ML19260A987
| ML19260A987 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1979 |
| From: | Wolfe S NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Ryan Alexander AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912060223 | |
| Download: ML19260A987 (2) | |
Text
'
$4);%
't UNITED STATES OF AMERICA a
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ih ge % )
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.M
/
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire, Chairman y
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum, Member 1'
\\" i # '
Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr., Member N
In the Matter of
) SERVED
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 CP
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
ORDER (November 20,1979)
In a letter dated October 18, 1979 which was served on October 30, 1979, Mr. Robert Alexander filed a Petition for Leave to Intervene. On November 9, and on November 14, the Staff and the Applicant respectively filed responses in opposition thereto.
Conceding that he~is tardy in filing his petition, Mr. Alexander asserts
-1/
that there is good cause for failing to file in a timely manner - i.e. he could not have petitioned earlier because he did not take up residence in Houston
~
until September,1979.
A showing of good cause as required by 10 C.F.P.
9 2.714(a) has not been made.
In Carolina Power and Light Comoany (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1-4), ALAB-526, 9 NRC 122,124 (1979), in agreeing that such an explanation for the tardy filing cannot carry the day, the Appeal Board stated:
... If newly acquired standing... were sufficient of itself to justify permitting belated intervention, the necessary con-sequence would be that the parties to the proceeding would never be determined with certainty until the final curtain fell.
Assuredly, no adjudicatory process could be conducted in an orderly and expeditious manner if subjected to such a handicap.
1520 013 1/ The due date of July 18, 1979 for the filing of petitions for leave to intervene was set forth in the Supplementary Notice Of Intervention Procedures dated June 12, 1979 (44 Fed. Reg. 35062, June 18, 1979).
A Special Prehearing Conference was held between October 15 and October 19, 1979.
6 7912voo 2 23 Here, as in the Shearon Harris decision, the question comes down to whether the four other factors set forth in Section 2.714(a) weigh sufficiently in petitioner's favor to ovarcome the absence of a satisfactory excuse for the lateness. We are unable to assess these other factors because the petitioner has not particularized his interests in this proceeding.
Further, while a Board may in its disc: etion allow untimely intervention if it is evident that the titioner can make a valu-able contribution to the development of a sound record on safety or environmental issues (Public Service Company of Oklahoma, et al. (Blick Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143 (1977)), Mr. Alexander merely tells us that he is an articulate teacher and, without more detail, asser ts that he is familiar with the
" Davis-Bessie"(sic) nuciear plant in Northwest Ohio.
Accoraingly, the Board denies the Petition For Leave To Intervene.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.715(a), Mr. Alexander may make a limited appearance at a time and place to be subsequently noticed.
Pursuant to 5 2.714a, within ten (10) days after the service of this Order denying his petition for leave to intervene, Mr.
Alexander may appeal to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
Dr. Cheatum and Mr. Linenberger concur.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
==
Sheldon J. th lfe, Esquire Chal.'na n Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 20th day of November,1979.
h s
4
\\