ML19270G612

Applicant Response to B & Rs Framson 790413 Contentions. Petitioners' Contentions Should Be Denied Due to Untimely Filing & Lack of Merit.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19270G612
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/30/1979
From:	Copeland J BAKER & BOTTS
To:
References
NUDOCS 7906140178
Download: ML19270G612 (6)

Text

.

34RA ,.  :=

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y m

_53 Yk'g

', cY-

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s .

- i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,\0b e"'

s Si

<,c, 4s v ,,

/p// .3 c, , /6 /

In the Matter of: S S

Q__ i S/

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit No.1) S APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MADELINE BASS FRAMSON'S AND ROBERT S.

FRAMSON'S " CONTENTIONS" DATED April 13, 1979 On April 13, 1979, petitioners Robert and Madeline Framson filed a three-page pleading entitled " Contentions" purportedly "[a]ccording to CFR 2.714 . . . This pleading lists six paragraphs which discuss the possibility and con-sequences of a " worst possible" spent fuel accident as postulated in 1976 West German report. The ultimate con-clusion reached in the pleading, and the only discernable

" contention," is that the ACNGS Final Environmental State-ment 1/ fails to consider the probability and impacts of a spent fuel "boildown."

No basis for the contention is set forth in the pleading. Petitioners vaguely describe a " West German Report 290" without any allegation that the Report or any part of it is pertinent to the Allens Craek design.

1/ Referred to by petitioners as the FEIS. 2270 158 7906140l7h;(

Specifically, there is no attempt to show that the spent fuel system anayzed in the subject report is in anyway comparable to the system designed for ACNGS; there is no specification as to how this report casts doubt on the safety conclusions reached in the PSAR; and there is no statement as to what remedial changes should be made to the Allens Creek design.

Argument regarding the technical merits in the pleadings is premature. However, it is nevertheless incumbent on petitioners to credibly relate their factual allegations to the factual matters to be decided in this proceeding.

Petitioners have not attempted in any manner to demonstrate such a relationship. In fact, the proffered contentions do not even offer the advertised "new considerations of evidence" in the abstract. There is nothing in the pleading to support the assertion that this accident, analyzed in an undisclosed fashion, is a " definite probability" under the scheme of conservative design and comprehensive regulation applicable to ACNGS.

Furthermore, to the extent these " contentions" concern the probability and prevention of an incredible accident "far more serious than a reactor melt down," as described in this pleading, they are inadmissible under the Commission's uniform determinations that class 9 accidents

. 2270 159 are inappropriate for litigation in individual licensing proceedings. See, e.g. Carolina Environmental Study Group v. U.S., 510 F.2d 796, 798-800 (D.C. Cir. 1975).

Aside from the fatal substantive deficiencies in this pleading, petitoners' have also failed to show any good cause for an untimely filing. The report which prompted this pleading was published, by petitioners' own admission, after December, 1975. Therefore, any limitation contained in the prior notices of hearing, and found by the Appeal Board to be " unwarranted," could not have possibly inhibited the petitioners' selection of contentions. The introductory sentence of the pleading itself makes plain that these contentions were submitted under the Board's previous criteria "as evidence available after December, 1975."

Consequently, the lateness of this filing cannot be excused under ordering paragraph nine of the Board's Memorandum and Order of April 11, 1979 which allowed the submission of contentions that "might have been advanced but for the imposition of the (notice] limitations."(Order, p. 7)

Petitioners' " contentions," then, could have been raised in response to the Board's Corrected Notice of Intervention Procedures, published on September 11, 1978, and enjoys no immunity from the heavy burden of justifying an untimely 2270 160 filing under the criteria of 10 CFR S2.714 (2) .2/ Peti-tioners offered no justification for the five month delay; they have not in fact even acknowledged this unexcused irregularity. Accordingly, for this additional reason, Petitioners' contentions should be denied.

For the foregoing reasons Petitioner's contentions should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, 4

J. 'recjor C elancf 2/ Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant) , CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273 (1975).

2270 161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit 1) S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Applicant's Response to Madeline Bass Framson's and Robert S. Framson's " Contentions" Dated April 13, 1979 in the above captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail postage prepaid, or by hand delivery this 36/4 day of , 1979.

/

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel for the State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12548 Washington, D. C. 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Hon. Charles J. Dusek Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Mayor, City of Wallis P. O. Box 312 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Wallis, Texas 77485 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Leroy H. Grebe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Judge, Austin County Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas 77418 Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary of the Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Baker & Botts Board Panel 1701 Pennsylvania Avenus, N. W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20006 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 2270 162

Steve Sohinki, Esq.

Staff Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 John F. Doherty 4438 1/2 Leeland Houston, Texas 77023 Madeline Bass Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas 77035 Robert S. Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas 77035 Carro Hinderstein 8739 Link Terrace Houston, Texas 77025 D. Marrack 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 Brenda McCorkle 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 F. H. Potthoff, III 1814 Pine Village Houston, Texas 77080 Wayne E. Rentfro P. O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 James M. Scott, Jr.

8302 Albacore Houston, Texas 77074 J

- //1#1#'eland Grego 2270 163