|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20196G4021999-06-18018 June 1999 Comment on FRN Re Rev of NRC Enforcement Policy NUREG-1600, Rev 1 & Amend of 10CFR55.49.Concurs with Need to Provide Examples That May Be Used as Guidance in Determining Appropriate Severity Level for Violations as Listed ML20206H1881999-05-0606 May 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App K Re ECCS Evaluation Models. Commission Grants Licensee Exemption ML20206M5111999-04-30030 April 1999 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1083 Re Content of UFSAR IAW 10CFR50.71(e). Recommends That Listed Approach Be Adopted for Changes to Documents Incorporated by Ref CY-99-007, Comment Supporting Proposed Changes to Improve Insp & Assessment Processes for Overseeing Commercial Nuclear Industry That Were Published in Fr on 990122 & in SECY-99-0071999-02-22022 February 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Changes to Improve Insp & Assessment Processes for Overseeing Commercial Nuclear Industry That Were Published in Fr on 990122 & in SECY-99-007 TXX-9825, Comment Endorsing NEI Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to 10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness at Npps1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment Endorsing NEI Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to 10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness at Npps ML20154C4101998-09-30030 September 1998 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Comanche Peak Electric Station Endorses NEI Comment Ltr & Agrees with NEI Recommendations & Rationale ML20216E1051998-04-0707 April 1998 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1029 Titled Guidelines for Evaluating Electromagnetic & Radio-Frequency Interference in Safety-related Instrumentation & Control Sys ML20217H3611998-03-26026 March 1998 Comment Opposing Draft GL 97-XX, Lab Testing of Nuclear Grade Charcoal, Issued on 980225.Advises That There Will Be Addl Implementation Costs ML20198Q4851998-01-16016 January 1998 Comment Opposing PRM 50-63A by P Crane That Requests NRC Amend Regulations Re Emergency Planning to Require Consideration of Sheltering,Evacuation & Prophylactic Use of Potassium Iodide for General Public ML20211A4871997-09-12012 September 1997 Changes Submittal Date of Response to NRC RAI Re Proposed CPSES risk-informed Inservice Testing Program & Comments on NRC Draft PRA Documents ML20149L0311997-07-21021 July 1997 Comment on Draft Guides DG-1048,DG-1049 & DG-1050.Error Identified in Last Line of DG-1050,item 1.3 of Section Value/Impact Statement.Rev 30 Should Be Rev 11 ML20140A4871997-05-27027 May 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Safety Conscious Work Environ.Util Agrees W/Nuclear Energy Inst Comment Ltr ML20133G5411996-12-0505 December 1996 Transcript of 961205 Meeting in Arlington,Tx Re Comanche Peak Thermo-Lag Fire Barriers. Pp 1-111 ML20135B7881996-11-29029 November 1996 Order Approving Corporate Restructuring of TU to Facilitate Acquistion of Enserch Corp ML20128M8011996-10-0303 October 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed NRC Generic Communication, Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Control Rod Drive Mechanism & Other Vessel Head Penetrations ML20097D7321996-02-0909 February 1996 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re CPSES Request for Amend to Its Regulations Dealing W/Emergency Planning to Include Requirement That Emergency Planning Protective Actions for General Public Include Listed Info ML20094Q6421995-11-28028 November 1995 Comment Supporting Petition for RM PRM-50-62 Re Amend to Regulation Re QAPs Permitting NPP Licensees to Change Quality Program Described in SAR W/O NRC Prior Approval If Changes Do Not Potentially Degrade Safety or Change TSs ML20094H4801995-11-0808 November 1995 Comment Supporting Nuclear Energy Inst Comments on Proposed Rules 10CFR60,72,73 & 75 Re Safeguards for Spent Nuclear Fuel or high-level Radwaste ML20091M6441995-08-25025 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Review of Revised NRC SALP Program.Believes That NRC Should Reconsider Need for Ipap or SALP in Light of Redundancy ML20086M7921995-07-0707 July 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed GL Process for Changes to Security Plan Without Prior NRC Approval ML20084A0181995-05-19019 May 1995 Comment Suporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Containment Leakage Testing.Supports NEI Comments ML20077M7311994-12-30030 December 1994 Comments Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Low Power Operations for Nuclear Power Reactors ML20077L8711994-12-22022 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50,55 & 73 Re Reduction of Reporting Requirements Imposed on NRC Licensees ML20073B6731994-09-19019 September 1994 Affidavit of Cl Terry Re License Amend Request 94-015 ML20073B6951994-09-19019 September 1994 Affidavit of Cl Terry Authorizing Signing & Filing W/Nrc OL Amend Request 94-016 ML20058E0561993-11-10010 November 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule Re Staff Meetings Open to Public. Believes That NRC Has Done Well in Commitment to Provide Public W/Fullest Practical Access to Its Activities ML20056G3351993-08-27027 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 10CFR2.206 Process ML20045D8321993-06-11011 June 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 54, FSAR Update Submittals. ML20044F3271993-05-21021 May 1993 Comments on Draft NRC Insp Procedure 38703, Commercial Grade Procurement Insp, Fr Vol 58,Number 52.NRC Should Use EPRI Definitions for Critical Characteristics ML20056C0831993-03-19019 March 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Petitioners Motion to Stay Issuance of Full Power License.* Licensee Urges NRC to Reject Petitioners Motion & to Deny Petitioners Appeal of 921215 Order.Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056C1881993-03-17017 March 1993 Order.* Directs Util to Respond to Motion by COB 930319 & NRC to Respond by COB 930322.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930317 ML20128D9651993-02-0303 February 1993 Memorandum & Order.* Stay Request Filed by Petitioners Denied.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930203 ML20128F6221993-02-0303 February 1993 Transcript of 930203 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote Public Meeting in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-2.Related Info Encl ML20128D3391993-02-0202 February 1993 Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioners Specific Requests Listed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D4651993-02-0202 February 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioner Request Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Meet Heavy Burden Imposed on Party.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D3461993-01-29029 January 1993 NRC Staff Notification of Issuance of OL for Facility.* Low Power License May Be Issued by 930201.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D6321993-01-29029 January 1993 Memorandum & Order.* Denies Citizens for Fair Util Regulation for Fr Notice Hearing on Proposed Issuance of OL for Facility.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930129 ML20127L9321993-01-26026 January 1993 Affidavit of Re Architzel Re Thermo-Lag Installation at Testing for Unit 2.* Statement of Prof Qualifications Encl ML20128D6111993-01-26026 January 1993 Joint Affidavit of I Barnes & Ft Grubelich Re Borg-Warner Check Valves.* Discusses Issues Re Borg-Warner Check Valves Raised by Cfur & Adequacy of Actions Taken by TU Electric ML20127L9181993-01-26026 January 1993 NRC Staff Reply to Cfur Request for Publication of Proposed Action Re Licensing of Unit 2.* Cfur Request That Notice Re Licensing of Unit 2 Be Published Permitting Parties to Request Hearings Should Be Denied ML20127L9661993-01-26026 January 1993 Affidavit of Rl Pettis Re Borg-Warner Check Valves.* Statement of Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127L9091993-01-25025 January 1993 Tx Util Electric Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Request of 930113.* Request Fails to Raise Worthy Issue & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127L8891993-01-21021 January 1993 Order.* License Should File Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Ltr Requesting That Commission Issue Fr Notice Providing for Opportunity for Hearing Re Issuance of OL by 930125.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930122 ML20127G9191993-01-19019 January 1993 Order.* Grants Petitioners Extension of Time Until 930122 to File Brief.Replies to Petitioners Brief Shall Be Filed on or Before 930208.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930119 ML20127G9441993-01-19019 January 1993 TU Electric Brief in Opposition to Petitioners Appeal of ASLB Memorandum & Order.* Requests That Petitioners Appeal Be Denied & Licensing Board 921215 Memorandum & Order Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G8041993-01-15015 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Appeal of Licensing Board Decision Denying Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Filed by Bi & Di Orr.* Board 921215 Decision Should Be Upheld.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127G7451993-01-14014 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Motion of Petitioners RM Dow & SL Dow, (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station),For Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7941993-01-12012 January 1993 Opposition of TU Electric to Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station) & RM Dow.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A5931993-01-0808 January 1993 Brief in Support of Petitioner Notice of Appeal.Aslb Erred by Not Admitting Petitioner Contention & Action Should Be Reversed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A6371993-01-0707 January 1993 Notice of Appeal.* Appeal Submitted Due to 921215 Memo Denying Petitioner Motion for Rehearing & Petition for Intervention & Request for Hearings.Proceedings Were Terminated by Aslb.W/Certificate of Svc 1999-06-18
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20056C0831993-03-19019 March 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Petitioners Motion to Stay Issuance of Full Power License.* Licensee Urges NRC to Reject Petitioners Motion & to Deny Petitioners Appeal of 921215 Order.Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D3391993-02-0202 February 1993 Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioners Specific Requests Listed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D4651993-02-0202 February 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioner Request Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Meet Heavy Burden Imposed on Party.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127L9091993-01-25025 January 1993 Tx Util Electric Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Request of 930113.* Request Fails to Raise Worthy Issue & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G9441993-01-19019 January 1993 TU Electric Brief in Opposition to Petitioners Appeal of ASLB Memorandum & Order.* Requests That Petitioners Appeal Be Denied & Licensing Board 921215 Memorandum & Order Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7451993-01-14014 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Motion of Petitioners RM Dow & SL Dow, (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station),For Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7941993-01-12012 January 1993 Opposition of TU Electric to Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station) & RM Dow.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A6131993-01-0707 January 1993 Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* Petitioners Did Not Receive Order in Time to Appeal & Requests 15 Day Extension from Motion Filing Date to Respond.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A7911992-12-31031 December 1992 Petitioner Amended Motion for Continuance to File Appeal Brief.* Petitioners Requests Until C.O.B. on 930108 to File Appeal Brief.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A7641992-12-30030 December 1992 Petitioner Motion for Continuance to File Appeal Brief.* Counsel Requests That Petitioners Be Granted Until 930109 to File Brief in Support of Notice of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128C9751992-12-0303 December 1992 NRC Staff Response to Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements & Notification of Addl Evidence Supporting Petition to Intervene by B Orr,D Orr, J Macktal & Hasan.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20128B8721992-11-27027 November 1992 NRC Staff Response to Motion for Rehearing by RM Dow, Petitioner.* Motion for Rehearing Should Be Denied for Reasons Explained in Encl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128A0271992-11-25025 November 1992 Texas Utilities Electric Co Answer to Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements.* Util Requests That Petitioners 921118 Motion to Compel Be Denied in Entirety.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127P8181992-11-25025 November 1992 Texas Utilities Electric Co Answer to Notification of Addl Evidence Supporting Petition to Intervene.* Petitioners Notification Procedurally Improper & Substantively Improper & Should Be Rejected by Board.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M4591992-11-19019 November 1992 TU Electric Opposition to Motion for Rehearing by RM Dow.* RM Dow 921110 Motion for Rehearing Should Be Denied.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20127M4271992-11-15015 November 1992 Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements.* Petitioners Bi Orr,Di Orr,Jj Macktal & SMA Hasan Requests That Board Declare Null & Void Any & All Provisions in Settlement Agreements.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M3181992-11-10010 November 1992 Motion for Prehearing by RM Dow,Petitioner.* Requests Period of Ten Days to File Supplemental Pleading to Original Petition.Certificate of Svc & Statement Encl ML20106D8881992-10-0808 October 1992 Opposition of Util to Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow Doing Business as Disposbale Workers of Plant & RM Dow.* Request for Extension of Time & to Become Party to Proceeding Should Be Rejected.W/Certificate of Svc ML20106D2821992-10-0505 October 1992 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow Doing Business as Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station & RM Dow.* Petitioner Requests 30-day Extension.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101P5891992-06-30030 June 1992 Response of Texas Utils Electric to Comments of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc. Dispute Strictly Contractual Issue Involving Cap Rock Efforts to Annul Reasonable Notice Provisions of 1990 Power Supply Agreement ML20127K8141992-05-19019 May 1992 Request to Institute Proceeding to Modify,Suspend or Revoke License Held by Util for Unit 1 & for Cause Would Show Commission That Primary Place of Registration for Organization Is Fort Worth,Tarrant County,Tx ML20096A6281992-05-0707 May 1992 Applicants Reply to Opposition cross-motions for Summary Disposition & Responses to Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Applicants Conclude NRC Has No Authority to Retain Antitrust Licensing Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095C4691992-04-17017 April 1992 TU Electric Answer to Application for Hearings & Oral Argument by M Dow & SL Dow.* Concludes That NRC Should Deny Application for Oral Argument & Hearings on Petition to Intervene & Motion to Reopen.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2561992-04-0606 April 1992 Application to Secretary for Hearings & Oral Argument in Support of Motion for Leave to Intervene out-of-time & Motion to Reopen Record Submitted by SL Dow Dba Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station & RM Dow.* ML20094K4161992-03-16016 March 1992 TU Electric Answer to Petition to Intervene & Motion & Supplemental Motion to Reopen by M Dow & SL Dow & TU Electric Request for Admonition of Dows.* Concludes That Motion Should Be Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091A0461992-03-13013 March 1992 Suppl to Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Reopen Record & Suspend License Pending New Hearings on Issue. W/Certificate of Svc ML20090C4241992-02-24024 February 1992 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Reopen Record & Suspend OL for Unit 1 & CP for Unit 2,pending Reopening & Final Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20090C4431992-02-21021 February 1992 Petition for Leave to Intervene Out of Time.* Requests That Petition for Leave to Intervene Out of Time Be Granted for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q3811991-12-26026 December 1991 Case Response to Portions of Motion of R Micky & Dow to Reopen Record.* Submits Responses to Motions to Reopen Record ML20086Q3121991-12-26026 December 1991 Case Motion for Leave to File Response to Portions of Motion of R Micky & Dow to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Recognize J Ellis as Case Representative for Filing & Pleading Purposes.W/Limited Notice of Appearance ML20091G2511991-12-0202 December 1991 Licensee Answer to Motion to Reopen Record by M Dow & SL Dow.* Requests That Petitioners Motion Be Denied for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc & Notices of Appearance ML20086G7381991-11-22022 November 1991 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That Licensing Board Reopen Record & Grant Leave to File Motion to Intervene. W/Certificate of Svc ML20006C4811990-02-0101 February 1990 Applicant Answer to Request for Stay by Citizens for Fair Util Regulation (Cfur).* Cfur Failed to Satisfy Burden to Demonstrate Necessity for Stay & Request Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20006B1691990-01-27027 January 1990 Second Request for Stay Citizens for Fail Util Regulation.* Requests That NRC Stay Fuel Loading & Low Power Operation of Unit 1 Until 900209.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248J3601989-10-15015 October 1989 Request for Stay Citizens for Fair Util Regulation.* Requests That Commission Retain Authority to Order That Fuel Loading & Low Power License Not Be Immediately Effective,Per Util Intent to Request License.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20246B8671989-08-17017 August 1989 Motion for Reconsideration of NRC Memorandum & Order CLI-89-14.* NRC Should Excuse Itself from Consideration on Matters Re Jj Macktal & Should Refer All Issues on NRC Requested Subpoena to Independent Adjudicatory Body ML20248D6291989-08-0202 August 1989 Jj Macktal Statement Re Motion for Recusation.* Macktal Motion Considered Moot Due to Commission No Longer Having Jurisdiction to Consider Motion Since Macktal Not Party to Proceeding Before Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247Q3851989-07-26026 July 1989 Withdrawal of Motion to Reopen Record.* Withdraws 890714 Motion to Reopen Record.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245J7331989-07-26026 July 1989 Request of Cap Rock for Reevaluation of Director'S Determination That No Significant Changes in Licensee Activity Warrant Antitrust Review at OL Stage.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20247B5901989-07-19019 July 1989 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests Board to Reopen Record & Grant Leave to Renew Earlier Motion for Intervention Status. W/Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc ML20248D5731989-07-0303 July 1989 Motion for Reconsideration.* Requests Reconsideration of NRC 890122 Order on Basis That NRC Subpoena Filed for Improper Purposes & NRC Lacks Jurisdiction Over Matters Presently Before Dept of Labor ML20248D5541989-07-0303 July 1989 Motion for Recusation.* Requests That NRC Recuse from Deciding on Macktal Cases on Basis That NRC Will Not Be Fair & Impartial Tribunal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245J9411989-06-30030 June 1989 Response of Texas Utils Electric Co to Request of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc,For Order Enforcing & Modifying Antitrust License Conditions ML20248D4891989-06-13013 June 1989 Motion for Protective Order.* Requests That Jj Macktal Deposition Be Taken at Stated Address in Washington,Dc & That Testimony Remain Confidential.W/Certificate of Svc ML20011E8571989-02-10010 February 1989 Reply of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc to Comments of Texas Utils Electric Co.* Texas Utils Response Considered Irrelevant,Mainly Incorrect or Misleading.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155A8251988-10-0303 October 1988 NRC Staff Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation First Suppl to Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Petition & Requests for Hearings Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154Q2021988-09-28028 September 1988 Applicant Reply to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation (Cfur) First Suppl to 880811 Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Cfur Request Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20150E2131988-07-13013 July 1988 Citizens Audit Motion for Stay & Motion for Sua Sponte Relief.* Requests Time to Review Concerns of J Doe & for Relief for Listed Items in Order to Act as Intervenor in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151A6181988-07-12012 July 1988 Motion for Petitioners to Appear Pro Se.* Petitioners Request to Appear Before Board at 880713 Hearing in Order to Present Arguments in Support of Petitioners Motions & for Stay of Proceedings.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150E1831988-07-12012 July 1988 Response of Applicant to Motions to Stay,To Intervene & for Sua Sponte Relief Filed by Various Petitioners.* Papers Filed by Petitioners Should Be Rejected & Denied & Dismissal of Proceedings Be Completed.W/Certificate of Svc 1993-03-19
[Table view] |
Text
g C[b j
l l
000KETf*J
' Ushna October 1, 1984 l
'84 OCT -2 M1 :13 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION __ . .
OFFIC_ e_ _ de vnt .
BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGOhk C.
In the Matter of )
Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIE3 ELECTRIC
)
) 50-446 ()(_
COMPANY, et~~ ~~
al. )
) (Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating Licenses)
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION-FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION REGARDING DIFFERENTIAL DISPLACEMENT OF LARGE-FRAMED, WALL-TO-WALL AND FLOOR-TO-CEILING PIPE SUPPORTS I. INTRODUCTION Texas Utilities Electric Cotgany, et'al. (" Applicants")
hereby submit their reply to " CASE's Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Certain CASE Allegations Regarding Differential Displacement of Large-Framed, Wall-to-Wall and Floor-to-Ceiling Pipe Supports," (" CASE's Answer") filed August 27, 1984. The Board authorized Applicants to submit replies to CASE's answers to Applicants' motions for smmmary disposition in the August 22, 1984 conference call (Tr. 13,995). As set forth below, CASE has failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue regarding the material facts set forth in Applicants' motion. Accordingly, the Board should render the decision sought by Applicants, 45
fDR DO O g PDR
II. APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S MOTION A. General CASE's answer to Applicants' motion fails to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue regarding any of the material facts set forth in Applicants' motion. Thus, under the usual standard for granting summary disposition, Applicants would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(d)).
The Board has, however, established a more lenient standard in this phase of the proceeding for granting summary disposition.
As the Board noted in its June 29, 1984, Memorandum and Orderl ,
the Board intends to ask questions, request briefs or otherwise seek to clarify matters so as to determine whether sufficient information is available to make a " reasoned decision."
Accordingly, we address below each of CASE's assertions with respect to Applicants' statement of material facts Which we perceive to require clarification and/or rebuttal to assist the Board in reaching a sound decision. We believe there clearly is sufficient information before the Board for it to reach a reasoned decision on this issue. Before responding to CASE's i
answer, however, Applicants note that CASE fails in many instances to adhere to the Board's admonition in its Memorandum and Order that CASE demonstrate Why its objections are relevant l
1 Memorandum and Order (Written-Filing Decisions # 1; some AWS-ASME Issues) (June 29, 1984) at 2-3 (" Memorandum and Order").
to the issues.2 Furthar, CASE fails to demonstrate the existence of important issues that affect the public safety.3 l 1
B. Applicants' Reply to CASE's Arguments Applicants focus below only on those arguments of CASE which are at least superficially relevant to the issues at hand. In addressing each issue we follow the numbering format set forth in the Affidavit of Mark Walsh ("Walsh Affidavit") which is CASE's
. Answer /
At the outset, on several occasions in his Affidavit, Walsh comments that he has not reviewed specific documents or back-up calculations related to a specific point. (See e.g., Walsh j Affidavit at 1, and 3-6.) In that Applicants ' motion for summary disposition on this issue was filed on June 22, 1984, CASE has had ample opportunity to request any additional documents needed.
Applicants have provided CASE with all documents that it requested regarding Applicants' motion. In its August 13, 1984 -
letter to Mr. Horin regarding outstanding discovery items related to motions for summary disposition, CASE did not raise any outstanding items related to the instant motion. Accordingly, Walsh's complaint that he has failed to examine documentation associated with this issue.is not reflective of any defficiency in Applicants' submittal or actions and should be given no consideration in resolving this motion. Indeed, it should be notedthatCASEhashaddrawinhsassociatedwithsomeofthe -
pertinent supports for over two years, see e.g., CASE Exhibit 2
Memorandum and Order at 6.
3 Id. at 7.
'669B Attachments 7c and . 7d which' containi the ' drawings of two of
~
the. supports discussed. . Despite CASE's review and-analysis of '
q
, these and'other-such supports, CASE has-failed to demonstrate
.through calculations that even one of:these type supports were, are.or would be.in.an overstressed condition.
- 1. Statement of Material' Fact 1:
In late 1981' Applicants identified:four floor-to-ceiling.
supports designed by PSE without.' slip joints.as being _
inconsistent withLPSE. guidelines. The PSE guidelines state F that such large-framed. supports should have slip-joints,.the purpose being to negate the-need to analyze differential..
, displacements of the su~pports between; floor and ceiling:or-i between walls. - [" Affidavit of R.C. Iotti and J.C.LFinneran,
, Jr. Regarding Differential Displacement of Large Frame Pipe Supports" (" Applicants Affidavit") at 3.]
Walsh's concerns regarding this fact are that Applicants
~
failed to state (1) which four supports it had identified in late.
1981 as being contrary to PSE guidelines and (2) when in 1981 '
, they were identified. Walsh alleges that "the specific date is important since there were no PSE guidelines prior to late 1981."
i l
He further states (without any substantiation) that the supports i
l in question were designed and constructed without even knowing the applicable code. (Walsh Affidavit at 2-3.) '
While Applicants contend that Walsh's concerns are not
- relevant to the material fact, Applicants will address each.
l First, Applicants identified the four supports as identical supports in the service water yard tunnel which were addressed in.
1 the report of the NRC Special Investigation Team (" SIT Report").
(' (Staff. Exhibit 207.) Significantly, Applicants made clear that- I l
l two of the four were the.ones identified by CASE in its Exhibit 669B~at Attachments 7c and.7d (Applicants Affidavit at 3-4). The .,
. _ . _ ,, . . , . . _ _ , . . . , . . . - , --.. - - - _ ~ _ , - . - , .
r SIT Report discussed modifications of these two supports identified by CASE (Staff Exhibit 207 at 26). In short, Walsh's
-implication that he did not know any of the four identical t- .
supports that Applicants were referring to is simply incorrect.
1 Walsh's second'allegationi that there were no PSE. guidelines; before late 1981, is also in error.. Attached.to " Affidavit of John.C. Finneran, Jr. in Support of Applicants ' Reply to CASE's Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding
-Differential Displacement of Large-Framed, Wall-to-Wall and Floor-to-Ceiling Pipe Supports ("Finneran Affidavit"), is one page of Revision 1 of Section II of the PSE guidelines which reflects that guidelines regarding such large-framed supports were in place at least by January 6, 1981. In any event, even if there had been no PSE guidelines on these designs, this does not mean that the designs were inadequate. As set forth'in Applicants' Affidavit (at 4-5) and not refuted'by CASE's cal-culations, these supports were not overstressed and were in accordance with applicable allowables. This is reflective of sound engineering design practice.
Walsh's final allegation that desginers did not even know which code applied, is also incorrect. Indeed, the design drawings of the four supports show on their faces the applicable code and design specifications (see e.g., CASE Exhibit 669B at Attachments 7c and 7d, drawings of two of the four supports) .
n
, . . .- . ~ _ . . _ - -
- p.~
- 6-J w 2.- Statement of-Material" Fact-2:
The four support's were' conservatively. designed.such that the floor-to-ceiling' columns-could simply be. cut off and the
~
support would still_be adequate. [ Applicants-Affidavit at-
'4. ]
Walsh quotes the SIT ' Report as follows' in an attempt to demonstrate an error in. Applicants' statement that-the four-
- supports were so _ conservatively designed that' they .could simply _
- be cut off and be adequate
l c "During_the course ofLthe inspection, the Applicant informed thelSpecial Inspection-
-Team that~these suports would-be unable to withstand-differential: seismic displacements and were being redesigned.". ( Emphasis i added.) LWalsh Affidavit at 3.]
}
Walsh contends that Applicants' alleged statement to the NRC.
3 Staff (as reflected in the above-quoted section of the SIT.
1
- Report) does not reflect- supports that could simply be cut off and be adequate. However, Walsh fails to quote the very next two l
t sentences of the SIT Rel_3rt which reflect-the NRC Staff's under-standing of and concurrence with Applicants' redesign, _i.e.,. ti
- cutting off the floor-to-ceiling columns.
i In subsequent discussione, the Applicant l showed the Special Inspection Team component I
- modification cards (CMC) 46174, Revision 8,
? and 46730, Revicion 4 showing that. the bottom j
portions of Iten 25 on support SW-1-132-701-i LY33R (Doyle Deposition Attachment 7C) and Item 22 on support SW-1-132-703-Y33R (Doyle Deposition Attachment 7D) respectively, are to be cut off to eliminate the floor-to-ceiling columns on the east end of each support. The Special~ Inspection Team concluded that the redesign resolves the l
concern. [ Staff Exhibit 207 at 26.]
L
-e ,,y4 .,.,,w-- y . - , - ,w_ , .3--,.,v fw.& -. , , , , _ _ - . --,,e, .., , ,- ,_ ,u - ,,
i i
~
7- .
1 Applicants note that the above cited section of the SIT !
1 Report is' quoted in CASE's Proposed Findings of Fact and Con-clusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle Allegations) (" CASE's Proposed Findings") at VI-ll (August 2, 1983) which is cited in footnote 2 to Walsh's Affidavit on this very point. In short, Walsh's r.
assertions provide no support - for his position.
- 3. . Statement of Material Fact 3:
Td demonstrate the adequacy'of the initial designs, using the computer code STRUDL, one of the four identical supports was analyzed using conservative assumptions and the reculting stresses in the support were all below allowables. .
Indeed, the actual differential seismic displacement was calculated to be .006 inches; a limited displacement of this magnitude would, as a practical reality, not be a concern for these supports. [ Applicants Affidavit at 4-5.]
, CASE first argues that Applicants provide no documentation to confirm that the four supports in question were identical.
Walsh Affidavit at 4. In Applicants Affidavit (at 3), Applicants
- state that the four supports were identical. Walsh has presented l nothing to refute Applicants factual assertion.
j- Next, Walsh states that Applicants' assertion that the four supports were adequate in the first instance is inconsistent with
(
4 sections of the SIT Report, as noted above in response to Material Fact 2. However, Applicants' Affidavit clearly explains any apparent conflict by stating that after the SIT inquired
! about the supports, instead of performing a detailed calculation j
to determine the adequacy of the supports, Applicants chose to simply cut off the supports to eliminate any concerns.-
Subsequently, a detailed analysis was conducted and it was i
i l
i I
- - - . -,,-,,t. ,,,,_ .#- .. . . _ _ _ . _ . . , _ , , ,. , - - , . . . . . . . . . . , . .
determined-that the supports were adequate as originally
~ designed. (Applicants Affidavit at 4-5.) CASE presents no calculations to refute this position.4 4.- Statement of Material Fact 4:
Applicants have. reviewed all Unit 1 and common safety-related piping supports and determined that there are 26 supports spanning from wall-to-wall or floor-to-ceiling. Of
-these 26 supports, seven have slip-joints, four have small spans and negligible movements and are not considered large-framed supports, and the remaining 15 have been evaluated and adequately consider the potential for. '
differential seismic displacement. [ Applicants Affidavit 7.t 5-6.]
Walsh provides no evidence to refute this Material Fact.
However, he erroneously states that of the 12 pertinent supports designed by PSE, 2/3 (8 out of 12) do not meet the PSE design guidelines. Walsh apparently chooses to ignore Applicants' statement that four of_the 12 supports identified have "small spans" (under four feet, three inches) and are not considered "large-framed supports." (Applicants Affidavit at 5-6 and Attachment 1.) In that they are not "large-framed supports," the
- PSE guidelines for "large-framed cupports" are not applicable.
Accordingly, of the PSE designed supports only the four original supports identified by Applicants in late 1981 (as discussed above) did not meet the applicable PSE guidelines.
- 5. Statement of Material Fact 5:
None of these remaining 15 supports were designed by PSE, and all were designed prior to the time that the PSE guideline was made applicable to the other design organi-zations. [ Applicants Affidavit at 6.]
J 4
With regard to CASE's general assertion that thermal stresses and creep must be considered, see Applicants' motion at 4-5.
1
.Walsi contet<ds that Applicants' statement contradicts 9 .. statements mab the NRC Staff as set forth in the SIT Report
-(Staff Exhibit 207 at 25). (Walsh Affidavit at 5.) Applicants disagree. While the SIT Report'would seem to imply that Appli-cants informed the Staff that neither ITT-Grinnell nor NSPI had designed wall-to-wall or floor-to-ceiling supports prior to this time, this is not the case. Indeed, Applicants had previously testified that eight additional supports located on the Service Water System fell into this category (i.e., support numbers 17-24 in Attachment 1 to Applicants Affidavit. (These supports were discussed in Applicants Exhibit 142 at 25. Applicants knew that these supports were designed by ITT. (Finneran Affidavit at 2.)
When asked this question by the Staff, Applicants stated that they were unaware of any such supports which had not been-previously identified; however, the only way to be sure was to conduct a 100 percent review of all supports. (Finneran 1
Affidavit at 2.) From this discussion, the NRC Staff made the above noted statement in the SIT Report. Subsequently, Applicants did conduct a review of Unit 1 and common supports and identified an additional nine supports which fell into this category which had been designed by either ITT or NPSI; all such supports were identified in Attachment 1 to Applicants Affidavit.
- 6. Statement of Material Fact 6: %
The PSE guideline regarding floor-to-ceiling and wall-to--
wall _ supports is not a code or procedural requirement, but rather guidance for the designer. [ Applicants Affidavit at 6.]
10 -
1 l
~
Walsh provides no direct evidence to refute this material -
fact. Although irrelevant to 'this fact, Walsh states that the ASME Code requires consideration of certain loads when- designing supports. Walsh alleges that Applicants have provided no documents which reflect that they considered such loads. (Walsh Affidavit at 6.) Applicants stated that they have evaluated all applicable loads and the supports are adequate (Applicants Affidavit at 4-6). (With regard to Walsh's assertion that creep and restrained thermal expansion should be considered, see Appli-cants Motion at 4-5.) Significantly, Walsh has not provided any calculation which reflects overstressed conditions for any of the supports in question, despite that fact ' that this has been an issue for over two years.
- 7. Statements of Material Facts 7, 8 and 10:
Walsh provides nothing to refute these material facts.
- 8. Statement of Material Fact 9:
The seismic deflection that could occur on wall-to-slab (ceiling or floor) supports consists of vertical deflection of the slab and horizontal deflection of the wall. In that such supports are near the juncture of the slab and wall, the actual deflection realized at the support would be minimal and less than the maximum deflection realized towar6 the middle of the wall or slab. [ Applicants Affidavit at
+
8.]
While Walsh notes disagreement with the second sentence, his basis for disagreement is erroneous. Specifically, his disagree-ment is based on wall-to-wall and floor-to-ceiling supports; the fact addresses wall-to-slab (ceiling or floor) supports.
w -
- - , , ,m - - - - - - - - r - - -
m.e , , -~ q-
- 9. Three Board Questions:
Walsh contends that Applicants have not addressed the three Board questions raised in the Board Memorandum and Order of February 8, 1984 at 30, viz., "how it came about that PSE violated its own design guidelines, how this event came to be reflected in the design quality assurance system, and whether this. problem was resolved promptly, as required by 10 C.F.R.
Appendix B, Criterion XVI." These three questions are clearly addressed in Applicants' Affidavit (at 6-8) and Applicants' Motion (at 7-9).
III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Board should find that there is sufficient evidence before it to reach a reasoned decision granting Applicants' motion for summary disposition concerning CASE's allegations regarding large-framed, wall-to-wall and ficor-to-ceiling pipe supports.
Respectfully submitted, i
Nicholas S. Reynolds William A. Horin Malcolm H. Philips, Jr. :
i BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, I PURCELL AND REYNOLDS l
, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9800 l
Counsel for Applicants l
October 1, 1984 1