ML19345E783
| ML19345E783 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1981 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP |
| References | |
| ALAB-630, NUDOCS 8102060112 | |
| Download: ML19345E783 (3) | |
Text
s MI
'g
/*
u
/
<'y,'s
\\
~ ~ -
"8g 'U*% d UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/-
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD C 4
d 4
Administrative Judges:
,[
f
'O'>, v A'/
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Christine N. Kohl a
N ;e,c
?
)
N[g In the Matter of
)
.g.
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 1781
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
)
Mr. James Morgan Scott, Jr., Sugar Land, Texas, "k;' D ;\\
for the intervenor Texas Public Interest Re-i,9 search Group.
If U/
5 j L.'
Q bns\\ r DDj I
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER EB
- M,po...,
t h
February 3, 1981 (ALAB-630)
- \\p
$ghy:-
This construction permit proceeding is now in evidentiary hearing before the Licensing Board.
On January 29, 1981, in-tervenor Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG) filed a motion with both that Board and this Boi.rd.
The motion com-plains of a number of oral rulings and actions of the Licensing l
Board during the hearing week commencing on January 19 and end-ing on January 23, 1981.
Insofar as addressed to the Licensing Board, in effect it asks for reconsideration of most, if not all, of those rulings and actions.
The relief sought from us is (1) interlocutory appellate review of TexPIRG's grievances 8202 0 60 llk G-
. by way of directed certification l/ and (2) an order halting the progre ss of the hearing pending the outcome of that review.
In addition, we are requested to direct a change in the composition of the Licensing Board.
1.
We disapprove of the practice of simultaneously seeking Licensing Board reconsideration of interlocutory rulings and ap-pellate review of the same rulings.
2.
Should TexPIRG be dissatisfied with the Licensing Board's disposition of its motion for reconsideration, that party will then be free to file a petition for directed certification with this Board.
In any such petition, TexPIRG must refer to the specific page or pages of the hearing transcript upon which each challenged ruling or action appears.
Absent a precise record reference, the challenge will not be entertained by us. 2/
Ad-ditionally, in determining the scope of the petition, TexPIRG
_1/
See 10 CFR 2.718 (i) ; Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-271, 1 NRC 478, 482-83 (1975).
i 2/
The motion now before us is devoid of record references; it instead invites us to " read the complete record of the.
hearing to date (one week)
The Commission's Rules of Practice specifically require those appealing from initial decisions both (1) to " identify with partic-ularity the portion of the decision (or earlier order or ruling)" which is being challenged; and (2) to "specify, inter alia, the precise portion of the record relied upon in support of [eadh] assertion of error".
Assuredly no less is to be expected of a party asking that we exercise our discretion to review licensing board rul-ings in advance of the rendition of the initial decision.
N
, would be well-advised to bear in mind our disinclination to as-su=e "the role of a day-to-day monitor" of the " numerous deter-minations" which must be made by licensing boards "respecting what evidence is permissible and in what procedural framework it may be adduced".
Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-314, 3 NRC 98, 99 (1976).
3.
In pressing for the replacement of the entire Licensing Board assigned to the proceeding, TexPIRG asserts its doubt that "it can get a fair, impartial decision from (that] Board because of the obvious friction and tension between the Board and [its]
attorney (no matter [whose] fault it is) ".
We need not pass now upon the substantiality of this assertion.
A motion to remove (i.e., disqualify) one or more members of a licensing board must be first presented to that board in strict conformity with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.704 (c).
If denied, the motion then is to be routinely referred.to us for determination of "the suffi-ciency of the grounds alleged".
Ibid.
Directed certification and allied relief denied.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOAPS Q,0=s J
C.
Je 7 Bishop
~\\
Secret ry to the Appeal Board