ML19289F262
| ML19289F262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1979 |
| From: | Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906070119 | |
| Download: ML19289F262 (3) | |
Text
,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ph I r =
NRC PUBLIC DCCUSENT R006 Y
C h,c*.O C d g37h ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD N'" g g 4
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chalcan g
Dr. John H.
Buck 0$bqhe Michael C. Farrar o
SF.avco MAY 9 a7)
N 4ie
)
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
)
Mr. Emanuel Baskir, Houston, Texas, appellant pro se.
MEMORI.NDUM AND ORDER May 8, 1979 (ALAB - 547)
In an order entered on February 9, 1979, the Licensing Board acted upon twenty-four petitions for leave to intervene in this construction permit proceeding.
A tew were granted; the majority were denied.
At the conclusion of the order, the Licensing Board explicitly advised the unsuccessful petit-ioners of their right under 10 CFR 2.714a to appeal the order to this Board within 10 days after service of it upon them.-1/
_l,/
10 CFR 2.714a was amended, effective May 26, 1978, to increase the appeal period from five to ten days.
43 Fed.' Reg. 17.798, 17802 (April 26, 1973).
2233 240 7906070ll
a
. Several of those petitioners exercised that right on a timely basis and, in ALAB-535,-2/ we passed on their appeals.
On May 1, 1979 -- almost three months after the issuance of the Licensing Board's order -- yet another of the petitioners denied intervention below (Emanuel Baskir) came to us with the request that that denial be overturned.
Treating Mr. Baskir's filing as an appeal under 10 CFR 2.714a, we are constrained to deny it on the ground of 3/
untimeliness.
It may well be that the appeal period provided in Section 2.714a is not jurisdictional in the sense that we lack the power to entertain an appeal which is not filed within en days after service of the order in question.
But manifestly we would not be justified in accepting a belated appeal in the absence of a showing of good cause for the failure to have filed it on time.
And, the greater the tardiness, the more compelling need be that showing.
In this instance, Mr. Baskir
~
--2/
9 NRC (April 4, 1979), petitions for reconsideration and clarification denied, ALAB-539, 9 NRC (April 23, 1979) and ALAB-544, 9 NRC (May 3, 1979).
__3/
This is so despite the fact that it appears that Mr.Baskir was denied intervention by the Licensing Board on grounds rejected by us (in the case of some of those who took timely appeals) in ALAB-535.
Q2 Lis
!!s,
. is very late with no explanation at all.
The fact that he is a layman and thus possibly may be unfamiliar with our Rules of Practice could not, of course, have served as a sufficient excuse.
For, as earlier noted, the order which he seeks to challenge advised him both of his appellate rights and of the time within which those rights had to be exercised.
Appeal dismissed.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD Ant.M Margar4t E.
Du Flo Secretary to tl.e Appeal Board 2233 242
.