ML19344E254
| ML19344E254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Marrack D MARRACK, D. |
| References | |
| ALAB-609, ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8008280259 | |
| Download: ML19344E254 (3) | |
Text
.
' 's.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA El ;.:N.
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c\\
~ '/,
' :v--.
4..
I ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAR,D
,,c o.,.ff,0Q # :.
.u O
s
~
7 i-Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman L
Dr. John H. Buck N;
- [_]'l7
,, g-..
9,,
)
,^
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
)
Dr. David Marrack, Bellaire, Texas, appellant pro se.
M ORANDUM AND ORDER August 25, 1980 (ALAB-609)
By a filing dated August 18, 1980, intervenor David Marrack endeavors to appeal from a portion of the Licensing Board's un-published June 27, 1980 crder in this construction permit pro-ceeding.
Recognizing that almost two months have elapsed since the entry of that order, Dr. Marrack represents that the appeal was not more seasonably prosecuted because he had failed to re-ceive the copy of the order which had been served upon him by the Docketing and Service Branch of the Commission on June 30, 1980.
(We are told th.It he had obtained the order from applicant's p503 counsel earlier this month.)
1 0ll
.8 0082809581
2-The principal difficulty with the appeal is not that it is late but, rather, that it is impermissible!
The June'27 order was entirely interlocutory in character; insofar as here rele-vant, it dealt with certain discovery requests directed to the applicant by Dr. Marrack and another intervenor.
As such, un-der the plain terms of the Commission's Rules of Practice, b!
it is not subject to appeal prior to the rendition of the Licensing Board's initial decision.
See 10 CFR 2.730 (f). 2/
1/
We take this occasion to stress anew the imperative necessity that all participants in NRC adjudicatory proceedings -- whether lawyers or laymen representing themselves or organizations to which they belong --
familiarize themselves at the outset with those Rules.
By doing so, participants will both (1) enhance their ability to protect adequately the rights of those they represent; and (2) avoid the waste of time and resources l
which inevitably accompanies the taking of action for-bidden by the Rules.
_2/
Notwithstanding Section 2.730 (f), we have the authority to review interlocutory orders of licensing boards as a matter of discretion.
10 CFR 2.718 (i) ; Public Service l
Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
l ALAB-271, 1 NRC 478, 482-83 (1975).
As very recently l
reemphasized, however, our general policy is not to I
exercise that discretion in connection with discovery controversies.
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-608, 12 NRC (August 22, 1980).
No reason to depart from that pol-icy is apparent in this instance.
U H
.., l Appeal dismissed.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
- Rd O,.
_a C. Je
\\
Secre $ Bishop tary to the Appeal Board Michael C. Farrar was previously a member of this Board.
Effective August 16, 1980, he resigned his position as a permanent legal member of the Appeal Panel and simulta-neously withdrew from all but one of the Appeal Boards to which he was then assigned.
Accordingly, this matter was ruled upon by the remaining members of the Board un-der the quorum rule.
At an appropriate date, another Appeal Panel member will be designated to serve on the Board in Mr. Farrar's stead.
l l
._.