ML20045E870
| ML20045E870 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1980 |
| From: | Fitzgerald J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A409 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-081, SECY-A-80-81, NUDOCS 9307060164 | |
| Download: ML20045E870 (6) | |
Text
._
UNITED 5 FATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHIN GTON, D. C. 20555 ADJUDICATORY June 5, 1980 s m _,_30_,3 COMMISSIONER ACTION For:
Tne Commission From:
James A. Fitzgerald Assistant General Counsel
Subject:
REVIEW OF ALAB-593 (MATTER OF PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.)
Facility:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2
Purpose:
To inform the Commission of a recent Apteal Board action P
~
~~
~~~ ~
~ ~~
/
EX. f Review Time:
June 20, 1980 Discussion:
On May 16, 1980, the Commission referred a motion for relief from discovery and scheduling rulings to the Appeal Board for appropriate action.
CLI-80-17, 11 NRC (see SECY-A-80-53).
The petitioner-intervenor had filed the motion directly with the Commission.
In order to execute the referral, on May 21, 1980, the Appeal Board gave the intervenor 10 days to indicate whether or to what extent its concerns had been affected or mooted by Licensing Board orders subsequent to their original motion and gave the other parties 10 days thereaf ter to file any responses,. ALAB-593,_11 NRC I
6/. C Recommendation:
CX $
l es A.
F zgerald sistant General Counsel
][
Attachment:
ALAB-593 Informa!ba in this record was da'eted in accordance with the fre ad:m :f information acts Act, exe tions
-N--
F. Chopko, GC F0lA -
9307060164'930317 4
/
b /d#/
.QILINSK92-436 PDR
l
- l 2
s Comissioners' coments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Thursday, June 19, 1980.
Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT June 12, 1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and coment, the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Secretariat 9
..n
~ -.
.v..
v
-e
'49 t
UNITED STATES OF AHERICA
.t' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0
%)
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD p
' 10 Richard S. Salzman, Chairman M47gg P
0#1 b2 Dr. John H. Buck
.Sg PEO NY
//
g Thomas S. Moore In the Matter of
)
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and
)
Docket Nos. 50-387 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
50-388
)
-3 (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
Dr. Judith H.
Johnsrud, State College, Pennsylvania, for intervenor Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, petitioner.
Mr. Jay E.
Silberg, Washington, D.C.,
for Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc., applicants.
Mr. James M.
Cutchin, IV, for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER May 21, 1980 (AIAB-593)
The Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power ("ECNP") is
-one intervening party in this operating license proceeding now pending before the Licensing Board.
This intervenor is not, however, represented by counsel.
On March _15, 1980, ECNP filed a " Request * *
- for Consideration of Actions of an Atomic Safety e
o t
and Licensing Board and other Matters" directly with the Commissioners.
On May 16th the commission referred inter-venor's papers and the opposing parties' responses to us for appropriate action.
CLI-80-17, 11 NRC Intervenor's " Request" alleged that it was being unfairly harassed by applicant's discovery tactics and by a series of Licensing Board rulings on discovery and scheduling matters.
The request is essentially an endeavor to obtain interlocu-tory review of those rulings.
Interlocutory appeals are generally not permitted as a matter of right under the Rules of Practice.
Charges of the sort intervenor levels here are normally subject to appellate review at the end of the case when (and if) an appeal is taken from the Licensing Board's final decision.
We may, as a matter of discretion, elect to entertain such matters now under our authority to " direct certification" of important issues that arise before a licen-sing board.
10 C.F.R. 552.718(i) and 2.785 (b) (1).
As we have but recently reiterated, however, "[o]ur decisions establish
-j that discretionary interlocutory review will be granted only sparingly, and then only when a licensing board's action either
)
(a) threatens the party adversely affected with immediate and seri-ous irreparable harm which could not be remedied by a later appeal,
l
. t or (b) af fects the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner."
Public Service Electric and
~
Gas Co. (Salem Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-588,11 NRC 1/
( April 1, 19 80) (slip opinion at 7-8).
And we are particularly reluctant to intrude into the conduct of a licensing board hearing in progress where the dispute is only i
over such preliminary questions as the manner of rece[pt'of evidence or the conduct of discovery.
In the matter before us, directed certification is sought on allegations of extreme harassment resulting from assertedly abusive and burdensome discovery obligations imposed upon intervenor by the Board below at the applicant's instance.
To j
give but one example, ECNP claims in the papers it filed on March 15th that the Licensing Board has required it to respond i
to "some 2700 interrogatories (served] upon (ECNP]" by the applic ant.
However, ECNP filed its request for review some time ago; in the interim the Licensing Board has made additional rulings and entered other orders modifying intervenor's dis-3/
covery obligations.--
The effect of these rulings may have
_1/
Accord, Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (Skagit Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-572, 10 NRC 693 (1979); Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190, 119 2 (1977).
i 2/
E.g., Long Island Lighting Co. (Jamesport Station, Units 1 l
~~
and 2), ALAB-318, 3 NRC 186 (1976); The Toledo Edison Co.
(Davis-Besse Station, Unit 1), ALAB-314, 3 NRC 98 (1976).
3/
These are memorialized in Licensing Board Memoranda dated
~~
March 27, 1980; April 11, 1980 (LBP-80-13, "Second Pre-hearing Conference Order") ; and May 8, 1980.
. _ ~.
-4 4
i substantially alleviated, if not mooted, intervenor's complaints.
ECNP therefore may no longer need or desire to press its allega-tions or to seek the interlocutory relief demanded in its t
March 15th filing.
~
Accordingly, before we proceed with our consideration of this matter, within 10 days of the date of this order ECl@.
is directed to inform us concisely (1) theextenttow$ich the allegations contained in its March 15th request have been affected by'the more recent Licensing Board rulings we have.
cited, and (2) whether (and if so, to what extent) it continues l
to seek the nine categories of relief it requested in those i
papers.
Within 10 days af ter ECNP provides that advice, the applicants and the staff (unless the intervenor. withdraws its request for relief) shall (1) also answer. the first question we addressed to the intervenor and _(2) respond to the inter-venor's allegations on the merits.
It is so ORDERED.
i
'l FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O_.
S
- 1= _ )
C. Je Q Bishop
\\
Secretary to the
' Appeal Board-
~l 3
.