ML20009A167

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)

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