ML20009B199

Informs That Doherty 810622 Ltr,Per ASLB 810422 Order,Does Not Provide Any Substantive Rebuttal to Applicant & NRC Pleadings Re Doherty Motion for Reconsideration

ML20009B199
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/07/1981
From:	Copeland J BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:	Cheatum E, Linenberger G, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8107150048
Download: ML20009B199 (2)

Text

y .

S BAKER & BOTTS, oNE SH ELL PLAZA houston, TEXAS 77oo2 TELEX 76-2779 WOSHINGTON OFFICE 170 s P E N N S Y LVAN tA AV E.. N. W. TELECO M M U NICATIO N woSMINGTON. D. C. 20006 (783) 229-1523 HOU STO N (202)457-5531 WASHINGTON, D. C.

TC.:* PHON E (202) 457-5 500 July 7, 1981 s9 lb9, i Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman - - N b

"* L ' -

Atomic Safety and Licensing -

Board Panel & JUL 141981

• IO U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissit u owmmp am "

Washington, D.C. 20555 g _

s q,N Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum g N Route 3, Box 350A .s' Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 DOC []

Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger 01 jut 101981 * ,

Atomic Safety and Licensing g: .-,

r twier; 7 Board Panel g 1 x,c t >

c' . j !

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L-

'g/

Washington, D.C. 20555 g .

, -TT-c/

To The Honorable Board:

On Junt 22, 1981 Mr. Doherty sent the Board a letter which is in reply to the Board's order of April 22, 1981. As Mr. Doherty has done with regularity (e.g. Tr.

14090), he has now attempted to change his contention rather than directly address the points raised by Applicant and Staff in response to his initial motion.lj Mr. Doherty's original contention alleged that derating of Allens Creek would follow from the generic resolution of the void coefficient calculation. The Board rejected the contention in its order of March 10, 1980, because Mr. Doherty failed to show any basis for the assertion that derating would follow from the generic resolution of the problem.

l i

{

i 1/ The Motion for Reconsideration is dated February 22, 1981. Applicant replied on March 5, 1981, and the Staff replied on March 24, 1981.

9h 8107150048 810707 p4 PDR ADOCK 05000466 o PDR h )g

3 %

~

CAKER & BoTTS To The Honorable Board July 7, 1981 Page 2 All Mr. Doherty has done in his motion, and again in his' June 22 letter, is establish that the generic resolu-tion is still under way. He has again failed to show any basis for assuming that derating would occur. This is a critical failing since the Staff has concluded that this issue can be resolved as a post-CP item because no derating will occur regardless of the outcome of the generic resolution.

In sum, Mr. Doherty's June 22 letter does not provide any substantive rebuttal to the pleadings filed by Applicant and Staff in response to Mr. Doherty's motion for reconsideration.

Respectfully submitted,

. Gregory Copeland Attorney for Houston Lighting & Power Company JGC:192 cc: Service List l

t

_ . _ - - - .