ML19345D478
| ML19345D478 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1980 |
| From: | Copeland J BAKER & BOTTS |
| To: | Cheatum E, Linenberger G, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012150180 | |
| Download: ML19345D478 (3) | |
Text
\\
cs BAKER & BOTTS ON C SM CLL *LAZ A houston. TEXAS 77oo2 tr
~~
s.
- n
^
W A S m s N G TC,N C F rlC E TELCx 76 2779 i70s pCN N sV LV ANI A AV E N. W {
T C LC CO M M U N ICATIO N wAspiN GTON. C. C. 2000 6 (713) 229 1523 HOUSTON TCLCpwoN C (2C2) 457-55C 0 (2C2) 457 5 531 w A5ptNGTom. 0. C.
DOCKET NUMEER [d"Ng
]
FR0D. & UTIL FAC....r..r ee December 6, 1900 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 g
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum N
Route 3, Box 350A
%usyg, Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 g
A, ore I
Mr. Gustave A.
Linenberger Q
g%b}
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- .,,,, e:..
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission C"
Washington, D.C.
20555 gg
Dear Members of the Board:
At the pre-hearing conference held on. December 2, 1980, the Board requested Applicant to clarify why, in light of the Board's consolidation order of May 23, 1980, its motion for su= mary disposition filed on August 4, 1980, on McCorkle contention 17 did not also include TexPirg conten-tion 30.1/
This letter provides that clarification.
On~ November 2, 1979, Intervenor McCorkle submitted a contention (numbered by her as XX) which stated two-concernst (1) that the containment would allow excessive unfiltered
-r-1/
In its order of May 23, 1980, the Board referred to the TexPirg contention as " Additional Contention 36."
How-ever, Applicant interpreted the Board to mean Additional Contention 30 as, apparently, did h11 other parties.
Ps 9 e
so m 5H60 11a
1 l
a l
4 j
SAKER & DoTTs Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Dr.
E. Leonard Cheatum Mr. Gustave A.
Linenberger Page 2 December 6, 1980 leakage and (2) that charcoal filter adsorbers could auto-ignite.
In its order of April 12, 1979, the Board admitted this contention and identified it as McCorkle Contention No.
17.
On May 16, 1979, TexPirg submitted an Additional Contention No. 30 which expressed the same concern as the second portion of McCorkle Contention No. 17; namely, that the charcoal filter adsorber material may self-ignite.
Both Staff and Applicant respended to this contention by recom-mending that McCorkle and TexPirg be consolidated on this issue (Applicant's response of May 31, 1979 at 26; Staff's response of June 5, 1979 at 29).
In its Order of November 19, 1979, the Board admitted TexPirg Additional Contention 30 (at 8, n. 5.) and on May 23, 1980, the Board on its own motion, consolidated McCorkle Contention 17 and TexPirg Additional Contention 30.2/
As a result of the Board's actions, Applicant understood that the issue of charcoal filter adsorber fires was a consolidated contention between TexPirg (Additional Contention 30) and McCorkle (17) and that the issue of unfiltered containment leakage survived as an independent contention sponsored only by Ms. McCorkle.
Applicant re-flected this understanding in the prepared restatement of contentions which was attached to the Staff's letter to the Board of July 18, 1980.
This attachment of restated conten-tions reflected the consolidated charcoal adsorber fire contention on page 17 and the filtration system leakage contentlon on page 37.
On August 4, 1980, Applicant filed a Motion for Summary Disposition on that part of McCorkle contention 17 2/
The Board also ordered TexPirg and McCorkle to identify a lead party for the consolidated contention within ten (10) days.
Neither TexPirg nor McCorkle ever replied.
)
-o
?
B A K C R & B o TTs Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
~
Dr.
E. Leonard Cheatum Mr. Gustave A.
Linenberger Page 3 December 6, 1980 relating to the issue of unfiltered containment. leakage.
This issue was stated as follows:
" Containment as designed witl allow excessive leakage to bypass the filtra-tion system.
The power company admits that 20% of the leakage would not even be filtered."
See Applicant's Motions for Summary Disposition, page 527.
It is only this issue which Applicant proposed to have-summarily dismissed.
Applicant trusts this clarifies the matter.
Very truly yours, J.
Gregory Copeland JGC:82 cc:
All Parties
.