ML20125B920

Notice of Appeal Fo DD Weaver,Based on Denial of Due Process & Fair Notice,Of ASLB 791119 Order Ruling DD Weaver Be Treated as Request to Make Limited Appearance Statement Rather than as Request to Intervene

ML20125B920
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/04/1979
From:	Doggett S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, DOGGETT, S.A.
To:
Shared Package
ML20125B910	List: ML20125B907 ML20125B912 ML20125B916 ML20125B920
References
NUDOCS 7912310183
Download: ML20125B920 (2)

Text

.

j UNITED STATES T AMERICA

$ Y@.

g NNef I;-)

NUCEAR REGULA7JRY CDMMISSION ,

ATWIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL IGED Alan S. Bosenthal, Chairman Dr. Johh H. Buck Michael C. Farrar In the Matter of i IOUSIG LIGfrING 86 p0ER (DTANY Q Docket No. 50-466 (Allens Creek Nuclear Cen9 rating g Station, Unit 1)

NOTICE OF APPEAL IXNALD D. WEAVER, by and throtEh his attorney of record SIT;EN A. DOGGEIT, hereby gives notice of his appeal of the Order dated Novmber 19, 1979 by the Atomic Safety 86 Licensing Board ruling that his petition for leave to intervene dated July 17, 1979 will be treated as merely a request to make a limited appearnce as opposed to a petition for leave to intervene as a full party.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL 1

h Atomic Safety a'ad Licensing Board Order dated Novmber 19, 1979 is errenexs in its treatment of DGNALD D. WEAVER's petition for i 1

3 reasons:

(1) the publication of notice in the Federal Register only is a derJ4 of fair notice and due process; (2) the Supplemental Notice of Intervention Procedures dated June 12, 1979 published in the Federal Register is defectiver in requiring Petitioners to state that they failed to file petitions for leave to intervene pursuant to the Board's prior notices because of restrictions in those notices; the defective notices are tantamount to no notice and the mquirement of a l statoment or proof of intimiriation by the restrictions in prior notices denies due process, (3) DmAID D. EAVER in fact failed to intervene because of the restrictions in prior notices, as was stated in the record by Mr. J. Morgan Bishop. Mr.

Weaver was unable to be present as he was in Ikovaii during the hearings.

90013307 l

7912310 1 pi

< 1 Applicant in a Motion to Schedule Special Prehearing Conference pursuant j to lo cm 0 2.751a dated 7/30/79 requested that the Ibard require petitioners 1 1

to be present and respond under oath to inquiries as to the basis of j their statements that they failed to file petitions for leave to intervene under the Board's notices of May 31 and Septanber 11, 1978. The NRC Staff's l Response to Applicant's Motion dated August 3, 1973 took the position that extensive inquiry into the circunstances surrounding the filing of 1

each peti *. ion was not necessary and that petitioners should not te required to respond under oath The Board's Order Scheduling Special Prehearing Conference dated Ausust 6, 15779 makes no cention of this issue. Nor did the Board's Supplanental Order dated Septarter 13, 1979 address this issue. DONALD D. WEAVER did appear through counsel and counsel presented l infonntion to the Board through Mr. J. hbrgan Bishop on the issue of prior notice intimidation. To reject this infonnation on the basis that it is hearsay would be unfair in light of the Boani's notices regarding the hearing and related pleadings filed by the Applicant and Staff which certainly did not put Mr. Weaver on notice that he would have to personally l

appear at the conference and on the contrary, implied that prior intimidation would be only a minor issue. Moreover, the Board's Order rejecting Mr.

Weaver's petition places fdan over substance in basing its decision on Mr.

Weaver's failure to explain why he did not say in his petition that he was intimidated in the face of the statenent by Ms. Bishop that Mr. Weaver stated that he was in fact intimidated. l Respectfully submitted, gL a.n_

Stephen A. Doggett ,

J l

l 90013308 )

l i

l l

l

. - ,