ML20003A810

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Memorandum & Order Denying WE Rentfro 810130 Motion for Review & Reversal of ASLB Ruling.Disputed Ruling Concerns Intervenor Preclusion from cross-examining Witness.Cites ALAB-631 as Basis
ML20003A810
Person / Time
Site: Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date: 02/05/1981
From: Bishop C
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To: Rentfro W
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
ALAB-631, NUDOCS 8102090090
Download: ML20003A810 (2)


Text

'n

  • f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h/

Jocm NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U:

s FEs - 5198l ) m'~

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAR y ic Administrative Judges:

' ~

Eran:h Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman L

Dr. John H.

Buck

'v

  • \\

Christine N. Kohl

)

Tg In the Matter of

)

g

)

2 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-466 9

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating

)

Station, Unit No. 1)

)

)

Mr. Wayne E.

Rentfro, Rosenberg, Texas, intervenor pro se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER February 5, 1981 Wayne E.

Rentfro, an intervenor in this construction permit proceeding now at hearing, has filed a motion asking that, on an interlocutory basis, we review and reverse a Licensing Board ruling which precluded him from cross-examining a witness for the applicant.

That precise ruling was' the subject of a decision l

rendered by us yesterday on the motion of another intervenor.

ALAB-631, 13 NRC For the reason stated in the first full paragraph appear-ing on page 4 of the slip opinion in ALAB-631, 13 NRC at Rentfro's motion is denied. S Mr.

l 1/

Mr. Rentfro's motion, dated January 30, 1981, reached us subsequent to the issuance of ALAB-631.

Attached to it was a copy of a telegram which had been sent by him to (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 8102090 0 %

6-

i l

o It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O. A 5 A_ _ _N 7

i C. Je@3 Bishop

\\

(

Secretary to the Appeal Board

_1_/

(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) this Board on January 29, 1981.

That telegram, seeking the same relief as requested in the motion, was not re-ceived by us.

That fact, however, has not worked to the prejudice of Mr. Rentfro.

Nothing contained in the tele-gram would have affected any of the conclusions stated in ALAB-631.

.