ML19289F462
| ML19289F462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1979 |
| From: | Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906070399 | |
| Download: ML19289F462 (3) | |
Text
_...
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT R0011
- ogg, g
M A Y 1 0 19 7 8 )
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\\
em. 4,u D,
"'Q NUCLEAR REGULATORY C05D1ISSION (O
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
)
50-446
)
(Comarche Peak Steam Electric
)
S* tion, Units 1 and 2)
)
ORDER RELATIVE TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE On April 6, 1979, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and West Texas Legal Services (WTLS) requested that the time for filing contentions and the first prehearing be continued due to the following:
- 1) Three Mile Island 2;
- 2) Testing of concrete pours at Comanche Peak;
- 3) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission consideration of need for power;
- 4) Inquiries by Congressman Morris K. Udall and Senator George McGovern; and 5) Lack of Final Safety Evaluation Report (SER) by the NRC Staff.
On April 25, 1979, the Applicant opposed the motion on the bases that the Rules of Practice require the prehearing conference and Petitioners have not demonstrated a valid basis to postpone.
On April 26, 1979, the NRC Staff opposed the motion on the premise that Petitioners lacked standing.
The Staff I
1, 2232 lib 7906070 36/7
_ also stated that the motion is in the nature of a " stay" and that the petitioners have not met the criteria for a stay set forth in 10 CFR 2.788(e).
The Staff also mentioned that based on new information, contentions may be amended with leave of the Board.
The Staff pointed out that the Applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report and Environmental Report are available for the purpose of drafting contentions and that the lack of the SER is not an acceptable basis for delay of the prehearing conference.
The Staff concluded that petitioners' allegations of harm and prejudice are without merit.
The motion is based on the fact that there are ongoing open matters.
This more often than not is the case but there are matters tnat are ripe for consideration at the prehearing conference.
Tae Applicant and the NRC Staff have different positions on the various petitioners' " interest" in the proceeding.
That matter alone would warrant proceeding with the scheduled prehearing conference since this is a funda-mental matter which must be resolved and the Board will be further aided by a discussion of this issue by the petitioners, Applicant and NRC Staff.
The requirements for " standing" be'ing interest and at least one valid contention, the Appli-cant and Staff are requested to address in writing prior to d f f Iih 3 \\
22
~
. the prehearing conference any additional plea they may wish to submit on interest and their position as to whether they believe there is one or more acceptable contentiot;.s for each of the petitioners.
The petitioners and the parties will be invited to address these issues orally at the pre-hearing conference.
If the Board determines that interest and at least one contention has been established for a petitioner, then that Petitioner would be granted " standing" as an Intervenor.
Then the Board would expect the Applicant and Staff to meet with the Intervenor and try to reach a stipulation on one or more other contentions.
Intervenors may request additional contentions be accepted if new informa-tion becomes available at a later date.
The motion is denied.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD S A A.J. G j Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this _
day of May 1979.
2232 117