ML20101F019

Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling Re Contention 41-E Concerning Nonwelding Problems W/Pipe Hangers

ML20101F019
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	12/21/1984
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20101F012	List: ML20101F008 ML20101F014 ML20101F019 ML20101F023 ML20101F026
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8412260478
Download: ML20101F019 (1)

Text

- . . .- . _ _ _ -

21 December 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMEBICA m- w

'BN

. NUCLEAR BEGULATOBY COMMISSION

- '34 F 24 A!0:19 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOABD.

Glenn O. Bright hP J2 G d ~sE W J Dr. James H. Carper.ter3W

• James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of CAB 0 LINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al.

))>Docket- 50-40 OL -

(Shearon Harris Nu: lear Power Plant, Unit 1) ASLEP No. 82-468-01

) CE' Wells Eddleman's Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling re Contention 41-E This contention was said to be rejected on the ground of being

" unduly broad" and a " lack (of) specificity" (Tr. 7381. It was also said to appear to "be a restatement of what we understood 41 to be about*

Tr. 7381-82. "It talks about pipe hangers, installation, inspection, which is exactly what we spent several days talking about. Weisee that as, one, lacking in specificity, and two, pretty much of a retread of i old 41."' Tr. 7382.

However, proposed contention 41-E is about the non-welding problems with pipe hangers at the Harris plant. There was considerable discussion in the Contention 41 hearing transcript concerning Staff's and Applicants 8 position that 41 was limited to pipe hanger welding etion of welds. The Board upheld that osition.Seee.g.Tr.Nfj and 9ool-inEo& efcj?D/4 7o2' 9094 '7Dfsg r)207-92">J i

i og Thereare,however,non-weldindinspections(includingfitupand woQ l NE' all aspects other than welding) of hangers, performed by the construction ,

a0

'E8

• inspection (CI) group rather than the QA people who check hanger welds.

g, see,e.g.,Tr.QOl$*, ,%QjMso u% dassyl seeTe 02:4;yfQ Q* i

$8 The aspects of hangers that are of concern appear to be spec ic

~fd in light of the above information and distinct from contention El as ce heard. In light of this informat I ask the Board to reconsider y and admit Contention 41-E. Q l b~-

~

Wells Eddleman

. mn.o

. , _ . - _ . - _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ __ _ _.__-.___.._ _ .. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _