ML20204F907

NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion for Bifurcation of Appeal & Expedition.* Board Should Grasp Nettle on Merits of Whether Intervenors Conduct Warrants Sanction of Dismissal from Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20204F907
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/04/1988
From:	Reis E NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#488-7292 LBP-88-24, OL-3, NUDOCS 8810240004
Download: ML20204F907 (19)

Text

.

7M' UNITED STATES OF APERICA f.UCLEAR REGULATORY COPMISSION '88 00 19 P 3 :58 PEFORF TPt ATGMIC 5AFETY AND LICEf:S!hG APPddL, T,0ARD It the Ntter cf LONG ISLAf,'D LIGHT!?;G COMPAfD

}

Declet No. 50-302-OL-3 (Shorebtmfiuclear in er Staticri, l'r it 1)

)

=--

FF( Si A F F RESF C f4 F T O IN T E r(V E h 0 R $' M O T!0i; FOR RIFl!PC ATION OF ArrE AL Af!D EXPEDITION i

i t

i i

Fdwin J. Reis Deputy A5!.istant Ger. tral Counsel Rtactor Licerting Branch Octetcr 4,1985 I

I r

8810240004 001004

$[

PDR ADOCK 05000322 G

PDR w

__4 a

_.2--

__.,_m i

l t

UNITED STATES OF APERICA LUCLEAR REGULATORY COWISSION PEFOPE THE ATCHIC SAFETY AffD LICEf: SING APPE,A_L r,0 ADO Ir the liatter of

)

LONG ISLAt:0 LIGHT!KG COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 i

l (Er.ergency Pterning)

(Shoreham huclear Fo.er Statien.

I l'rit 1) t j

I l

j I

i Fr C ST AFF RESF0f SE TO INTERVENORS' MOTION l

FOR P,IfilP C A TIO N O F Ar r F A L A tl0 E X PE DITIO N

\\1 i

i I

i ib' I

1 I

Tdwin J. Reis Deputy Assistant Ger. tral Counsel Reactor Licerting Branch 1

1 Octeter 4,1985 i

l I

i

t i

t i

I i

I i

)

(

Tael.E OF,C,0NTENTS i

Page

)

i TABLF OF AUTHORITIES......................

11 i

l INTPCCLCTION,,........................

1 t

DFC'S;0N BELOW 2

r j,

DISCl!!!10h.......,,..................

6 i

i cor.ctusicN.....

11 l

4 t

i l

4 f

i 1

I

.1

.I i

i r

9 i

o a

e l

)

t I

I

(

l J

J i

i

)

i i

2 4

4

I I 1 l

T/.DLE OF AUTHOR _!, TIE,5 Page l

QtgTCASES:

1 Adkins_ v. I'rited,, States, 816 F.2d 15A0 (Fed. Cir.1987).....

10 l

Citizens for__en Orderly Energy Policy v. County of l

SuffoH, 664 F. Supp.~ 1084 (E.V.l.Y.1905) 9

~

Ten Constuction Services, Inc. v. Fudge, L 31 F. fd R ( 1 s t C i r. 19 G ) "...................

10 Jones v. fltagara Frentier Trary4t Authority, t

8 3 6 F. 2d 731 G'O C i r. 1987 )...................

10 tere :sland Lighting Co. v. County of Suffolk, 628 F.'Supp. 654"(l..D.N.Y. 19ff).'.'..............

9

~

!!etieral Hockey League v. Pietropolitar. Hoc. Lev

_CTulO,n c.- Tf'7 U.S. E f9',' 96 S. C t. 2 7 76 ( 1976).........

8, 10

^

Featway,_ Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 100 $. Ct. 2455 (1980) 8 AN'It.'7"rATIVE DEC,ISIONS; Lero Islanc Lichtino Co. (Shorr. Fen Nuclear Pcwer Station Unit 1), CIT E 14, 4 NRC 36 (1986)..........

9 Lonn Island LigStire Co. (Sherehara flueleer

)Ric Statier., l' nit 1),' CLI.03-13,17 f FC 7/.1 (1983) 0 Lerc Island Lighti@no Co. (Shorehan f'uclear Power Statier., Unit 17,~

lR01, 70 hRC (slir ep.)

(Itpterber 20,1958)

E, 7, 11 Lor.g Islt.rt Lightirig Co. (Shercher Nuclear Power Stat.fon, Unit IT, LBP.00-24, ES VC (slipcp.)

(Septerber '2,1988) passim Long Island Lighting Co. (ShorEham Nucir.at Pcwer

{

Station,' Voit 1), LBP-El-13, ?7 NRC 509 (1988) 7 Lere !sland Lichting Cc. 'Shorchen huclear Fewer 3ta'tior., l' nit 1), LEF-83-2, 27 htC 85 (1980) 7

~

l Long Island Lighting Co. O,horeham huclear Power Itation, Unit 1),'lBPl7-32, 26 hRC 479 (1987) 7 f

- 111 -

Page Ftation Unit 1),'l.g Co. (Shorehani huclear Power Leng !$ land Lightin BF-t3-31 IP MC 410 (1985) 7 te_r.g Island Liohtino Co. (Shoreham fluclear Pcwer 3Tatton, Unft1T. ItrTT 18, 21 r.RC 1637 (1955).........

C, 7 JLon ',1, lend Lichting Co. (Shorehan f'uclear Power Station, l'r it 1), LBP-05-12, ?) NPC 644 (1985) 7 Long Islard Licht 1,ng Co. (ShorcNm Nuclear Prwer Station Unit ;), LBP-84-40, 20 tiRC 1343 (1054) 7 Long frland Lighting Co. (Shoreham huclear Power Station, LVii IT,~LBF.03-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) 6 Pecific Ges 1 Electric Cc. (Diablo Canyon EiicTeYr' Ecwer Plant l! nits 1 and 2), ALAB-782, 20 NPC 830 (1004)........................

10 Wircensin Electric Power Co. (Feint Beach

' Nuclear Pc'wYr'71 ant linit 1), ALA5-719,17

?.RC 307 (1983) 10 R EGt!L AT'0? !:

10C.F.P.(0.713(c) 10 10 C.F.R. 5 2.712(1) 11 Ir: 0.F.F.. I 2.764(f)(2).....................

?, 1) 10 C. F. P. I ?. 76 5 ( b ) ( D....................,

11

[QSCELLM.r0t!S:

C Stater ent of relicy en Corduet of Licer. sing 7 reteedirWs' CL1 51 C. 13 ?FL'T5? (1981) 4, 8, 10

l 1

j UNITED STATES Of AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tPISS!CN 1

t i

BEF0FE THE AT0fi!C StFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL B0APD 1

I In tht t'etter of LONG ISLAhE L10HTIN7 00t'rANY Occket t'o. 50-322-OL-3 (thereham t'uclear Powei Station.

}

f. nit 1)

)

i i

TAC STAFF RFSPCt.SE TO INTERVENORS' FOTION l

FOR B!rl'PCAT!0h 0F APFEAL AND EyPEDIT!0h 1

INTPODUCTION i

1 On Septorber 27, 1000, Interveners filed e "Erief on Bifurcated I

Arpeal frer) September 23, 1988 Cercluding Initial Decision in LBP-8E-24" ard a motion e. ding that the appeal to bifurcated ano that thir Appeal Poerd first censider, en an expedited basis, the issue of wFother the OL-3 l

Licensing Cnerd had jurisdiction te disriss the Interverorr as parties frcr i11 parti ef the Shoretar creratirg license proceedings, Cn the samt i

day, the Board isserd an ex parte order granting the Interverors' motier.,

TFt tic Staf f crreses a precipitous partial reve esal of LBP 80-N II on j

,iurisdictional greurds as recuested by Interverers, erd urges thic Apeal

}

Coard te determine ur. der its ewn authority whether on the record belcw the I

1 1

J l

1/

Cencludire Initici tecision on Erergency Plar.ning, LBF-89-24, 28 NFC

~

j (September 23, 1986) ("CID" or LBP-88-24),

i i

l 1

Interve-ors were properly disriissed fren this proceeding for the reasons giv.a in LBP-88 74. U DEC]S!0N BELOW f rtervenor:, seek reversel of those aspects of LBP.88-04 which dismiss Intener.crs fron litigating the results of the 1988 errergency plannirg nereise pending in the OL-5 docket. The cecision appealed from concluded in prt:

1.

Interverors unftstifiably obstructed discevery on tLe realisn issues in April and Mey 1988 by presenting non-responsive witnesses for deposition, by obstructing LILCO's (Lestionirt of witnesses in depositions, by not pre"idirg substantive answers to interrogatories, are by a consistert refusal tc provide inf(rnatf or, en the neans by vhich Intervenors uruld resperd to a radiolegical emergency at Shorehan.

Interveners' notice to the Beard of June 9,1950 ther ct erronceps prior Snerd orders constitutes a willful defierce of the Bcerd's authority to rult en issues and to conduct a fair ard erderly prcceeding.

10 C.F.R. ?.710.

The Board believes tris, action by Ir.terveners, in itself, warrants irposition cf the ultfrtte sancticr..

I 5.

Interveners' omission in not producing the E0P [Eter-i gency Operations Plan) earlier tends to reflect adversely on the irttgrity of the adjudicetory process itself because important l

decisiers were made er the basit et an incortplete recct d.

The actions, emissions, and consequences reedted hereit, deserve ser tti;ns from the Board, Cer.sidered separately, scre l

0/

The Licensino Evare concluded in LBp.FC.24 that "the Director of the Office of Nu'elear Reacter Regulatien is authori:ed to issue to the l

Applicant's [ sic) e license authori:ina operation of the Shoreham facility.

CID at 149,

% aver, in the ler.eciate effectiveness rule, 10 C.F.R. I 2.764(f)(?), the Ccmission provided that it would review decisions granting operating licenscs fcr.:ere then five percent of rated pcv.er to see if they should t'e stayed.

The rule further povides that other parties na ordirarily file corrents pertaining to the irtiediate efft/ctiveness ssue,

3 wculd warrant erly dismissal of Intervenors' contentions or the rendering of r decision on the rerits in LILC0's favor.

Col-lectively however, cur findirgs reveal e sestained and willful strategy o' disobeditnce and disrespect for the Comission's adjudicatery processes.

The total behavior seriously irrected a tirely and fair resolution of the realism contentions art ether trergency planning issucs.

Previous sanctiers f or disobedience did not curb the present ham and it is not rnitigating, in our Judstrent, thet Intervenors have litigated most of the other ecntentier,s in this cast with due regard for discovery rules erd the Board's authority to reguiete the proceedings.

The Board concludes that Intervenors' actier.s were willful, toku ir bad faith, and were prejudicia'. to LILC0 ard the inte-grity of the Comissicn's adjudicatory process. The sar.ction of ritnissal as perties to the proceeding is the orly appropriate peralty.

The State of New York, the Ccunty of Suffolk, art the Towr o' touthamptu are hereby dismissec frco this preceeding.

CID et 1E6-30 (fcetrote onif+s O.

In the crurse of recching these conclusiers, the Licer. sing Board recounted that Interverors have insisted that they weuid not pemit dt pcsttions art other discovery to go forward er retters renarded by the tcmissicn in CL1-80-:3 centerrirg the resperse they wculd make ir, th e evo,t of an ert rgency at Thcieham.

CID at %.

The Ecarci thereupen inferted Interuriors that it interpreted this actfen as an unjustified rt 'un i to comply with the Ecard's discovery orders thtt would lead to sanctier.s which "wev1d irclude either disrissing the realism contentions ci re:rdering a default judgecnt on the r:crits in 4plicant's faver "

J,_d.

)

This refusal was viewed by the Eoard "as part o' the evtt all plan te thwart that inquiry [of the extent to which Intervencrs would respenri in an erergency and subycr* the Co rission's precess for pelitical end;" Prd n contrary to Intervercrs' duty to provide (thrcugh disecvery) i nfenta-tu r er. rattert in controverry.

CID at 10C.

The Licersing Board applied

l 4

the criteria in the Cormis s ion's 5,t_aterent of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-01-0, 13 NPC 452 (1981), and concluded that l

It terveners' willful conduct calltd for the severest sanctions available l

t ri view of the recest.ity cf followirs the Comission's dire

• tion in

)

CLI-Pf 13 of inquiririg into the actions Intervenors veuld take in the evert of an actual acciderit et Shorehan.

CID at 104-CC.

The Board l

stated:

I l

a Tit potential fer barn to other parties erd the orderly scrduct of the proceeding through Intervencrs' end behavier here is incalculable.

As cre example, to be raable to pursue any j

inquiries on the Suffolk Ccunty emergercy plan and the resources availeble to suppert it, forces LILCO, the Staff and the Beard to evaluate critical issues only through the screen of its two

~

a pre-selected State and County witnesses.

This lirr.its the value of discovtry in uncovering any evcilable inforwation supporting l

or centradictirr Intervercrs' litigative positions, and is et+1ously unfair, prejudicial, ard not servirs the ends of

Justice, 1

The irpart of the ciscovery refusal or the orderly cenduct of this preceeding reeds little erbasis hert.

It not only bes 1

cresed a collateral proceeding on discovery atuse considerations j

to occur, tut diverted the atter. tion of other parties and the i

f.corc from the rerlism issues that were scheduled to be liti-cater The Ecarc views Interveners' conduct as the culminatier cf a pattrrn of behavier designed to prevent the Comissien from reaching an inferred conclusion with respect to tht adequacy of i

l LILLO's en.ergercy plar, i

r!D at 107-CE.

i i

j The Board also emphasized that this was ret the first tir.e that sar,etions were cpplied agairtt Interverors for failure to comply with

]

procecural oidt:rs and that Intervenors had evidenced an intent net to have

]

Nttert resolvec cr. tr e nerits tut only tc celey the prnceeding.

CIO at ICE 11. The Board thereuper stated:

f.t ither State r er local gcvernrents rey be allowce' te frustrate t

]

er irpede the hFC's rewesitility art at>ility to escluate a l

1 i

)

._=._. - - -

=

1 1 9

i Utility's radiologieel emergency response plan.

We are forced te conclude that not only are Intervenors unwillior to i

contribt.te to the resolution of the irnportant realism issues, t,p t have act hely sought to frustrate the Corm 11 sion's efforts te arrive at an inforrned judgerrent, j

i j

CID at U C.

Since there was no evidence that Intervencrs intended to l

cornply with the Board's orders in the future (CID at 112-10), the Board cercluded:

1 Fe i1:1d. accordingly, that Interveners' refusal to cenply j

uith the Bcard's orders to be an act cf willful disobedierce enc, under the circumstences here, as constituting bad faitt.

We concit.dt that Intervenors' cerduet warrents the impcsition of

• he rest severe sanction available to Licensing Coerds.

i CID et !!4 (footnott cruit ted).

Ttt Staff *r recorTrerdaticn of dismissira the realism certentions was rejected as not being ef ficacicus, in the per.t. in curbing Intervenors' purr.oseful ref usels to obey Board orders.

l l

O!C at 115.

f l

Itc Peard 'ortbu recountrd that Intenenors had ret tir'ely prcduced i

I the bulk o tre o istirt Suffou Ccunty Enargency Operaticns Plan (ECF2 as j

a well as ether cocumentt which had teen sought for years in discovery. CID l

at 117 H.

It stated:

l Or conclude that great prejudice unouestionably resulted the f ailure to preduce the E01 f r a tinely mariner.... The l

prcdvetion c,f plans concertirg ron nuclear emergercies was requestec agein in 1983 cod 1988 anc irc;uiries as the existerce 1

cf State erd County plers that would aja in comir; to grips with ar accident at Shoreham have been a central thrust rince the Corrinicn remand in CLI-86-13. 24 hRC 22, 31 (1086).

1 j

(10 at 12a. /.fter reccuntirg the effect of the frilure to supply material during discovery (CIO et 124 26), the Board concluded as to 'ailure to produce the Emergency Operaticns Plan that:

I Essertially, we are eencerned that the precess thet tcok place reflects adversely on the integrity of the adjudicetory process itself when it it restaled af ter a decision is rendered that irportant issues nicht have bee n decidec: differently had the i

)

Boaro been in corplete possessicr cf available relevant facts.

Here, three riotions in succession were so decided.

This is a I

natter of extrere gravity.

Disrespect for the adjudicatory precess canrct be pemitted; distris t al of the affected contentier.s alone is not an adeouate reredy when the adjudicatory proces itself is tainted by the actions or 1

omissiers of a party.

l

+

A knculedge of County and State resources end energene) resprr.sibilititt ret only wculd have astisted LILCO in develeping its utility plan, tut it is an essential irgredient l

in tFt-Comissier 's review cf the plan.

The failure tc timely i

produce the E0P was prejudiciel to LILCO even to the point of threctening itt corpora *e nistence.

It was equally prejudiciel tc tFe rublic ir.terest in havf rg an inferr:ed decisien by tho governrert entity with responsibility to pass on the acteusey of that pltn.

CID tt !?6-?? (ear 5 asis in criginal). On these baser, the Licensing Board reachee e cenclusier that Intervenors' conduct not only rardated the ditrittel c'f the realisn ccetentiers, tut the disrissal of Intervenors trorn the !br.reharr proceeding. CID at 127-X.

DI SCL'S S IO*'

(n Eq.terier ?r, 1988, At.AB 001, 28 NRC

, this Ap; eel Board noted l

that the crorrous size, complerity art duration of hF,C licensing proertcings has led to the appsintment. 1r cases t'eb es this one, of I

df'ferent liter. ting boards tc consider various espects of a sirgle literse r

4pticatter. because n.cre than one Beard is "esstrtial to effective case l

I managerent." Slipcp.at4.$#

As a result, the question cf which Board 3/

Litigt. tion concerning the Shorehm opereting license epplicatirn has

~

involved several hundred berrirs

days, cser 57.000 pages of i

transcript and rurerous init161 cecisiers.

See LEF 83 04 at It Partial Initiel recisien [0L), LBF-!3 57,18 SfC445 (1983); Fartial Initial recision on Erergency Diesel Generaters [00. LEP 6518, (F00TN0i! CONT!h0E[ CL hEXT PACE) l l

i

I <

J l

tes jurisdiction over various issue: in the proceeding is often diffi-i cult, and "the Cerritticn's Rules of Practice t.rovide little or no aid I

ir resolvirg this thorny problem."

M.

The Apreel Board further noted i

that under the authority granted te it by the Corrr.ission in 10 C.F.R. 1 l

l l T.785(t)(1), the Aptcal Beard r9y certify te itself for censideratien

)

]

er) question rending before a Licensing Board.

M.at7.n.4, citing, 10 C.F.P. 5 0.718(i).

Issues ir, the overall Shoreham preceeding have been I

j pending befere this Apreel Board b and another Licensing Fearc, which was cretted "'[f)cr rere, effective docket ranagerert,'" ALAB-001, slip op.

at T citir.g. 51 Fed. Feg. 27,296(19C().

j The issuc pesed by bifercation of the appeal escin raises, and the ItHf beliests unnecesstrily, difficult jurisdictional issues.

If the f

l Cl-3 Boaro aid in fact have jurisdictier to dismitr Interver.crs from the i

procteding, the correctness of the 5 card's deeisten still feeds to te addre: sed by the Appeal Brard upon the Intervenerf.' substantive appeal.

But even it the OL 3 Beard did ret Fave "jurisdiction" to affect the I

i

\\

j troceedir4 str'dirg befcre other adjudicatory teards, the Appeal Board l

I (F00TNOTI LChT! HUED FRCS PREV!OLT FAGE)

)

1 t#C 1 0 ' (1965); Initial rteis ten [CL-4: low power), LBP E4-45, E0 hRC 1340 (1984); Partial Initiel Decision cr. Emergency Planning

[0L 3), LBP-55 !?, 21 hPC (#4 (1985); Ccecluding Partial Initia, 1

Decisicn on Energerey Plantirs [0L-3), LEP-85 31. T hRC 410 (1905);

i Partial Initial recisicn 'OL 5: F.P Exercise). LEF-67-32, 2( hPC 479 (1987); Initial Decisien dErerger.cy Plan E>ercise) [0L-5], LBP-PS ?.

27 NRC SS (1988),

i

)

4/

Ttese ratters are the apeals frort LEP 80-2, 27 hPC 85 4980) and

~

j LBP-88-13, 27 NRC 509 (1968), which were argued en Septerher 14, 1900.

J I

)

i 4

would seen constrained to severely sanction Intervenors should the Appeal Board sustcin the OL-3 Peard findings. 5/

The only effect of bifurcating issues before this Board would be on the question of whether other Shoreham proceedings may proceed unaffected prior to the Appeal Boards' passing on the substantive arguments Inter-venors assert they will make on appeal.

The Staff opposes permittinC pr.rties kte have been found tn be guilty of "a sustained willful strategy of disct'edience and disrespect for the Cornission's adjudicatory prcresses" and rctions whicF vare willful, taken in bad faith and...

1 oreji,Acial to LILCO and integrity of the Coninission's adjudicatory procers." CID at 129, 130, fron further participating in any aspect of this lic ensing proceeding pending, of course, dispot.ition of Inter-venorc' appeal.

Th authority to deterrit ne whether a nuclear power plant meets essentici safety stardards to perniit it to be licensed to cperate is vested by federal law in the U.S. Nuciect Regulatory Commissicn, not in

~/

The severest sanction of dismissal would be warranted under the Com-5 nission's Policy Statement en the conouct of Proe edings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 454, (MP1), if the Appearboard susteins the OL-3 Coard findings.

The sanctier, of dismissel in federal court proceedings is

)

authorized t.) Rule 37 n' the Federal Ecles of Civil Procedure and has beer upheld as "nct merely te penalize these whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction, but to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent."

Natioritl Hockey League v. Metrenclitan Pockey Club, Inc.,

427 U.S.

UP D 43, 96 5. Ct. 2776,7780-81 (1976); see also Roadway Express, Inc. v. pipe,r, 447 l!.S. 752, 763-65,100 S. Ct. 2455, 2462-64 (1980).

l

___ 6/

state or local governnents.

The Commission's regulatory process provides a forun for the full exploration of all issues relating to nuclear power plant safety for all interested parties, from individual private citizer.s to large organizations and state and local governments.

In order to properly execute the Commission's statutory responsibilities, it i t.

esserfit.1 that the Cormission's regulatory process possess a high degree of integrity.

In this case, Intervenors have been found guilty of 4

mounting a concerted asrault on the integrity of the Cow.ission's I

regulatory process.

Tlius, even if the Appeal Board determines that the i

OL-3 Beard did not have jurisdiction to affect matters romanded to the OL-5 Board, the Staff woult' copose Interverors participation ir those proceedings whiie the appeal en the substantive issue cf sanctions was perdirig, even if this meant stay of those proceedings.

The desire for j

expeditico shculd n o '. be pemitted 1o impugn the integrity of the Cerrnission's regulatory procest..

It is Intervenors' view that where than trore then ene adjudicatory board exists in a prcceeding, no board has jurisdiction tc dismiss a party no ratter how cgregious that party's cerduct nay before that beerd.

A

^

bettor view constrent with CLI-81-8 is that each beard before which a party eppears has jurisdiction to dismist that party from the proceeding for reprehensible conduct be' ore it subject, of course, to review 6/

Long Islard Lighting Co. (Shorehar Nuclear power Statior., l' nit 1),

~

CD-e3-13,17 nsC 74r, 743 (1983); Shoreham, Ct!-88-14, 24 naC 36, 4c 1

(1986); Mf6); cituens for ali 0Fderly Erergy Policy v. County Lono Islarf Lighting Co. v. County of Suffolk, 628 F. Supp.

654 (E.D of Suffolk, 604 F. Supp.754,1095 TE.D.N.Y. HE;5).

~

4 l

1

d upon appeal. See Statement of Policy on Cor.duc,t__of Licensing Procee_ dings, CL1-81-8, supra; c_f., 10 C. F. R. ! ?.713(c).

Here the Licensing Board censidering the realism issues renanded by the Cermission in CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 20 (1986), and issues remanded by this Appeal Board, fcund that Intervenors' conduct '- ' iling to comply with Board orders cr.d directions nf the Commission in the litigation of the realism issues was such as to apply the sesere sanction of disnissing them from this proceeding. CID at 128-120. This action was taken after the Intervenors had been warned tho*

they might be subject to severe sanctions Unless they were forthright in discovery and complied with the crecedural orders of the Licensing Board.

M CID at 92-98, 101-02.

Ordinarily, licensing Boards possess considerable discretion in assuring that participants in MC proceedings meet their respersibilities and ir imposing sanctions if they do noi.

Sec, M., )[i_sconsin Electric Power Co. (Pcirt Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-719, 17 NoC 387, 302(1983); Pacific GH 1 Electric Cc. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Pcwer Plant.

Units 1 erd 2), ALAP-782, 20 NRC 830, 841 n. 9 (1984). U The Licensing Doerd, after reviewing the record of what had transpired before it, concluded that Intervenors concuct not only prejudiced the Applicant, but j

7/

Courts heve held that adjudicatory bodies have authority to dismiss

~

proceedings for failure of participants to comply with discovery rulines and other procedural orders.

Hetional Hockev Leacue v.

i i

Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.,

supra; Jcnes v. Niejaia Fr'ontier

~

I Transit Authorit'y, 836 F.2d 7317 734-36 (2d C i r.

1967); Fam construction Services, Inc. v. Fudge, 831 F.2d 18, 20 (1st Cir.

1987).

Subsiiantita deference is due such determinations upon appeal and they will only be reviewed to see if the court irrposing the sanction abused its discretion.

See, National Hockey League; i

Jones v. Niagara Frcntier Trantit Authority; AHkTrr v. tinited States.

E10 F.2d 1500, 1581-60 W d. Cir. 1987).

~

l i

11 -

harred the public's interest because it was prejudicial to the ends of justice.

CID at 107; see also CID at 111-112, 126-127.

The issue of whether disnissal was appropriate will have to be reviewed in oroer to see l

whether Intervenors sheuld have beet-dismissed from proceedings before that board, in any event.

The jurisdictional questions involved should not be allcwed to distract from the need to finally determine whether Intervenors' conduct nirs such as to cause their dismissal from this entire proceeding.

This Appeal Board undoubtedly has the authority to consider all metters before ell Licensing Boards as well itself.

ALAB-901, supra; 10C.F.R.$$2.71C(i)and2.785(b)(1).

Accordingly, the Staff helieves that splitting the issue of the appropriotei'ess of the Licensing Board's renction frorn the difficult retter of jurisdiction i s undesirable.

The interim effect on other aspects of the proceeding pending Appeal Bcard determination on the rerits of the santtien question should be left to properly filed rtotions for stey or corrents addressed to the Cermission under the irrrediate effectiveness rule,10 C.F.P,. ! 2.764(f)(i); rather than through the tr.edium of bifurca-titt, of the issues on apped.

j

_ CONCLUSION The Intervenors, in essence, want this Board to cuickly hold, on procedural (jurisdictiorial) grounds, that the OL-3 board cannet dismiss then fren the proceeding on the 1908 exercise.

The Staff believes this Boerd should, i rstead, grasp the nettle en the rerits of whether Intervenors' cerduct warrants the sanction of dismissal frcro 611 or any i

,-e x---,wrw wwrwsr w w-

-w~~m-'i "vs"-

's-ow=*-*m*

sw-~~w-w--

sw--

---w

-c w

m r+-~~v=v' Mv-1~=-~~<-~r*s

*-w' wa"~

~

~**'w~

'v ww part of the Shoreham proceeding -- a decision,this Board clearly has authority to render. U Respectfully suteitted, 44 P

Edwin J.

eis Deputy ssistert General Counsel Reactor Licensing Branch Dated at Rochille, Maryland this 4th day of October, 1988 I

4 i

t 4

.8/

In its Ordr.r of Septernber 29, 1988, the Appeal f. card requested the Staff to notify it and the parties at least 10 days before any licenting action is to be taken pursuant to the OL-3 Beard's license authorintion.

Full power licenne issuance for Shoreben will be based on the Corrission's determination concerning imediate eff ectiveness urder 10 C.F.R. ! 2.764(f).

There is currently no scheduled Comission meeting to consider imediate effectiveness of the Licensing Board's September 23, 1988 decision.

The Staff will infom the Appeal Board and the parties when such a meeting is scheduled.

After the Comission roeeting, Staff action will be in l

accordance with such instructions as the Commission nay provide. The l

Staff cannot at this pnint assure the Ap)eal Board that such instructions will provide a 10-day waiting per<od.

1

000gi.yiEP U

r UhlTED STATES OF AMERICA

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORF,,TFE AT0f'IC SAFETY AND LICENS!flG APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of

)

jf'{ g

.g 7 LCf!G ISLAllD t IGHTING COMPAf!Y Docket No. 50-322-CL-3 (Shcreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

[E,RTIFICATEOFSERVICE E

I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' l'0 TION FOR BIFUfCATION OF APPEAL AND EXPEDITION" in the above-captioned proceedino have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class cr es indicated by an asterisk, throu0h deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail systen, this 4th day of October 1988.

Christine E. Lohl, Chairmar*

Jerry P. Kline, Esq.*

Aaministrative Judge Administrative Judge Atonic Safety and Licensing Apfr.al Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. flcclear Pegulatory Comnission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 70555 Philip McIntire 1

Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.*

Federal Emergency Management Administrative Judge Agency Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 26 Federal Ple:a Poard Room 1349 U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Comissier New York, NY 10278 Washington, CC 20555 Joel Plau, Director Howard A. Wilber*

Utility Intervention Administrative Judge Suite 1020 1

Atoric Safety and Licensing Appeal 99 Washington Avenue j

Board Albany, NY I?210 U.S. fvclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, DC 20555 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

New York State Department of James P. Gleason, Esq., Chcirman*

Public Service Administrative Judge Three Empire State Plata Atomic Safety and Licensine Beard Albany, NY 12223 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washirgton, DC 20555 James N. Christman, Esq.

Donald P. Irwin, Esq.

Frederick J. Shon Esq.*

Hunton & Pilliams Acministrative Judge 707 East Main Street Atoric Safety ar.d Licensing Bocrd P.O. Box 1535 U.S. ?!uclear Reguletory Commission Richmond, VA P3212 Wa hinater., DC 20555 1

~. _ _ _,. = _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _

.. l p

f Stephen B. Lathan, Esq.

Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.

Twomey, Latham & Shea New York State Dept. of Law Attorneys at Law 120 Broadway, Rocm 3-118 30 kest Second Street New York, NY 10271 Riverhead, NY 11901 Jay Dunkleberger Partin Bradley Ashare, Esq.

New York State Energy Office Suffolk County Attorney Agency Building 2 H. Lee Cennison Building Emaire State Plaza l

Veteran's Memorial Highway Albany, NY 12223 Pauppauce, f;Y 11788 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.

Anthony F. Earley, Jr.

Special Ccunsel to the Governor Genrral Counsel Executive Chamber Lort Island Lighting Company State Capitol 175 Fast Old Country Road Albariy, NY 12224 Hicksville, NY 11001 Ms. Nora Bredes Dr. Fonroe Schreider Shorehan Opponents Coalition North Shore Comittee 195 East Main Street P.O. Box 201 Smithtewn, NY 11787 Wadire River, l'Y 11792 Barbara Newman William R. Cune.ing, Esq.

Director, Envirorrental Health Office of General Counsel Coalition for Safe Livino Federal Erergency Maragement Agency Box 944 500 C Street, SW Huntington, New Yrrk 11743 Washington, DC 20472 Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Robert F:offman Appeal Panel (P P Lcrg Island Coalition for Safe Livint l'.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien P.O. Box 1355 Washingten, DC 20555 Massapequa, Ni 11758

]

Atcric Safety and Licensfro Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

Board Panel (1)*

Laurence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissien Varla J. Letsche, Esq.

Vashington, DC 2055E Kirkpat-ick & Lockhart South Lobby - 9th Floor Docieting and Service Section*

1800 F Street, NW Office of the Secretary Washington, DC 20036-5891 ll.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissien Washington, DC 9055F C. K. Hallery, III, Esq.

Hunton & Willian.s 1

2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Suite 9000 Washington, DC 20006 l

D in J. feis Deputy Kssistant General Counsel i

Reactor Licensing Branch

.