ML20147E094
| ML20147E094 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1978 |
| From: | Jeffrey Scott TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP |
| To: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147E089 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7810160134 | |
| Download: ML20147E094 (2) | |
Text
7'
?
A (713) 74 30 Texas Public Interest Research Group Box 237 U.C.
University of Houston H ouston, Tx. 77004 10/10/78 Sheldon Unife, Esq.
Chair., Atonic Safety And Licensing Loard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Wa shing ton, D.C.
20555 Pef.: IN TliE !!ATTI:P. OF !!OUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER CO::PAM Allen Creek Nucicar Generating Station, Dock. // 50-466
Dear Sir,
I participated, as you know, in the Sept. 8, 1978 conference telephone call involving the N.R.C.
staff's notion for alterations of dates in previous orders of the Eoard.
I t wa s a t tha t tine that TexPIRG first becane aware of the provisions ef the Sept. 1,1978 Unard Order regarding a corrected notice of intervention procedures.
I asserted at that tine that the present petitioners, such as TcxPIRG, should he tren'ted with rights equal to those of any new petitioners.
Furthermore, I noted during the conversation that pernitting present petitioners to file additional contentions prior to the deadline for filing contentions by a second group of petitioners would not involve any delays in the hearing schedule.
Af ter considerable discussion, I understood the Board to state that the presently l
filed petitioners would be treated as equals to any petitioners who responded to the Sept. 1 Order of the Board, with respect to additional deadlines for cont..
Ct ns resulting from the corrected notice of intervention procedures.
l however, in recent discussions with :fr. Schinki and >ts. Silberstein, attorneys for the N.R.C. staf f, I t.as told tha t other parties to the proceeding did not recollect such a decision being made by the Enard.
In that they did not recount I
the cenference call conversation of Sept. 8 in the manner I have, their position is apparently that ve may not file additional contentions at the same tire new petitioners would.
I would request that you clarify the intent of the Sept. 8 conversation and deternination on this point for the staff.
L'nder assumptions derived fron that call, TexpIRG helieves it nay file further appropriate contentions 15 days prior to a pre-hearing conference. As you realize, unlike new petitioners, we filed contentions without the benefit of a Final Supplerent to the Environnental State-rent, and were restricted by the Sept. 1 Order from responding to the Sept. 11 corrected notice. Ve certainly hope that the F.oard will clarify its Sept. 8 decision.
Mlot % OY e
z_._.__-
l l
2 Thank you for your tfre.
Sincerely, ND_.
b Q
Jai is Scot L, Jr.
'concel for TexPIRG lI
!i ec:
llr. Fohink l l
lir. l.oteerre
- fr. I!c t.wa n
'fr. Copeland Docketing and Fervice Section l
\\
l 4
4 0
1 e
%'.fe'$,-
v
.=wm u-
~ -, -
~ - ve, s
- - - - - - - - - - -