ML20096A403

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Provides Promised Info Re Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition on Gaps.Related Correspondence
ML20096A403
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 08/14/1984
From: Ellis J
Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To: Mizuno G
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
Shared Package
ML20096A405 List:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8408310102
Download: ML20096A403 (2)


Text

'

40b .

C A S E (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)

= = T-"

214/946-9446 W

August 14, 1984 g'. DR er gp UMC Geary S. Mizuno, F.sq.

Cffice of Executive Legal Director

'84 fg g g *,. -

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Bldg. - Room 10105 / M.U d w i,,,

7735 Old Georgetown Road y ERVlO Bethesda, Maryland' 20814 "

Dear Geary:

J

Subject:

In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Co., et al.

s Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unita 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 [b Information Promised by CASE Regarding Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Caps' You will recall that during the 6/6/84 Applicants / Staff / CASE telephone conference call, you had asked us to supply you with informatloa when we could about any instances of which CASE was aware where a pipe support which had been classified as class two was reclassified as class one. (See 6/6/84 conference call Tr. 88-91; see also discussion on page 7, item 10, of '

attachment to CASE's 8/13/84 letter to William A. Horin,

Subject:

Open Discovery Items for Motions for Summary Disposition.)

Now that we have been allowed to present the ANI documents to the Board, we are able to supply you with that information. This was the instance when CASE asked "When a pipe support that was classified as class two is reclassified as class one, is its stiffness also considered?" Applicants stated that they were not aware of any such reclassifications. However, as discussed in our 8/13/84 letter to Bill Hoein, Applicants, including their attorneys, have been aware of this information at least since our 6/30/84 letter, under subject of Documents Obtained by CASE in Rate Hearings Which Are Also Relevant and Material for Operating License Hearings, and our 6/30/84 Reg'uest to Applicants for Admissions, to which were attached a summary of each ANI document as well as a copy of each such document.

The information is contained in CASE Exhibit 1,056, ANI SIS Record 939 371, dated 2/6/84 (see attachment to CASE's 8/14/84 Motions Regarding ANI Documents). As discussed therein, the ANI identified several instances 1 '

where NCR's were written to upgrade supports from Class 2 to Class 1. It appears from the ANI docuinent that the specific items identified were struts

\

for supports (it is not clear from the docu-ent whether or not these were for pipe supports), and this is what led to our question.

G407310102 840914 1 PDR ADOCK 05000445 g PDR O

I.

,,e.

It also appears that the only concern which was addressed was regarding preparation and dispositioning of NCR's and that neither the ANI nor the Applicants addressed whether or not the stiffness was also considered when the supports are upgraded. As stated previously, it is not clear from the AN1 document whether or not these are pipe supports. However, we believe that this is still a question which needs to be addressed.

Sincerely, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) rs.) Juanita Ellis President cc: Service List 2