ML20052B184
| ML20052B184 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1982 |
| From: | Gallo J ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Bloch P, Paris O, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052B185 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8204300131 | |
| Download: ML20052B184 (2) | |
Text
,
r cy: :,
i ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE T2 V" 29 m :79 COUNSELOR $ AT LAW 1120 CONNECTICUT AvtNUE. N W e $UITE See r
WASH 8NGTON D C 20036 7 7 UN N
9 ONEF 04 L AZA muAus sua. 8.um April 27, 1982 YtNNE2EE TELEX 2 5280 Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Y
g Administrative Judge q
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel RECEIVED.
7-s U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission APR 291982*-
g ugM'eY Washington, D. C.
20555 4
lac RE:
In the Matter of Consumers Power Company (B 5,
Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant), Docket No.
M
- 5 50-155-OLA (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
C Gentlemen:
Your Order of February 19, 1982, questions at pages 38 and 39 whether or not the spent fuel racks for the Big Rock Point plant would be fabricated in manner to minimize sensitization of the stainless steel due to cold work and welding.
This subject was discussed in the testimony of Mr. Birkle, which was provided in support of Consuaers Power Company's Motion for Summary Disposi-tion on O'Neill Contention IB-5.
The Board indicated that the con-tention was dismissed subject to a satisfactory affidavit or affi-davits being provided by Consumers Power Company in response to the aforementioned Board concern.
The attached affidavits of Mr. Sampath Malur and Mr. John Michael DeBartolo are being provided in response to the Licensing Board's Order.
The affidavits of Mr. Malur and Mr. DeBartolo indi-cate that sensitization due to cold work was avoided during the fab-rication of the spent fuel racks (Malur affidavit, paragraph 4; and DeBartolo affidavit, paragraphs 3-6).
For the reasons explained by 8 2 0 4 3 0 c'/ S I, 4\\
~
Peter B. Block, Esquire Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Frederick J. Shon April 27, 1982 Page 2 Mr. Malur, sensitization due to welding of the Big Rock spent fuel racks is not a technical concern and, therefore, was not made a specific requirement of the specifications (Malur affidavit, para-graphs 5-7).
It should be emphasized that the benign nature of the Big Rock spent fuel pool is the most important consideration in support of this judgment.
(Malur affidavit, paragraph 7; see also Answers of Consumers Power Company to Interrogatory 3-7 (h),
(i) and (j) by Christa-Maria, et al (Set I), dated August 22, 1980.)
Consumers Power Company believes that these affidavits adequately address the concerns of the Licensing Board and that the Board's determination to dismiss O'Neill Contention IB-5 should be affirmed.
Sincerely, Jose Gallo Enclosures JG/be cc:
Service List l
l I
i t
k