ML19330B352
| ML19330B352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | SENSIBLE MAINE POWER |
| References | |
| ALAB-602, NUDOCS 8007310463 | |
| Download: ML19330B352 (2) | |
Text
~.
,F p.},
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.V
'\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
=c.m 0
'h'\\
7 qTO
'Q
~.
b ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL A
' h; ;
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman
/
s..
nii;.:,,
~
J{;l : :
)
-. g f]
]
In the Matter of
)
)
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No.
50-309
)
(Spent. Fuel Pool (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station)
)
Compaction)
)
)
Mr. David Santee Miller, Washington, D.C.,
for the petitioner, Sensible Maine Power.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER July 29, 1980 (ALAB-602)
On July 14, 1980,.the Licensing Board entered an un-published interlocutory order in this proceeding which granted the licensee's motion to postpone the special prehearing con-ference until after October 1, 1980.
A petitioner for inter-vention in the proceeding, Sensible Maine Power, seeks to appe.1 from that order.
j The appeal must be summarily dismissed.
Section 2.730(f) i of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 CFR 2.730(f),
b503 5
contains a general prohibition against inter-locutory appeals from licensing board rulings f g made during the course of a proceeding.
The so o 7 s.t.o g 3
o.
. single exception to this prohibition is found in 10 CFR 2.714a.
Insofar as a petitioner for intervention is concerned, that Section allows an appeal from an order concerning his petition if -- but only if -- the order denied the petition outright.
~Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-37 0, 5 NRC 131 (1977),and cases there cited.--1/
Appeal dismissed.
l It is so ORDERED.
t l
FOR THE APPEAL PANEL CHAIRMAN C. Jeg'g Bishop i
Secretary to the Appeal Panel This action was taken by the Appeal Panel Chairman under the authority of 10 CFR 2.787 (b).
_/
Sensible Maine Power would not be aided were its papcrs 1
.to be treated alternatively as a request that we exercise our authority to review the July 14 order as a matter of
-discretion.
See 10 CFR 2.718(i) as interpreted in Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and
- 2),. ALAB-2 71, 1 NRC 478, 482-83 (1975).
We have made it clear that that authority normally will not be invoked to entertain scheduling controversies.
See e~.g., Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-541, 9 NRC 436, 437-38 (1979),and cases there cited.
Our attention has been called to1no extraordinary circumstances which might warrant making an exception to the general rule in
~
this instance.
i l
I
.