ML20003C159
| ML20003C159 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1981 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102260726 | |
| Download: ML20003C159 (3) | |
Text
.
I 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 8
coCKETED
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC T'
g7 FEB 241981 >
2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Ot/te of the Seerstay Administrative Judges:
b d
\\
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman C)
Dr. John H. Buck Christine N. Kohl kyg
)
lypl In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
)
/ '
Mr. James' Morgan Scott, Jr., Sugar Lar.?., Texas,, G for the intervenor Texas Public Interest Re-/
\\
Y search Group.
6 E8g I2, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER g
February 23, 1981 1.
Intervenor Texas Public Interest Research Group has now resubmitted its Janucry 29, 1981 motion in which it com-plained of se.*eral oral rulings made by the Licensing Board during an early stage of the evidentiary hearing in this construction permit proceeding.
The ' notion sought, inter alia, both Licensing Board reconsideration of those rulings and our review of them by way of directed certificatior..
In ALAB-630, 13 NRC (February 3,1981), we denied the mo-tion insofar as directed to us on the basis of our "disapprov[all of the practice of simultaneously seeking Licensing Board recon-sideration of interlocutory rulings and appellate review of the i
i S *l 8102260726
\\-
_2_
same rulings".
We went on to state, however, that "{s}hould 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".
This admonition was added:
"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".
2.
The resubmittal is in the form of copies of the Janu-cry 29 motion, with transcript references penned in and the date on the certificate of service changed from January 29 to Febru-ary 17.
Because unaccompoaied by a letter of transmittal, the precise purpose of the rer.ibmittal is unclear.
It is possible, of course, that TexPIRG's.ntent was simply to supply the Li-censing Board with transcript references to aid that Board's appraisal of the reconsideration request presented to it.
On the other hand, it may be that TexPIRG's objective was, instead, to renew its endeavor to obtain appellate relief with regard to the challenged rulings below.
But, if so, that endeavor still must be rejected as premature.
For, insofar as we are aware (and TexPIRG does not assert otherwise), the Licensing Board has not a yet acted upon the reconsideration request.
It should be added that it was not our contemplation that, were the Licensing Board to adhere to the challenged rulings, TexPIRG would simply resubmit its previously filed papers with
.h
. the addition of transcript references.
Rather, the expectation was, and remains, that a new pleading would be drafted which would take into account not only the Licensing Board's action on reconsideration but, as well, this Board's decision in Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-314, 3 NRC 98, 99 (1976).
That decision was specifically alluded to in ALAB-630, 13 NRC at (slip opinion, p. 3).
For the above reasons, insofar as addressed to this Board, de resubmittal of TexPIRG's January 29 motion will not be con-sidered by us and therefore need not receive a resoons.e from any other party to the proceeding.
It is so ORLERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
- b. A _-
h3 T
C. Jea$ Bishop Secretary to the Appeal Board y
- + -
y
~