ML19224C240
| ML19224C240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1979 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907020001 | |
| Download: ML19224C240 (2) | |
Text
.
9 W
p,
'WM
?.
UNITED STATES 0. AMERICA 6-
\\S73 y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gt f
cp THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD a
NRC PUBLIC DCENT ROOM
- s In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER
)
Docket No. 50-466 CP COMPANY (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1
)
ORDER In an undated submission served on May 24, 1979, Mr. Jonathan Howard Kamras petitioned for leave to intervene. On May 31 and June 8,1979, the NRC Staff and the Applicant respectively filed Responses in opposition thereto.
Mr. Karc. ras asserts that he has standing to intervene because he lives within forty t1 fifty miles from the proposed site and sets forth four ll contentions.
The instant petition for leave to inti. vene is denied.
In the first place, the petition is untimely filed since it was sub-mitted seven months after the deadline set forth in this Board's " Corrected Notice of Intervention Procedures (43 Federal Register 4032, September 11, 1978).
The petition fails to discuss any of the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)'l)(i)-(v) wnich govern non-timely filing of petitions.
1/ Mr. Kamras elected to include in his petition a list of fcur contentions.
2bb 2
b 7 "'702000 (
p
- Second, even assuming that the petition had been timely filed and assuming, without deciding, that standing has been established, none of petitioner's contentions is admissible as an issue in controversy.
In Contentions 1 and 2, Mr. Kamras asserts that higher rates occasioned by the proposed facility would prevent him from impmving his imediate environment and would prevent his landlord from improving petitioner's rented house.
Contentions based upon the economic interest of a ratepayer are not cogni-zable in our prnceedings.
Cf. Kansas Gas and Electric Co., et. al. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-424, 6 NRC 122,128 n. 7 (1977);
Detroit Edison Company (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-376, 5 NRC 426, 428 (1977).
In Contention 3, petitionw asserts that the proposed plant will emit four times the amount of radiation of any other comercial reactor in the United States, causing a tremendous increase in radiation related diseases.
Contrary to the requirements of 5 2.714(b) of our Rules of Practice, the petitioner has failed to set forth t% bases for this conten-tion with reasonable specificity.
In Contention 4, Mr. Kamras alleges that potential employers will be driven away from Houston because of the increased cost of electricity, the emission problems, difficulties with on-site spent fuel storage, and because of future general problems with intemediate spent fuel storage in Texas. Again, petitioner fails to meet the rec,uirements of 1 2.714(o).
Further, the contention is completaly speculative.
FOR THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARC WJ%.
2bb 2}/
Sheldon J. O fe, Esquire Chainnan Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 20th day of June, 1979.
E$h Q h 1
j d U lf
@ M @ l l ll