ML19290E547
| ML19290E547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/29/1980 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003140192 | |
| Download: ML19290E547 (2) | |
Text
.
m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f% c'kg.9 d
A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U
% @y N%
3 THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- 1 N
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire, Chairman Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum, Member 6
Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr., Member D
co t y
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 CP
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
ORDER (February 29,1980)
On February 8, 1980, Intervenor, Mr. John F. Doherty, filed a Motion To Extend Discovery Beyond the 120 Day Limit Set On October 19,197n On February 15 and on February 28, 1980, applicant and the NRC staff respec-tively filed responses opposing the granting of said Motion.
Mr. Doherty requests that the Board extend the discovery period for all parties beyond the expiration date of February 20, 1980.-1/
Upon behalf of all parties, expecting that the Board's Order ruling on outstanding contentions would not be issued until after February 20th, Mr. Doherty asserts that parties would be able to further develop their cases rather than biding time.
Further, he asserts that, since the Board had granted applicant's request for an extension of time within which to complete discovery against TexPirg, an extension should be granted to all parties.
Specifically, upon his own behalf, if On October 19, 1979, at the conclusion of the special prehearing conference, the Board directed that, beginning October 22, 1979, the parties would have forty-five more days within which to complete discovery with regard to conten-tions previously admitted and would have one hundred and twenty days within which to initiate and complete discovery upon those contentions admitted during said conference.
(See Order of November 19, 1979).
h 8003140 / 92.
he states that additional time would be valuable in his effort to finish discovery on fourteen contentions.
Ne, as well as the Appeal Board, frequently have notified the parties that, absent authorization, one party may not represent the interests of others.
Further, our Order of February 4, 1980, had granted applicant's request for a seven day extension of time within which to complete discovery against TexPirg upor, u rtain contentions because applicant had shown good cause - i.e., applicant had shown that TexPirg's answers to certain interro-gatories (which had been served by applicant on December 19,1979) had not been received until January 29, 1980.
Moreover, in t.he instant Motion, Mr.
Doherty fails to show good cause for being unable to complete discovery by February 20th, and the mere fact of a hiatus between said expiration date and 2/
the issuance of the Board's Order ruling upon outstanding contentions does not establish good cause.
Finally, the instant Motion is defective in failing to specify the number of days for which an extension is requested.
For the foregoing reaso.2, the instant Motion is denied.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Sheldon J polfe,' Esquire Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of February,1980.
2_/ This Order will be issued shortly.