ML20052F284
| ML20052F284 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1982 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Swanson D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8205120314 | |
| Download: ML20052F284 (2) | |
Text
-
/
o N
pa Era in 9
g UNITED STATES 4 p,' 4'o NUC REGULATORY COMMISSION M'
rr-3
$4 f
kCp, p TY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL
%/g-
- fifg, S
"b ASHirJG TON,0.C. 20555 i
h Illil i f pp,.g g
f,y{pf cy p,,
May 10, 1982 1).
p o a se,_' '
4 SRANCH Daniel T.
Swanson, Esquire Of fice of the Executive Legal Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-338 OL and 50-339 OL
Dear Mr. Swanson:
As you were orally advised by Mr. Rosenthal this afternoon, the Appeal Board wishes to obtain clarification of a statement contained on page 18 of the written testimony of Messrs.
Hazleton and Sellers regarding turbine disc cracking, which was submitted to the Board with your latter of January 22, 1982.
That statement was to the effect that, upon the review of VEPCO's Exhibit V-1, the witnesses had conclnded "that the inspection schedules derived by its use are consistent with our past cri-teria and current understanding of the cracking problem".
The witnesses added that "la]dherence to these inspection schedules will provide an acceptably high degree of assurance that discs will be inspected before cracks can grow to a size that could cause disc failure".
The Appeal Board wishes to ascertain from Messrs. Hazleton and Sellers:
1.
Was that statement intended to be an en-dorsement of Section D of the October 21, 1981
" memorandum of VEPCO's counsel on North Anna 1 and 2 turbine missile analysis", as revised in Mr.
Christman's January 21, 1982 letter?
2.
If so, precisely what inspection interval for each unit does the staff regard to be estab-4 lished by the representations contained in Section D of the October 21, 1981 memorandum, as revised?
8205120314 [ h e
$5 0
o 9
.et, Daniel T.
Swanson, Esquire 3.
If the staff was not endorsing the content of Section D of the October 21, 1981 memorandum, as revised, what does it deem to be the inspection schedules derived from the use of VEPCO's Exhibit V-1?
Because the Appeal Board is anxious to resolve the turbine missile issue in the very near future, would you please request Messrs. Hazleton and Sellers to respond to the foregoing ques-tions promptly.
Sincerely, O.b,-U d
4 C.
Jean Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board cc:
James N.
Christman, Esquire Docketing and Service Branch
.