ML19309C987
| ML19309C987 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ALAB-586, NUDOCS 8004090450 | |
| Download: ML19309C987 (2) | |
Text
,-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W
s Y
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD cc;g g S
USN7,c Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 2
,.3 67 MAR 2 8 ;;gg, ;
Dr. John H. Buck Michael C. Farrar OmcocfgY$e
~)
Docketing
'I 4'
/
( _,
)
y In the Matter of
)
4
)
IIOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
)
Mr. Bryan Baker, Houston, Texas, appellant pro se.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER March 27, 1980 (ALAB-586)
Bryan Baker endeavors to appeal from so much of the Licens-ing Board's unpublished March 10, 1980 order as rejected one of the contentions submitted in connection with his petition for leave to intervene in this construction permit proceeding.
It appears, however, that Mr. Baker's intervention petition was granted on the strength of another contention advanced by him.
Order, pp. 45-47.
In these circumstances, the appeal must be summarily dismissed on the ground that it is unauthorized by the j
l h
8004090 9'fd
. Commission's Rules of Practice.
As we had occasion to observe a few days ago in disposing of the appeal of another petitioner dissatisfied with the March 10 order:
Those Rules do not permit a person to take an interlocutory appeal from an order entered on his intervention petition unless that order has the effect of denying the petition in its entirety.
10 CFR 2.714a; Gulf States Util-ities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-329, 3 NRC 607, 610 (1976), and cases there cited.
ALAB-585, 11 NRC (March 25, 1980). 1!
Appeal dismissed.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O.M AM C. JeQ Bishop
\\
Secretary to the Appeal Board
--1/
As ALAB-585 went on to point out, an intervenor in Mr. Baker's situation must await the rendition of the Licensing Board's initial decision.
If dissatisfied with that decision, the intervenor can take an appeal from it under 10 CFR 2.762(a).
One of the matters that can be raised on such an appeal is whether the Licensing Board erred in rejecting one or more of the appellant's contentions.
. Commission's Rules of Practice.
As we had occasion to observe a few days ago in disposing of the appeal of another petitioner dissatisfied with the March 10 order:
Those Rules do not permit a person to take an interlocutory appeal from an order entered on his intervention petition unless that order has the effect of denying the petition in its entirety.
10 CFR 2.714a; Gulf States Util-ities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-329, 3 NRC 607, 610 (1976), and cases there cited.
ALAB-585, 11 NRC (March 25, 1980). b!
Appeal dismissed.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O.M AM C. Je Q Bishop
\\
Secretary to the Appeal Board
~~1/
As ALAB-585 went on to point out, an intervenor in Mr. Baker's situation must await the rendition of the Licensing Board's initial decision.
If dissatisfied with that decision, the intervenor can take an appeal from it under 10 CFR 2.762(a).
One of the matters that can be raised on such an appeal is whether the Licensing Board erred in rejecting one or more of the appellant's contentions.