ML20009A167: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:j .                                                                    ,o
                                                                                  * :{ . .
.                                                                    o                ' o -.,            s c                            y
                                                                                  .m        4,
                                                                  .                            y        )
                                                                .-    .luL
                                                                      .        6 1981
                                                                                              ;."]      )
                                                                ; % g .. _ . . , , ,    .                \
U.S. NUCLEAR REGUUiTORY COMMISSIOtt    S gA    n,            17 f'9            [
                                                                  \t,          '
                                                                            -J4'                      ;.
In the matter of                                    Docket Nos.          O-329              i CPCo. Midland Plant                                                      50-330 Units I&2                                                                                    [
OM & OL                ;-
i e-    *[/ 'gf S                    3\          ;-
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY F.LLCENSING APPEAL BO                              Q\      !-
                                                                                              .\
6/30/81                  E        G gS N7                r l      [
INTERVENOP RErUEST FOR RULING ON APPROPRIATE TIME y
3..
                                                                              #[&n g, / .. _ d\
APPEALS    ON DISCOVERY RULINGS & CONFEREMCE CALL RULINGS WHICEh DENY ECUAL RIGHTS TO ONE PARTY IN THE PROCEEDING Although the nuestions which I am about to raise in this recuest do not affect "the basic structure of the proceeding"'in the 'hervasive and unusual manner" that my 6/29/81 recuests do, I believe their con ilned effect is that of" seriously harm (ing) the public intrest" by Ilmiting the full participation of one                              b E
party in a proceeding and thereby limiting the open and fair                                  I consideration of information relevant to that proceeding.
Respecting and understanding your reluctance "to enter the discovery thicket",as expressed on p. 5 of the Feb. 20, 1981 Thornburg Ruling, I will ask these questions in the abstract.                                ;
If the answer to any of these cuestions is yes, I will provide the                          [
appropriate supporting evidence at your request.
Would this Appeal Board entertain an interlocutory appeal              05035 on any or' all of 'the following . issues?                                        /
1 8107090110 810630 3 PDR ADOCK 05000329-                                                                              -
O                PDR 3  v    +r  .
 
                                                                                    ~
          , /*
  =; . .
u j
l Sj 55
: 1) A double standard for discovery, stated in writing, which sets T..j
      ;
different parameters for acceptable discovery for different.
m3 y                  parties.
a E) A ruling granting a motion for protective order without giving the party ruled against a chance to respond.to the motion.
: 3) A ruling of untim.11 ness on follow up discovery when that
  }                  untfaliness is due directly to the other parties failure to
~
answer initial discovery, and therefore unavoidable.
: 4) Denial of a request to see a document considered confidential by two parties.and relevant to this proceeding.
: 5) Denial of a recuest to be allowed to attend a meeting with URC Staff and Counsel and CPC Counsel, relevant to this proceeding.
: 6) Denial of a renuest for certain public documents from Applicant in the manner afforded all other parties.
Respectfully submitted,
;
4
},
cc: ASLAB Me:.rbe rs A5LE .'. embers Wm. P;too,NRC
!                    ?.f. Miller, CPCo.
Secretary, HRC Attorney Gen. Kelley}}

Revision as of 17:39, 28 January 2020

Request for Ruling on Appropriate Time for Appeals on Discovery & Conference Call Rulings Which Deny Equals Rights to One Party in Proceeding
ML20009A167
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 06/30/1981
From: Stamiris B
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8107090110
Download: ML20009A167 (2)
v • d • e


Text

j . ,o

  • :{ . .

. o ' o -., s c y

.m 4,

. y )

.- .luL

. 6 1981

."] )
% g .. _ . . , , , . \

U.S. NUCLEAR REGUUiTORY COMMISSIOtt S gA n, 17 f'9 [

\t, '

-J4'  ;.

In the matter of Docket Nos. O-329 i CPCo. Midland Plant 50-330 Units I&2 [

OM & OL  ;-

i e- *[/ 'gf S 3\  ;-

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY F.LLCENSING APPEAL BO Q\  !-

.\

6/30/81 E G gS N7 r l [

INTERVENOP RErUEST FOR RULING ON APPROPRIATE TIME y

3..

  1. [&n g, / .. _ d\

APPEALS ON DISCOVERY RULINGS & CONFEREMCE CALL RULINGS WHICEh DENY ECUAL RIGHTS TO ONE PARTY IN THE PROCEEDING Although the nuestions which I am about to raise in this recuest do not affect "the basic structure of the proceeding"'in the 'hervasive and unusual manner" that my 6/29/81 recuests do, I believe their con ilned effect is that of" seriously harm (ing) the public intrest" by Ilmiting the full participation of one b E

party in a proceeding and thereby limiting the open and fair I consideration of information relevant to that proceeding.

Respecting and understanding your reluctance "to enter the discovery thicket",as expressed on p. 5 of the Feb. 20, 1981 Thornburg Ruling, I will ask these questions in the abstract.  ;

If the answer to any of these cuestions is yes, I will provide the [

appropriate supporting evidence at your request.

Would this Appeal Board entertain an interlocutory appeal 05035 on any or' all of 'the following . issues? /

1 8107090110 810630 3 PDR ADOCK 05000329- -

O PDR 3 v +r .

~

, /*

=; . .

u j

l Sj 55

1) A double standard for discovery, stated in writing, which sets T..j

different parameters for acceptable discovery for different.

m3 y parties.

a E) A ruling granting a motion for protective order without giving the party ruled against a chance to respond.to the motion.

3) A ruling of untim.11 ness on follow up discovery when that

} untfaliness is due directly to the other parties failure to

~

answer initial discovery, and therefore unavoidable.

4) Denial of a request to see a document considered confidential by two parties.and relevant to this proceeding.
5) Denial of a recuest to be allowed to attend a meeting with URC Staff and Counsel and CPC Counsel, relevant to this proceeding.
6) Denial of a renuest for certain public documents from Applicant in the manner afforded all other parties.

Respectfully submitted,

4

},

cc: ASLAB Me:.rbe rs A5LE .'. embers Wm. P;too,NRC

!  ?.f. Miller, CPCo.

Secretary, HRC Attorney Gen. Kelley

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20009A167&oldid=2336397"