ML20050E208

Order Granting Lawyers Committee Steering Group of AIF Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief.Brief by 820426.ASLAB Intends to Review Entire ASLB Decision Sua Sponte So That Amicus Brief Will Not Expand Matters Subj to Review

ML20050E208
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	04/08/1982
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:
References
ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8204130106
Download: ML20050E208 (4)

Text

fo UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T2

'" -9

M' :12 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Administrative Judges:

Christine N.

Kohl, Chairman Dr. W.

Reed Johnson Gary J.

Edles SERVE 0 APR 91981

)

In the Matter of

)

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-329 CP

)

50-330 CP (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2

)

. M,. k */\\

)

s/'

(/

ORDER B

'j J

'~

April 8, 1982 i

n 7

y.,, 792 g, r0 4'

a ur,

The Lawyers Committee Steering Group of the Atbmic<

,(y Industrial Forum, Inc., has moved for leave to file amicus curiae brief in this case.

It seeks to raise twoNW' legal issues in connection with the Licensing Board's December 22, 1981, partial initial decision (LBP-81-63, 14 MRC __)

before us on appeal:

(1) whether the Board set forth the appropriate standard to be applied in preparation of direct testimony, with respect to the duty of affirmative disclosure of information in such testimony, and (2) whether the Board set forth the appropriate standard of conduct for counsel in connection with assistance to expert witnesses in the preparation of their direct testimony.

The Committee D503 s

/ C) 8204130106 820408 PDR ADOCK 05000329 G

PDR

O 2

notes (Motion, p. 2) that these matters are of significance to the bar and " relate to the entire fabric of Commission li':ensing proceedings."

Further, it expressly disclaims any intent to address the factual findings of the Licensing Board.

Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group, one of the Intervenors Other than Dow, opposes the Committee's request to file an amicus brief.

It contends that the Committee has no special interest or competence in the. matters it seeks to brief and that its participation would complicate this case by expanding the issues raised by the exceptions of Inter-venors Other than Dow.- !

In Saginaw's view, its excep-tions define the scope of our review of the Licensing Board's decision, and, consequently, all briefs must be confined to arguments in either direct support of or direct opposition to those exceptions.

We do not agree with Saginaw's assertion that its exceptions alone define the scope of our review.

Because this proceeding involves important issues relating to the integrity of the hearing process and the standards for

__/

These intervenors challenge only the Licensing Board's decision not to impose sanctions on applicant or its counsel.

I 3

attorney conduct generally, we intend to review the entire Board decision sua sponte (and would have done so in the absence of any exceptions).

Cf. Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station),

ALAB-655, 14 NRC 799, 803 (1981); Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-491, 8 NRC 245, 247 (1978).

Thus, the proposed amicus brief will not expand the matters subject to our review.

It is also reasonable to assume that the Committee, which is comprised of attorneys who frequently appear before this agency, is in a position to contribute to the consider-

[

ation of the proper standards for attorney conduct in NRC 5 proceedings.

We therefore exercise our discretion under 10 CFR 2. 715 (d) and grant the Committee's request to file an amicus brief that addresses the matters identified in its motion.

Intervenors Other than Dow, if they wish, may reply to the Committee's brief.

The motion of the Lawyers Committee Steering Group of the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., for leave to file an amicus curiae brief is granted.

The brief is due for filing by April 15, 1982.- I Intervenors Other than Dow may reply

/

The Committee shall serve its brief on counsel for

~~

Intervenors Other than Dow by express mail or comparable means.

~_

4 d

i i

4 to the amicus, providing they file their brief by April 26, 1982.

L r

It is so ORDERED.

I i

d FOR THE NPPEAL BOARD h

b.N -hNweb h j

C. Jeg Sh5emaker

~

Secretary to the Appe'al Board l

l Mr. Edles did not participate in this order.

i 4

d.

i l

r f

i i

i r-g, y---a

e.. *

,-,em.. +, -- ----=-

---s-e e-

• .-g.@

a g--

-w--we-.wg c --

c

,---w-.

w.

e-%

gme-,

--.---_,-m m.,

gyt--->pww