ML20071B768
| ML20071B768 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1983 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Cole R, Mccollom K, Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303010084 | |
| Download: ML20071B768 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:c. s o a e 75 egg 9.. (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY) ~ February 24, 1983 '83 FEB 28 P1 :35 Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Deangh U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ?ivision of Eqgineering, Arghi;tecture Washington, D. C. 20555 and lechnology Oklahzaa State University Dr. Richard Cole, Member Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 1 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board -l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission j Washington, D. C. 20555 i Gentlemen: '? "r
SUBJECT:
In the Matter of
- 1 E
Application of Texas Utilities i Generating Company, et al. for An Operating License for i' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station is Units #1 and #2 (CPSES) Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 ii '_= .A plicants' News Releases q J != in Attached is another example of Applicants sending out a news release with a new v.7 I&E Report attached. CASE had not received the report from the NRC Region IV 1 office when we were called by reporters yesterday with the newspapers and today .- H (while we were trying to complete our mailing to the Board of our Provisional 1 Proposed Findings of Fact) bv TV reporters. is We received the report today. Since we had not even recei ed tne report itself by the time the newspaper re-it porters called us about their stories, and had not had time to even read the re-E port by the time the TV reporters called today, our only comment had to be that we could not coment until we hed seen the report itself (but that we were look-
- 5 ing forward to reading it and to cross-examining the NRC Staff regarding it and
- M other matters involving the Walsh/Doyle allegations).
![] By this really beautiful coup of timing, Applicants were not only able to try i 15 the issue in the media, but totally unopposed as well. I All the TV stations tonight are carrying stories about how the NRC has stated that everything's E fine at Comanche Peak, and the pipe supports are fine -- along with such coments Il from utility spokesmen as "Maybe the problem wasn't with the supports but with =t the people who worked at the plant" and that the people who had made the allega-tions didn't know about the other back-up processes which the utility had to go Z through before the pipe supports were completed. [ 55i Now that's trying it in the press for you! We'll have to hand it to them -- the timing was beautiful!
== g.. Respectfully submitted, ~ ] , 8303010084 830224 PDR ADOCK 05000445 CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERG E (MFs'.[ duanka E I k President cc: Service List
2 o, I 9 2fA GirEallat)Rornin0Frist Thursday, February 24, 1983 ~ l (Gomanche Peak suppdrtsjs%fe,jgGjay l Bill lodge L.3dff writer of ne News Engineers, and the NRC agreed with the utility affecting any nuclear plants.- ) The ll.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has companyin a report released Wednesday."% ' ". Poll 6rdsaid the I.GusNillhave to be co An employee at ASME's New York office said 5de' with Tex:.s Utilities Co. in its contention Wednesday that current ASME codes require.f,ered sooner orlatei.Pr6nt a d Gat pipe sup;mrts r.1 the firm's Comanche Peak consideration of heat expansion in pipe-support point, the only question is whether the failure i i ituelear power plant will not fait during a major design. consider thermal expansion poses a risk." i. ac74 dent. 4 But Glen Madsen and Tom Westerman of the Westerman and Madsen said NRC engineers 'Former I*lant c qineers Mark Walsh and do not believe any risk is involved. $ack Doyle charged in 1982 that Texas Utilities-NRC regionc! of fice in Arlington said Ni}C engis ** M In its report, the NRC Said, jelusal to consider therrr.al-expansion stress in nurs do net Nileve that the ASMB cmployee a cerns raised by Walsh and Doyle weresubsta correctly interpreted the codes. .the-design of thottsand; of key pipe supports "That's nice to know, but it avoids the obvi.-$' ated as demonstrating serious deficiencies i could.raean Iliat the suppu ts might f all if a los+ n
- o!' coolant accident increased plant air tempera-ons question of whether it (thermalexpansion (Texas U In a Texas Utilities news release, Comanche -
I stress) ought to l'e considered,"said Bob Pollard peak quality assurance manager David C 'ttdes to 280 degrees Fahrenheit. Such a failure, of the Washington office of the Union of; Cont. said the NRC report ' confirms' the positio { 'theysaid,could cause a meltdown. cerned Scientists. which we have maintained all along; that is, the Texas Utilities officials maintain that consid. Walsh and Doyle have suggested that the.'adequacyof finaldesignisassured bythesys .eration of thermal 4xpansion stress is not re. failure to guard against thermal expansion in of indpendent checks and balances we have i t igu} red by.the American Society of Mechanical the design of pipe supports is a gaceric problem place? e e =}}