ML19225A383
| ML19225A383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1979 |
| From: | Linenberger G, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907190114 | |
| Download: ML19225A383 (4) | |
Text
-
~
A NRC PUBLIC DOM gjh
, g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA op7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
$dcy$..,
Q*
10 s
In the Matter of 2
)
M
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER
)
Docket No 50-466 CP COMPANY
)
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
ORDER (June 12,1979)
On May 9,1979, Applicant filed a Motion For Supplementary Notice Of Intervention Procedures.
Therein Applicant requested that we issue and publish in the Federal Register a Supplementary Notice of Interven-tion Procedures in the proposed fom attached thereto. Applicant advised that the Staff concurred.
Thereafter on May 21, 1979, the State of Texas filed a Response In Support of Applicant's Motion Fo-Supplementary Notice, With Modifications.
Mr. Potthoff submitted an undated Respan.se which was served on May 22, 1979.
We can new act upon Applicant's instant motion in that the Ccmmission has elected not to review ALAB-535 and ALAB-539.
Applicant's motion, the suggested modifications of the State of Texas and a suggested modification by Mr. Potthoff are allowed in part anj denied in part, and, as modified or amended, we will issue and publish in the Federal Register a Supplementary Notice of Intervention Pro edures.
Initially, it should be noted that, upon our own motion, we have deleted foot-ncte 7 from the proposed Supplementary Notice. Apparently, and it is by no
- 3. b l)9 790719gjjg Q
. means clear, Applicant considered that petitions for leave to intervene filed by persons unable to qualify under the proposed supplementary notice (i.e., unable to qualify because they had not been dissuaded from filing petitions for leave to intervene by the limitations in our notices of May 31 and September 11, 1978, which ALAB-535 statad were unwarranted) could be filed and allowed provided such petitions discussed, to the Board's satisfaction, the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1)
(i)-(v). However, in ALAB-535 at page 18 of the slip decision, the Appeal Board did not entirely void our notices - it merely stated that "To the extent inconsistent with this holding, the September 1,1978 amended notice of ' intervention procedures' placed an unwarranted limitation upon the right to intervene and, accordingly, could not lawfully be invoked in passing upon appellants intervention petitions".
See also ALAB-539 at page 9, n. 5 wherein the Appeal Board stated "To be sure, our decision has the effect of deleting from the amended notices the improper limitation (relating to the scope of contentions) and leaving the remainder standing".
In ALAB-544, the Appeal Board left it to our determination, and to that of the Applicant and the Staff, whether a notice shuld be republished with the erroneous limitation removed.
In issuing the instant Supplementary Notice, we are following the Appeal Board's guidelines.
It should also be noted that, upon our own motion, we have changed the second to the last paragraph in Applicant's proposed Supplementary Notice to clarify that, once admitted, parties must comply with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. il 2.708 33b N
- and 2.701.
We deny and do not adopt three suggested mcdifications proposed by the State of Texas.
In the first place, the Supplementary Notice, as proposed by Applicant, already provided for late filing in the paragraph citing 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v).
Second, any concerns of the State of Texas about the richts of current parties are without merit, since our Order dated April 11, 1979 at paragraph 9 dealt with the assertion of additional contentions by carrent parties.
Finally, petitions for leave to intervene of those persons who did not timely appeal from our order denying them party status because their contentions failed to comply with the limitations in our notices of May 31 and September 11, 1978 will not be granted.
1/
However, as suggested by the State of Texas and by Mr. Potthoff7 we have deleted the requirement for the submission of an affidavit of any petitioner for leave to intervene because we have no present reason to question the good faith of any petitioner, but we do require at a minimum that we ba advised that he had failed to file a petition pursuant to our 1/ Mr. Potthoff's Response also recuested an extension of time for himself and for otner intervenors witnin wnich to ille contentions.
Absent a snowing of good cau e.th-request is denied.
-i f
v
'), ; g u-20\\
. t
% two earlier notices because of the restrictions on permissible contentions contained in those noticcs.
Dr. Cheatum concurs but was unavailable to sign the instant Order.
THE ATOMIC SA TY AND LICENSIN BOARD
/
M tave A. Linenbd77dr
@ Member k0 lam)Q Shelcon J.W olfe, Esquire Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of June, 1979.
356 10L