Sta f f f ails eithe r to obey this order promptly or to seek appellate review,. the Licensing Board will use its authority pursuant to 10 CFR B 2.713(c) tc impose sanctions upon Staff counsel."
- Order,
- p. 14; emphesis supplied.
Electing to pursue the second option given it by the Licensing Board, the staff has filed exceptions to the September 30 order.
Additionally, it has applied for a stay of the effectiveness of the order pending the outcome of the appeal.
No other party to the proceeding has responded to the stay application.
2.
In-its stay papers (at p.
5 fn. 10), the staff ac-knowledged that at least a question exists respecting whether the September 30 order is appealable.
Accordingly, we were toid, the staf f proposes to accompany its brief in support of the exceptions to that ' order with an alternative request for directed certification of the order.
We agree with the staff that doubt exists as to the appealability of the order.
Kansas Gas and Electric Co.
(Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-327, 3 NRC 408 (1976); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas
Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-6 39, 13 NRC 4 69 '(19 81).
But the question need not be definitively resolved in connection with the stay application at hand.
As we see it, that application is unnecessary and does not require any action on our part.
As we read its September 30 order, the Licensing Board conditioned its imposition of sanctions against the staff upon the failure of the staff either to comply with its directives or to seek appellate review.
In these circumstances, it appears that the Board was itself providing a stay of the order pending the completion of our consideration of a timely staff request for such review.
The Licensing Board manifestly had the au-thority to grant a stay and we perceive no reason to exercise our authority in light of that Board action.
Should our reading of the Licensing Board's order prove to be incorrect and the Board takes steps to impose sanctions against the staff, the staff may then immediately seek to reinstate its stay motion before us.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD Ob-hh -_ A C. Jgan Sh'oemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board
,