ML19276E502
| ML19276E502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1979 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RTR-WASH-1400 NUDOCS 7903140420 | |
| Download: ML19276E502 (2) | |
Text
.. _.. _ _. _
NRC PUBLIC DCCU'2A' T E00'4 LNITED STATES OF AlERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CatESSION BnURE THE AIUEC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
fDocketNo.50-466 U
b
~
y r%.
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
D 1
Station, Unit 1)
)
q;l2 N
p$a FEB 1. 6 '.573 >
~
~
JV ORDER p
/
(lle.- Q w
On January 30, 1979, the then petitioner for leave to
%i W
^
incervene, Ms. Kathryn Hooker, filed a Petiticn for Suspension Of Proceedings. Therein, Ms. Hooker requested that the instant pro-ceedings be suspended in that on January 19, 1979, the rem'ssicn
" withdrew its endorsement of the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400)"
1 (also knam as the Rasmssen Report), and thus the Ca: mission mst determine to stat extent the Allens Creek safety and envircreental studies and the Partial Initial Decisicn "are fatally based on the rejected study".
In a Respcnse filed on February 9, 1979, Applicant I
opposed said Petiticn.
In the past, we have entertained and ruled upon various motions and other filings of the then petiticners for leave to intervene without reaching and deciding stather these petitioners had senn &g to file such submissions. However, on February 9, s
6 1903140 M O
=
- i l
1 a
h,
l 1979, in our Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions, we determined that Ms. Hooker should not be ad:itted as a party. Accordingly, we l
do not entertain this Petiticn by a non-party and it is herewith denied.
l It should be noted that, in our Order Ruling Upon Intervention i
Petitions, we rejected Texas PIRG's Additicnal Centention 5, the thrust j
of which was sirilar to Ms. Hooker's Petition. Therein, hcwever, we
\\
did pose the following questiens to be addre.ssed by the Staff in the fcrthe d ng hearing:
(1) Did the Staff use WASH-1400 in arriving at i
its conclusions regarding envircamental risks, as stated in S.7 of the Supplement to the Final Fhm?ni Statement?, (2) If so, do these i
conclusions need to be undified as to the result of recent criticisms I
/
(lawis Report) of WASH-1400 and the NRC's recent policy stateent regarding same?
FOR THE ATWIC SAFEIY AND LICENSING BOARD
>!A b N Y Shelcan J. {lfe, ha Dated at Bethesda, M rf and l
this 16th day of Febrwer 1979.
.