ML19209B332
| ML19209B332 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1979 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Potthoff F AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910090515 | |
| Download: ML19209B332 (4) | |
Text
.
FDDLTC DOCUMENT ROOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\
j f) g9 ph'k AS 9
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD E.
N l-1 i'
q *#f,= # h 9
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman chq%
Q.
Dr., John H. Buck c$,hQ' Michael C.
Farrar
% # ' I #
' Eat:G SEF 201979 In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER September 19, 1979 (ALAB s34)
Last Friday (September 14th), we received an undated paper from F. H.
Potthoff, III, a pro se petitioner for intervention in this proceeding.
That paper requests that we " strike down" a portien of the Licensing Board's August 27th scheduling order.
Specifically, petitioner objects to that orJm -- which he says he received on September 6th -- insofar as it established September 14th as the final date for filing amendments to his contentions.
In support of his position, petitioner points out that a 1112 195 7 910000 f/f
~ "special prehearing conference" (see 10 CFR 2.751a) is scheduled to begin on October 15th, and that under the Rules of Practice he would thus ordinarily have until 1/
October 1st to amend his contentions.
We need not await the responses of the applicant and the NRC staff to observe that the paper before us is in essence an interlocutory appeal.
As such, it must be dis-missed for running afoul of the general prohibition against 2/
such appeals.
10 CFR 2. 7 30 ( f). --
Nor are the circumstances such as to justify our treating the paper as a request for 3/
directed certification-- and undertaking to review the challenged ruling on that basis.
- See, e.g.,
Puerto Rico 1/ The Rules of Practice provide, in 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (3) and (b), that an intervenor may amend his petition and add to his contentions without leave of the Board until 15 days before the special prehearing conference held under 10 CFR 2.751a.
See also the Board's August 27th order, par. 1.
The Board's August 6th order calendaring the October 15th conference indicated that it was being convened under 92.751a.
2/ The limited exception carved out by 10 CFR 2.714a is manifestly inapplicable here; it does not cover scheduling matters.
--3/ See 10 CFR 2.718 (i) and Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Units 1 and 2), ALAB-271, 1 NRC 478, 482-83 (1975).
1112 196
Water Resources Authorit{ (North Coast Unit 1), ALAB-361, 4 NRC 625 (1976); Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Ilill Units 1 and 2), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190, 1191, fn. 3 and accompanying text, 1192, fn. 7 and accompanying text (1977).
Of course, in declining to entertain petitioner's complaint at this time, we are neithe. passing upon its 4/
merits nor indicating that review of the ruling below is wholly unavailable.
Rather, any such review must await 5/
the final outcome of the proceeding.--
4/ We do pause to make two observations.
First, for petitioner's information, although the order in question does not cite 10 C.F.R. 2.711(a) explicitly, that provision -- referred to by the unard in its order of August 6th in connection with another class of petitioners -- allows a Board, for good cause, to alter time periods otherwise established by the Rules.
Second, we previously cautioned this Licensing Board about the need to give the parties sufficient notice before imposing an unexpected deadline on them.
ALAB-535, 9 NRC fn. 16 (April 4, 1979).
Even where a party has ha3 a lengthy period for taking action, if that period had no established termination date he is still entitled to fair warning before it is brought to an end.
-5/ See, e. g.,
Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Unit 2), ALAB-269, 1 NRC 411, TlT (197 5).
1112
!97
- Request for relief denied.-6/
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O_
M C.
ean Bishop
- Secr tary to the Appeal Board Dr. Buck did not participate in the consideration or disposition of this matter.
-6/ See also Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Units 1 and 2), ALAB-563, 10 NRC (issued today) and cases there cited, 1112 198
e,3. a r.... n.-
[.O.bNb SI M O N D S. WI N S t.OW. WILLIS & AG BOTT A
se se o r c n s e o *. A b aesoc*a7 eon ATT O R N C Y S A T L AW ts C 00NGACCS :J " A C C.
DOSTON. MAGSACHv3ETTS O2iOO AREACOOC61III)"$SE@
gg pg3LIC DOCUMgg ROOM July 30, 1979 gin.
.6 r,
f.
,\\
7/ r 43 Y \\
9"h d'4
' h\\
c.7 v )
Andrew C. Goodhope. Esq.
,N, g,\\
'C '
Dr. A.
Sixon Callihan gk -'a b26 g
5 Dr, Richard F. Cole 3
av Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Cc==ission D %M Q
Washington, D.C.
20555 Q,
Gentlemen:
We are in receipt of the Motion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Defer the Forthconing Evidenciary Hearings on Emergency Planning and Class 9 Accidents.
He hereby advise you that the intervenors Alan and Marion _
Cleeton support the Commonweal'th's Motion for the reasons therein stated.
Very truly yours; c -
(..
z,,
William S. Abbott WSA:jmt cc:
Pilgrim 2 Service List 1112 199 7010090 b,'