ML19323B115
| ML19323B115 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1980 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005090281 | |
| Download: ML19323B115 (1) | |
Text
.
8005090 UNITED STATES yy, p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D. C. 20S55 g
g c'
3;
\\
\\*****
April 16, 1980 cccmsa g
g~
uomo
~
APR 16 EO>
- 3 Office of th Smm.f
[
9 Mr. John F. Doherty Armadillo Coalition of Texas MetN Mech 2 Houston Chapter y'
UQ
2 4327 Alconbury Street G
c' Houston, Texas 77021 In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-466 CP
Dear Mr. Doherty:
Receipt of your letter dated April 7,1980 is acknowledged. Therein, you state in substance that your original Contentions 1 and 2, which had been denied in the Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions dated February 9,1979, may be admissible if the Commission negatively decides the ques-tion certified in Public Service Company of Oklahoma, et. al. (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-573, 10 NRC 775, 790 (1979).
At pages 20 and 21 of the Order of February 9, 1979, after noting that these two contentions alleged, in part, that the ACNGS will not meet the NRC's criteria with respect to maintaining radioactive release values as low as reasonably achievable, we rejected these contentions because, inter alia, no basis had been provided with reasonable specificity.
- Further, af ter noting that these two contentions also alleged, in part, that a further reduction of (permissible) radioactive effluent releases must be undertaken or a pressurized water reactor should be utilized inasmuch as new medical findings show an increased risk of radiation induced cancer, we also rejected these contentions because they constituted impermissible challenges to Commission regulations.
We perceive no nexus between the question before the Conunission and the admissibility of these contentions and accordingly there is no basis for reconsideration.
Thus, our answer to your first question is in the negative.
With regard to your second question, see page 4 of the enclosed copy of the Appeal Board's Memorandum and Order in Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-585, decided March 25, 1980.
Very truly yours, Mb_k Od Sheldon J. Mlfe, Es' quire Chairman l
Enclosure:
ALAB-585 cc:
To All Parties, w/cy encl.
l
gn \\ *
, tss
<<\\s\\
e e
at T-h Ci}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (j
,. ~ ~ - y t
~'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!CIISSION V.
s..:nnri i;
\\v'.\\....., ; '..: 3 j
g
- .
- 1 c,
. & ;8. /
,.N ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
- 1/
='
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck OE tqg d
Michael C.
Farrar E 5 lCD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-4'66
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
)
)
5 k
Mr. William J.
Schuessler, Houston, Texas, fj, s
appellant pro se.
R 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 2
APR 161950 >
9 Office of the Secretary
-2,
March 25, 1980 Docksting & Service b
kO 7
( ALAB-5 8 5) 1 e
o 1.
In the course of its unpublished March 10, 1980 order, j
the Licensing Board considered (at pp.91-103) the admissi-bility of the contentions advanced by William J. Schuessler in connection'with his petition for leave to intervene in this construction permit proceeding involving the Allens Creek nuclear facility.
For one reason or another, all but l
contentions 6 and 14 were rejected.
Those two contentions i
dealt with the feasibility of evacuating persons in the Allens l
1 j
Creek area should there be a serious accident at the facility.
DM gooco3(?o76
4
~.
2-The Board combined the contentions and announced it would defer ruling upon their admissibility pending final Commission action upon certain proposed amendments to existing emergency planning regulations.
See 44 Fed. Reg. 75167 (December 19, 1979).
The Board went on to indicate (at p. 103) that, once the Commission.had acted, we will either rule upon the admissibility of the combined contentions or permit Mr. Schuess.tr to amend them.
At that subsequent time, should we reject said combined contentions and deny his peti-tion for leave to intervene, Mr. Schuessler's right is preserved to appeal to the Atomic Safaty and Licensing Appeal Board within ten (10) days after service of such an order wholly denying his petition for leave to intervene.
Apparently not willing to await the disposition of com-bined contentions 6 and 14, Mr. Schuessler has endeavored to appeal to us from.the rejection of the other contentions.
2.
It is manifest that the appeal must be summarily dis-missed on the ground that it is unauthorized by the Commission's Rules of Practice.
Those Rules do not permit a person to take an interlocutory appeal from an order entered on his interven-tion petition unless that order has the effect of denying the l
l petition in its entirety.
10 CFR 2.714a; Gulf States Utilities I
Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-329, 3 NRC 607, 610 i
l l
-A
., (1976), and cases there cited.
As has been seen, the March 10 order would not have that effect; to the contrary, the Licensing Board has withheld its decision on the grant or denial of Mr.
Schuessler's petition pending its ruling on combined conten-tions 6 and 14.
As the Licensing Board correctly noted, should the combined contentions ultimately be rejected and his intervention peti-tion accordingly denied, Mr. Schuessler will be able then to take an appeal under 10 CFR 2.714a. b!
The question on any such appeal would be whether at least one of his several con-tentions should have been accepted as litigable, with the conse-quence that his intervention petition should have been granted.
See Mississirli Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 424 (1973).- [
On the
--1/
In t'his connection, Mr. Schuessler's papers before us reflect an erroneous belief that appeals under Section i
2.714a must be filed within 10 days of the date upon l
which the challenged order is served by mail.
He ob-l viously overlooked the provisions of 10 CFR 2.710 to the effect that:
j l
Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceeding within l
a prescribed period after the service of a no-l tice or other paper upon him and the notice or paper is served upon him by mail, five (5) days shall be added to the prescribed period.
2/
There appears to be no dispute that Mr. Schuessler, who resides 35 miles from the f acility, has established the requisite standing to intervene.
~.. other hand, should the Licensing Board eventually decide tb entertain combined contentions 6 and 14 and the intervention petition be accordingly granted, Mr. Schuessler will have to wait until the Board renders its initial decision before com-plaining to us of the rejection of his other contentions.-3/
Appeal dismissed.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD 0.
e%
\\
C. Je g Bishop Secretary to the Appeal Board Mr. Farrar did not participate in the cqnsideration or disposition of this matter.
l l
l l
l
_3,/
Any complaint along that line would be asserted as part of Mr. Schuessler's appeal from the initial decision taken under 10 CFR 2.762(a) (were that decision to be regarded by him as sufficiently unfavorable to warrant his seeking to overturn it).
.