ML19289F338
| ML19289F338 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1979 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906070248 | |
| Download: ML19289F338 (2) | |
Text
v i
%o %
1 I
50 iSDLP' L{CU.',Eis f hCC:7 4
g}
D,P 8'h S
(,^,19 8
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 6
=
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 CP
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
ORDER On April 5, 1979, Mr. Doherty filed a document which we understand is a Motion For LeaveTo File Out-of-Time a Supplemental Contention.
Applicant's response of April 20, 1979, opposed the granting of the motion while the Staff, i
in its responsa of April 23, 1979, supported the admission of the contention.
Upon balancing the factors set forth in S 2.714(a)(1),
we grant the instant motion.
As to the first factor, Mr. Doherty states that on December 20, 1978, the Commission made public a preliminary report regarding the buckling of steel containments but he does not explain why he was not aware of this document until after February 14, 1979, the date he apparently received our Order of February 9,1979, which denied him status as a party-intervenor.
He thus has failed to show good cause for having failed to file in a timely manner this supplemental contention between December 20, 1978, 2233 168 u
PfMfM$311 "6"W b
t
-r-and February 9, 1979.
With respect to the third factor, Mr. Doherty does not advise wherein his participation might reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
However, the three other factors weigh in his favor.
There are no other available means to protect Mr. Doherty's interest, his interest will not be represented by other parties, and the proceedings, which are in a preliminary stage, will not be delayed.
In substance, Mr. Doherty contends that Applicant's steel containment shell is not strong enough by design to resist dynamic and static loads which may plausibly occur during the lifetime of the plant.
He has noted four apparent bases for the contention and the contention is set forth with reasonably specificity.
Accordingly, this contention (re-numbered as Doherty Contention 9) is admitted as an issue in controversy, and discovery proced' ires shall be initiated immediately.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h.0Dyf Q ' ".
Sheldon JlA6 cisairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland i)Tpf.s "3rd' day of May 1979.
6