ML20003H526
| ML20003H526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1981 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Doherty J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8105060274 | |
| Download: ML20003H526 (3) | |
Text
-
/h 3
/4 cecma
$\\
2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j u: w y'
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD k
"F:: :f 5 ::ne 7 C C
" ; a ;=c:
///
Before Administrative Judges:
- O Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman
/ f Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Gustwe A. Linenberger, Jr.
c
? @~ EO p ', d M>
g
)
In the Matter of:
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY )
Docket No. 50-466 CP
)
\\
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
c.
Station, Unit 1)
)
May 1, 1981 7g U WQO,51981
$ " %*=*mamd, (Denying Doherty'ORDERSubmissions Seeking Admission VA of Contentions 51 through 55) g, e
In a submittal dated January 15, 1981, Intervenor John F. Doherty filed four additional contentions numbered 51 through 54. Applicant and Staff filed responses in opposition to the admissibility of these contentions on January 26, 1981 and January 30, 1981, respectively. Subsequently, on January 26, 1981, Mr. Doherty submitted an additional contention numbered 55, which was opposed by Applicant and Staff in responses filed respectively on February 5 and 17, 1981. Both of the Intervenor's filings are notably defective in that he did not file motions to amend his petition to intervene, nor did he discuss pursuant to 10 CFR 2.714, why such late filed motions (submitted after commencement of the evidentiary hearing) should be entertained by us. He argues that the issuance of the Staff's Draft Supplement to its FES (NUREG-0470, Draft Supp. No. 2)
V y$0$ 'I i
O
-1/
For convenience, throughout this Order we refer to the Draft of I
Supplement 2 to NUREG-0470 simply as NUREG-0470.
l 9105060274
8 F
in December 1980 constitutes new information that (we infer) provides good cause for his failure to file on time. However, he fails to discuss the four other factors set furth in 2.714.
In support of both submissions, Intervenor cites our order of December 17, 1980 and our references therein to the transcript of the Final Prehearing Conference for the proposition that the issuance of NUREG-0470 might generate amendments to petitions to intervene. We have carefully reviewed these citations and find absolutely no basis for an inference by any intervenor that a petition to intervene could be amended without requesting leave to do so and without discussing all the _ factors set forth in 2.714.
Indeed, intervenors must expect that, once an evidentiary proceeding is underway, the more demanding we must be for strict adherence to our Rules of Practice.
Here, Intervenor confronts us during the evidentiary proceeding with late-filed additional antentions unaccompanied by motions to amend his petition for leave to intervene, which should have discussed the factors in 2.714. He is governed by and must comply with the same body of regulations pursuant to which he was granted party status in the first place. We find Mr. Doherty's instant pleadings to be defective. Accordingly, it is this ist day of May 1981 ORDERED That Intervenor Doherty's two submissions seeking the admission of Contentions 51-55 are denied.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O W, Sheldon J. gfe F
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
-