ML19338B941
| ML19338B941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Schuessler W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| ALAB-585, NUDOCS 8004030076 | |
| Download: ML19338B941 (4) | |
Text
._
\\W I *,a,
/;\\
/5 hA7
\\
Y' \\
~4 M
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
<-7
- y{2}
NUCLEAR REGULATCRY CO:C:ISSION y
'Mk<
yj
- 2 n ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE;SIiG APPEAL BCARD t
sY W' Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H.
Buck Michael C.
Farrar OE ' 2
' ', M 2 5,,e,.,,
m
)
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
)
)
Mr. William J. Schuessler, Houston, Texas, appellant pro se.
MEMORANDUM:AND ORDER March 25, 1980
( ALAB-585) 1.
In the course of its unpublished March 10, 1980 order, the Licensing Board considered (at pp.91-103) the admisLA-bility of the contentions advanced by William J.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 contentions 6 and 14 were rejected.
Those two contentions dealt with the feasibility of evacuating persons in the Allens Creek area should there be a serious accident at the facility.
80040yoo7g t
w 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. Schuessler 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 i
Safety 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 i
an interlocutory appeal from an order entered on his interven-tion petition unless that order has the effect of denying the petition in its entirety.
10 CFR 2.714a; Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-329, 3 NRC 607, 610
I
,, (1976), and cases there cited.
As has been seen, the March 10 crder 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 Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 424 (19 7 3).
On the
--1/
In this connection, Mr. Schuessler's papers before us reflect an erroneous belief that appeals under Section 2.714a must be filed within 10 days of the date upon which the challenged order is served by mail.
He ob-viously overlooked the provisions of 10 CFR 2.710 to the effect that:
Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceeding within a prescribed period af ter the service of a no-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 facility, has established the requisite standing to intervene.
L
. other hand, should the Licensing Board eventually decide to 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 O.
m%d C. Je g Bishop
\\
Secretary to the Appeal Board Mr. Farrar did not participate in the consideration or disposition of this matter.
--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 unfavorabj a to warrant his seeking to overturn it).
i
-.