ML20112J281

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Applicant Response to Case Motion Re Insps of Crossover Leg Restraints.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20112J281
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 01/16/1985
From: Reynolds N
BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#185-152 OL, NUDOCS 8501180228
Download: ML20112J281 (22)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:-. _ _ _ l }%,,. r ,/ \\ / i s/ g \\p i \\ j JAN IS 198c [5 ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EA ,k ,. G .\\ BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD U In the. Matter of )' ) TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC )r Docket Nos. 50-445 and COMPANY, et al. ) 50-446 ) (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ,) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating Licenses) APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO CASE'S MOTION REGARDING INSPECTIONS OF CROSSOVER LEG RESTRAINTS I. INTRODUCTION On January 4, 1985, Citizens Association for Sound Energy (" CASE") filed " CASE's Motions Regarding Inspections of Main Coolant System Crossover Leg Restraints" (Motions). Applicants herein respond. CASE's Motions are prompted in part by " Applicants' Responses to CASE's Discovery Requests Regarding Crossover Leg Restraints" (November 30, 1984). In Applicants' discovery responses, Applicants explained certain mistakes by the Applicants in a supplemental explanation to the NRC in response to Notice. of Violation 445/84-08-02. Specifically, Applicants withdrew the supplemental response (TXX-4294, Clements to Bangart (September 7, 1984)) to that Notice of Violation. See TXX-4370, Clements to Hunter (November 20, 1984) (Attachment I to the November 30 discovery responses). In the discovery responses, however, Applicants were careful to point out that the original response.(TXX-4271, Clements to Bangart (August 23, 1984{}tothe 8501180228 850116 PDR ADOCK 05000445 )Q} Q PDR

. Notice of Violation was accurate and remained in effect. In that response Applicants committed to corrective measures which have subsequently been carried out. CASE's current Motions are divided into two types. Applicants respond in inverse order to the presentation in the Motions. First, CASE asks the Board to make various sweeping programmating findings with respect to Applicants' quality assurance program based upon the events related to crossover leg restraints. Applicants oppose these motions as unsupported and premature. Second, CASE requests the Board to take certain documents related to the crossover leg restraints into evidence. Applicants do not oppose these motions with respect to the technical documents and correspondence, b'ut move that additional documents listed in the discovery responses also be placed into evidence to complete the record. In sum, Applicants propose that the record on this matter should be closed. Based on the corrective measures already taken, the matter has no independent safety significance. Any findings of programmatic significance should be made only in the context of the entire record on contention 5. II. DISCUSSION A. CASE's Motions for the Board to Make Broad QA-Related Findings are Unsupported and Premature On October 5, 1984, the Licensing Board granted CASE discovery on the issue of Notice of Violation 445/84-08-02 related to inspections of the crossover leg restraints. See Memorandum and Order (Discovery on Cross-Over Leg Restraints)

s G- 'S 4 ! 4 i (October 5, 1984). The Board held that "[d]iscovery related to this matter will assist the Board in assessing its significance." Memorandum and order at 2. In its subsequent Memorandum '(Reconsideration: Cross-Over Leg Restraints) (November 7, 1984), I the Board stated that "the cross-over leg restraints have l' independent safety significance" and that discovery should be t granted because the Notice of Violation related to a failure to 4 inspect the restraints.1/ 4 Following discovery, CASE now moves that the Board find that i l the NRC's Notice of Violation with respect to the crossover leg restraints was correct, and on that basis that the Board proceed j to make several sweeping programmatic findings with respect to i f Applicants' quality assurance program. Specifically, CASE moves i ~ that the Board make findings with respect to Applicants' i (,.. management attitude and competence, Applicants' credibility, the independence, adequacy, and effectiveness of the QA program at i Comanche Peak, and the adequacy of the design and construction of i j' Comanche Peak. Motions at 23-24. ' Applicants oppose CASE's i motions. The isolated deficiency noted in the NRC Staff's Notice t f kpp icants m int in a continuing objection to the Board's grant of discovery prior to admission of a new contention. [ Similarly: Applicants maintain a continuing objection to any, consideration of this issue. prior to admission of a new contention supported by a proper showing under 10 C.F.R. { 2.714(a) for a -late-filed contention or i 2.760a for a sua ~sponte issue. See " Applicants' Motion for Reconsideration of Eoard Order Granting Discovery on ' Crossover Leg Restraints," pp. 6-8 l (October 19, 1984).

. of Violation has been corrected, CASE's proposed programmatic findings place undue emphasis on one NRC Notice of Violation, and the proposed findings are otherwise unsupported. Applicants have pointed out many times in this proceeding, and many times in the context of the crossover leg restraint matter, that the proper standard for evaluating QA deficiencies and violations was articulated in Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-740, 18 NRC 343 (1983). In Callaway the Appeal Board wrote: In any project even remotely approaching in magnitude and complexity the erection of a nuclear power plant, there inevitably will be some construction defects tied to quality assurance lapses. It would therefore be totally unreasonable to hinge the grant of an NRC operating license upon a demonstration of error-free construction. Nor is such a result mandated by either the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's implementing regulations. What they require is simply a finding of reasonable assurance that, as built, the facility can and will be operated without endangering the public health and safety. 42 U.S.C. (( 2133(d), 2232(a); 10 C.F.R. i 50.57(a)(3)(i).

Thus, in examining claims of quality assurance deficiencies, one must look to the implication of those deficiencies in terms of safe plant operation.

Obviously, this inquiry necessitates careful consideration of whether all ascertained construction errors have been cured. Even if this is established to be the case however, there may remain a question whether there has been a breakdown in quality assurance procedures of sufficient dimensions to raias legitimate doubt as to the overall integrity of the facility and its safety-related structures and components. A demonstration of a pervasive failure to carry out the quality assurance program might well stand in the way of the requisite safety findings.

Q, 7 i 1 -o-Id. at 346 (citations omitted). i This standard does not require that Applicants demonstrate error-free, violation-free construction. Instead boards must, undertake a two-part analysis of construction lapses or notices of violation in order to assess the significance of the particular incident. First, the Board must verify that particular lapses have been corrected. Second, the Board must - determine whether there is evidence of a " pervasive failure," or a QA " breakdown" which would call into question the ability of the plant to operate safely. See also Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-756, 18 NRC 1340,.1345 (1983). Applicants submit that the incomplete inspections noted in Notice of Violation 445/84-08-02, are, under this test, ins tfficient to justify the findings suggested by CASE. First, Notice of Violation 445/84-08-02 specified that specific QC inspections of construction work related to the baseplates of the crossover leg restraints had not been documented. However, as explained in the August 23, 1984 (TXX-4271) response to Region IV, the November 28, 1984 (TXX-4370) letter to Region IV, and Applicants' November 30, 1984 discovery . responses filed with this Board, QC inspection checklists existed for the crossover leg restraint installations. These checklists had not been completed principally with respect to a baseplate shimming attribute (shims would be installed if necessary to level the baseplate) and with respect to an anchor bolt

. tightening attribute (the anchor bolts are to be installed snug tight). Following the Notice of Violation, the open checklists were reported in and attached to NCR-M-84-100281. NCR-M-84-100281 has now been dispositioned by the Applicants. All necessary baseplate work on the crossover leg restraints and the previously open QC inspections have been completed. As a result, there is absolutely no independent 4 safety significance to Notice of Violation 445/84-08-02. The specific matter is resolved. The first standard of Callaway is satisfied. Second, notwithstanding the lack of independent safety significance, CASE proceeds to move for broad programmatic findings as a result of the lone Notice of Violation. The Intervenors do not put the matter in proper perspective and the proposed broad findings are unwarranted. Notice of Violation 445/84-08-02 was classified by Region IV as a Severity Level IV violation. 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C, Section III defines a Severity Level IV violation as one which is "less serious but . of more than minor concern; i.e., if left uncorrected could lead to a more serious concern." This violation has been corrected. With respect to construction quality, it is inconsistent with Callaway for CASE to extrapolate broad conclusions based upon one, relatively minor, corrected error. There is no evidence to show that the violation is other than an isolated occurrence. A programmatic finding is not justified absent proof of large numbers of similar minor .n.. --.-..w,- ,n ..t----

I 1 deficiencies. See Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-788, 20 NRC l(slip op. at 68-69, october 31, 1984).2/ The vast majority of CASE's proposed findings are not directly related to construction quality. Instead CASE argues l that one Notice of Violation, and the fact that Applicants filed a mistaken explanation in the September 7. response to the NRC, justify a negative finding with respect to Applicants' "attitud e and mindset." Motions at 22-23; see also Motions at 13-20. Just as the construction quality proposed findings, these "a ttitud e " l 3 programmatic findings are not justified. The NRC issued its ~ Notice of Violation on July 26, 1984. Applicants promptly and timely responded on August 23, 1984, committing to take corrective actions. Although confusion subsequently arose in the ] September 7, 1984 supplemental response, Applicants, upon 'I becoming aware of the confusion, promptly and candidly admitted the mistake and attempted to clarify the situation. The corrective measures to disposition the NCR were carried out in August and September. These events dct not indicate, as CASE suggests, an " extreme reluctance to admit mistakes. " Motions at 14. Applicants ; understood their obligation to the NRC and 6 A 4 2,/. CASE in its motions also includes in one of its proposed e findings a reference to design quality assurance. Motions at 24. Applicants submit that the sub ject Notice of Violation is totally irrelevant to design QA.

. fulfilled the obligation in a responsible fashion. The implications CASE draws from the events are unsubstantiated and its proposed findings unwarranted.2/ Moreover, CASE's proposed " management attitude and competence" findings are prendsed largely on the one incident related to the crossover leg restraints. Such a single incident, however, under the line of reasoning followed in Callaway, could not support a broad condemnation of Applicants ' management attitude and competence. Such findings, if made at all, would be global in nature and must be supported by the entire record on Contention 5. Therefore, at a minimum, CASE's proposed findings are premature. Such proposed findings are more properly argued in addressing the overall issues of Contention 5. In sum, CASE's motions are based upon a relatively minor Notice of Violation which has been corrected by the Applicants. Because the matter has been dispositioned, there is no longer "ind ependent safety significance" as was suggested by the Board in its November 7, 1984 Memorandum (Reconsideration: Cross-Over Leg Restraints). In addition, CASE's motion for the Board to make programmatic findings based upon the incident should be denied as currently unsupported by the evidence. f 1/ At one point in its pleading CASE even suggests that Applicants deliberately attempted to mislead the NRC with respect to the crossover leg restraints. Motions at 18. Applicants submit that this assertion is an unsupported accusation.

= v B. CASE's Motions to Admit Documents into Evidence May be Granted in Part; Additional Documents Should be Admitted to Complete the Record l CASE moves that the following documents be admitted into evidence: 1. NRC Inspection Report 50-445/84-08, 50-446/84-04. 2. " Applicants' Response to CASE Motion,for Discovery Regarding Inspections of Main Coolant System Crossover Leg Restraints" .(September 14, 1984), which includes the following attachments: a. TXX-4271, Clements to Bangart (August i 23, 1984) b. TXX-4294, Clements to Bangart (September 7, 1984) 4 3. " Applicants' Response to CASE's Discovery Requests Regarding Crossover Leg Restraints" (November 30, 1984), which includes the following attachments: a. Affidavit of Claire H. Welch b. TXX-4370, Clements to Hunter (November 28, 1984) c. D. R. Hunter to M. D. Spence (November 2, 1984) 4. NCR M-84-100281, excerpts including cover page and 4 open inspection checklists for the Unit I crossover leg restraint installations. Motions at 21-22. At the outset Applicants observe some uncertainty as to the J procedures to be followed for resolution of this issue, if the matter is to be pursued further at all.4/ CASE appears to seek i findings now based upon the evidence of record and the evidence it seeks admitted into the record. As discussed above, 4/ J3e fn. 1, supra. ~, _

. Applicants oppose this approach. The Notice of Violation has no independent safety significance because the hardware has been inspected. Arguments as to programmatic significance are currently unsupported and at a minimum are premature. Nevertheless, Applicants believe that the record on the crossover leg restraint matter can now be completed and closed. CASE's proposed findings go to the ultimate issues of the adequacy of the QA program and the Applicants' management attitude and . competence. Applicants, therefore, propose that any such arguments as to the programmatic significance of the crossover leg restraint matter be dealt with in the context of the entire record of Contention 5. For the purposes of now completing the record on crossover leg restraints, Applicants do not oppose CASE's motions to admit the specified documents in evidence to the extent they request admission of technical documents and correspondence (Items 1, 2.a, 2.b, 3.b., 3.c, and 4 listed above). Applicants, however, do not believe it necessary to admit the two listed legal filings (Items 2 and 3) into evidence. Legal filings are matters of record as legal filings - no more and no less. Moreover, the Applicants November 30, 1984 discovery responses include references to technical documents which are not relevant to the Notice of Violation or to the contention in this proceeding, and therefore are not admissable. Admission of that entire document is unwarranted.

, t In addition, i ' the Board receives any documents related to this matter into evidence, Applicants move that the Board admit the following documents: CE-84-131-8902 CE-84-132-8902 CE-84-133-8902 CE-84-134-8902 These four travelers document that the reinspections to close the four open checklists, as committed to in the App 1'icants' August 23, 1984 response to the NRC Region IV (TXX-4271), have been completed. These travelers close NCR M-84-100281 and were in fact properly attached to the copy of the NCR provided to CASE in response to the discovery requests. (These apparently were among the pages CASE omits from NCR M-84-100281 in its !!otions and refers to as "not readable." Motions at 22. Applicants attach more readable. copies of the travelers to this pleading.) The documents are therefore relevant to the issue of the Notice of Violation and should be included in the record. With the inclusion of these documents, Applicants propose that the record on the matter should be closed. III. CONCLUSION First, for the reasons stated above, Applicants oppose CASE's motions that the Board make certain programmatic findings with respect to quality assurance at Comanche Peak and Applicants' management attitude, based solely upon evidence related to crossover leg restraints.

Second, for the reasons stated above, Applicants oppose in part CASE's motion to admit certain documents related to crossover leg restraints into evidence. In addition, if any documents are to be admitted into evidence at this time, Applicants move that additional specified relevant documents be admitted in order to complete the record. Third, Applicants propose that no further inquiry or evidence on this matter is necessary and the record should be closed. The matter has no independent safety significance; any alleged programmatic significance of the matter can be addressed in the context of the overall issues of contention 5. Respect ul submitted, / I \\ Nichol S. j9eynolds David Repk a

BISHOP, IB$g4AN, COOK, PURCE N REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9800 counsel for Applicants January 16, 1985 e g

s- [ CONSTRUCTION cP(AAfA*N TRAviLER _35-119:r ~ '#~ $4-131-8902 / / 1 a @of cenc e-nverAditiVITY DESCRIPTIONVerification of installation l@gRgNgAg g.-4 & 91 M1Q p.d R WINGS 5# 55/ N, i 1on ennnnete S-f SygC/ ENG.IN'STR. LOCATION El. 811'-7", g' SYSTEM j Enmn+ #1 pov+nr p i r4 - pan 9 4 PREPARED BY Ie T M*/^/ 'M7/54dttTT I' I /

  • F V OEPT. b'#'4(~'"'/4' F^dJ WA*O-DATE M/NT

~ REVIEWED BY t ANI REVIEW /M DATE l ~ ~ ' 1 gA/oc ~ ' op *1 cEFT. oPERATICM _ _ _ _ CCitSTR (M S. ANI I () 1 IW Verify structural assemblies by part numbers and/or material / $$ i QC(V) identification to referenced drawing or applicable MR's. Doc-I M ument, verification on " Structural AssemblyggPa'grd" tion page 2. oc vc A t F y fcA G: ap-or. sv -t At e o s. a.,.-,,,,. w., i 2 FE Verify elevation, location, levelness per design drawing. 6 As. Evn /~ A~d~ - Sf 4 6 0 IM,. ,lY' [ 3 IW Verify Snug-Tight conduition of anchor bolts per DCA#11,312 R-2. qc. vigiTV nra wrs 4 w*nrs ro e r(Q:re 4.r,,,g_y QC(V), CC YEAZFr /CA O L -Q/* II. !s ~t Ai > ' L R f /FV f',f1 g, p. n f 4 QC(V) Verify completion of traveler. /M NOTE; Sequence of operations listed may change according to construction priorities.

2. TH: 3 rAA VfLCA w A ~ 7 7tN 70

.5 A ?2s J~1 T r*E fg a u: gin Eters ce hcA M69-t 0~' 2 9 ' g. t. 4., R' p' v.n ~ '; 'IW ):0W ATON COPY l lRTN FiLC LOO. } S U "' t " F t,0 0 TRAVELER NO. @3M._w, TRUE CO?X "~ ARMS INDEXED g g G ccahde 1 s DATE4 w a- - - - - - -, - - - - - -. -,,. - -. - ~ - -

I C E-W /_1/. S C PAGE-0F - TRAVELIR NO.: t I STRUCTURAL ASSEuBLY VER:FICATICN CARD l I I 4 l jf,,5 9/ QC VERIFICATION PIECEMARKNO.AN0/ORHEAT/MIC. ~ i 4, a c. ,/41.i' 5 t D Af u, t!If.5/s/ -^;- f sr NCV/OsA il @j fe']-f g.4,F nO av.a rs Jsy'.nr,- - 4, s1= u.3 rso cw x4' #:.'s Ac g i.,sr vn~m

s. sos., - es

, - - - o. ?- ": N !./L s#/ WA//]rkf?? W hT ? ? b.r,C-:n e / g g, wtr_< i \\ av ft1Y ( va'ar s 1,o.rs.-.* a. u r p r "..r.,: h. a r s t r cs r ".,i er: n-,c (,, r 9 7,, / f* s O f.m

  • f vps / d Ts s/' Yy [ s.s

/=J G s C'. ' j " _= 9, _ - ~ i i l I t FI < r ennk A ATi fl% t t 1 I J

4[\\) i\\ttin i 6 v q

- MT 7, I k$ k i PfMV l l I I I I I I I i i i I l

..- L '. .?;g;b:.: V g'p. y $1. ,;q Q-

r 3

CONSTRUCTfCN CPERATICN TRAVELER 35-1195 ' ' 1N. b IN 'NN b$.8hE2 902 - 1 cation of in$tallatio0@glg 'g @M.$@8N0N{ su 'G 8YSTEM El. 811-77. s LOCATION (gTSPt!C/ PROC / D$G. INSTR. Comet.#2. Reactor Bldg,. v 8902 v SS-16b r PREPARED SY '[# dl% E'ecAWATE f ~2M OEPT.Oe M*/ M -'N M ~ -#d//FF O E~- OATE REVl q' EDBY M CATE ANI. EVIEW

utaa, o?. MC.

DEPT. oPtutAT1hN g gp, g g g E Verify structural assemblies by part numbers and/or material 4 QC(Y > identification to referenced drawing or applicable MR's document/[f pg IW 1 verification on " Structural Assembly Verif tion Card " Page 2, t/s.t//-V QCVEAIF1 PE A QZ'-Q f* II. I4.I At t it. .m, 2 FE - Verify elevation, location, levelness per design drawings, p 4 AS Bun !" FA.w 9 g IW(V I Verify Snug-Tight condition of anchor bolts per DCM11,312 R-2. ' 'gf ~7 r 3 b 3 n ' [ p p} n fs.t/s.yg_-g V 4 W Y/fd GCr VE A t FY fEA ar at-IIA-l rey 11 QC Vf2tff' WO #lIS M.34" Har$. g. "N QC(V l Verify completion of traveler. 4 NOTE: Sequence of operations listed may change according to' construction priorities. 2., THIS TAAVEL i11 w n177 En To.5 A Tts F Y 7tt2 p REQui A Murs of hcA M-W 100 2.gl, c 6% 1.vss' ~ i N0M ATON 1, '.. ARMS PenM.Ptr.ascono ( ) INDEXED ar"tjAux. (, 1 37 g su- -. q' l TRAVELER NO. 1 i J-a: 2 ' *' f CERTIFIED .w. & M L

d. s..:

Y

f. -.4

..it YWifyJJa,g Yg/>r/kw % MiW-140 oa **ener".*b 0W WN$%M $. $$Y .. (

I C[ IY- /32-J M1 PAGE2 0F 2. TRAVELER NO.: STRUCTURAL ASSEM. LY VERIFICATICN CARD PIECE MARK NO. AND/OR HEAT /MIC NO. QC VERIFICATION m.,..oa a ,.y-8,a 3, n.srn ,,xr..o e nao =* $ Erw* ff' E:n e Ms. nl h5 i r o ..~..n.n,- n,,c, - - -,. I ?a? enJ<Y*7 w &

  • f M f & J 9* $ b5Os n,- ~, n

- ~. ~. - ~, 6K N2 /I Y.LV 24'l1. WW &? ? / 32,W6. / ffh f .p,,. 9 n gL.~4, ro df -7HA; art.5(47's3s JM r sk&F "kn)# ~ k-Y~ v #7.9)$( f ? s 4*ts P.J~ Y t k J~ p U. / ,b f f et.5) 9 Y A/

  • t %,_..

~4s~ m,,,.n.r ~.,a7-r.,.,,.m ~ -w -m>ws,a w m p _ f/f-f 4 ft.)fi n 1*/6 M $ $ 3 W pr/**c'o en n' arc.e,wrza ),J4a n'er(EWC )rWMer (9.24 ) &. Gut 17cro7 - " &*.' '*6 ~ ~" 3 , e n F.)w'. g=y L^RiprP J, port 4-t rh T.a 73u,t/f f.<>a r NT" Wu 4t'Asi48m]VgA ' Y~s ?d'5,d" 9 i f27 f$cun 17sArr= 6Pi[J Dds/ /& d /W' 7 Md m n,,r.e z._ -,w,. - w,. s... m..;... ~ v 1, m ob *fr0:_f., a ~& 4 &i.o*. : a 3 *-e' 'I o> s.4i -...=i fa 9 Ml, J,,. _ l?. pp._yy w Wehd 4-W*&ts '+sy rfr. w2723,*.33+ *.1S 79 l t o -n s u ,-- n t .U 1 l3 UTVM (YWV vvs l 331V l l l l f i

.5 .. ' ~ ~~ ._ 4.:., y s CONSTRUCTION CPERATION TRAVELDt 35-il9a ' r NO. ' h EQUIPWNT NC.. @ UNIT NO. @@uAhm i

PAisgloQ, 0

3.ggai A ll 2

  • A li A 1

1

  • a-

{ g,oggoggcation of installatio@$${}R@.$$A$Nj3 _n 1 D_a 81 -7I' @ 3Y3Tg @ LOCATION E1 Comet.f3.4 pac}nrkidn @SPEE".tpmCC/WE.titSTM. 89 3g.1 gh PREPARED BY D U M M M rw @ ATE K-U*N O E R T. O / M $ E'A I' N/ RNEWE2 gy QATE W QATI AM REVIEW .z .g a p. not osyn opsnanon WW 84 ANl 1 IW Verify structural assemblies by part numbers and/or mater al Doc N g / 7p( AC(V) , identification to referenced drawing or applicable MR's. H ument verificaiton on " Structural Assembly Ver cation C [rd"W r Page 2. QC. VER1FY ffA QI-Q!- II. m I ret 94 t 2 FE Verify 41evation, location,levelnessperdesigndrawing. @6 f A s. 8 uic r f E..s + c.o 3 IW Yerify Snug-Tight condition of anchor bolts per DCAf11,312 R-2. E ' ac v anzu /ce a z-o/- st ev-r d ei' is.fA - 2/Y'gI-QC(v) qc. vtRn rY n'ErWJS Ant 0 M WqrS To scWlu-7nuW).'S u 9%,i,, 4 QC(V) i Verify completion of traveler. f,f Y t ,,,4 NOTE: Sequence of operations listed may change according to i.

construction priorities.

.l. L .; i 2.THZS TAA VEL 2R W R17f EN To 3 A itsFY THE nrourA rirnt.s of N c A. M. s 4 - f oo n.ir i.e 9 g.g h g,, ~ M 1 l ARMS i. lHDEXED geny,pur,gcdap ~ t L" f ** 17.J 93 .b. e l $" W &.

  • CERTJRID-f.

TRAVELER NO. W F' RUE s. >9,f UORMA"GN 4 m. m...-_. COPY ee.,&j-,- ~ c = l ...f 2.~ , '..' - - *eg. .,:>s....,s.._...,~. .y3y.., ' ...... r $. ' ',. f', .i ~ y.. (E{r.. E'"* lV ..s .c Q 'h hfY.e.:.A?fo w{MWhr bL.' ~.lf_f a,o a &so. fo 'a.%.w%s? wm =_, - =- ... sWfhw -r a,us-n. q.fQ p( ... s.; - -.n

/. I TRAVELER NO.: C[-14' SW2-PAGE 2. OF 't STRUCTURAL ASSDdBLY VERIFICATICN CARD l PIECE MARK NO. AND/OR HEAT /MIC NO. QC VERIFICATION A n.r<sar,3 v W essa,2.s asrd.'> ca.:nsf*".2 t'9,45 wa y Jy 8' ,s. winso FAsses j r .3 isst b w,rism memy%3D,Fsx.crsv ca"J' M, **H f l c un s.Shcndm'vrvt fus7D N#le ( ,8** 3 n c.rcaYM,a Nr *pr4 ~J ~ graso a:s-p.:N,xr wrn.nF W.LJtA Z,L/. LQ M // 4,s.C/V/X H, I WS & ff -1 1 b y-1 : RA grrw ov w,s,tsy s YdRifdh &NWNf NE& *$ &f.f& OWfM S 3l N lb .2cr n, /f sL. /$~~ W. /Z1//, /O. w.o JL Y r M7 w Ec ' 'C' ' '~'"'"' ' >-9' f f, a wa..,, -~ ,,.. s, e <~a. ~. - - J A ? 77 nub -lue:H?# r I ho-.h -& 731 E. u.& t.r16 -52 W$< _9-27-191Y, \\

n. 's d/

1 i .i,,~,i W " v o t' Y t EAV \\

h. D ~ g j'? W ~ _ n;n. N s. a s. ~ ~ CONSTRUC'fl0N OPERAflolf TRAVEL 2lf @SWP.i.~~" ~ L Y-8h2 A (3 1 ~ w ( gg,ogCRPyCggcation of installatioGRQ @ g,%,# ~$'[p*,4 3 MSPE*./ PROC / ENG.!NSTM. Os LOCATION El.-811-M", ~ QigSYsTIM -~ v SS-16b Comotd4. Reactor R1dm RQn? pREPSOED_SY W A W W OtMv0 ATE f* A/*IV ' 0EPT.Y* W Y M

  • NNE REVIE'sE2 8Y OATE ANI REVIEW kN CATE g

op. mL out apenrion onnetu $n Jul . Verify. structural. assemblies by part numbers and/or material 1 IW QC(V) r. identification to referenced drawing or applicable MR's. l, Document verification on " Structural Assembly Veriff i '.' Ca'rd". Page 2. GC. VERif Y PER 07 Jl.14-I Mrif. y pjf, D. '.. O l v h

,, Verify elevatipn, location, levelne,ss per design drawing.

2 his-Butc r FC S4 7/ ' j Verify Snug-Tight condition of ancho3 "boltsyr DCAlll.J12 R-2. h 3 IW 4 4t/ Qt(V)

oc prgtry QC veAzfv FE A Q1-a t-II.sy-I /EY as.96 xvM rMars Hoo+Mes p]yyggm 4

,; qq e \\ l i. 4 .g (V)? Verify comp etion of traveler. Y& g a -:/ p.. h j}j ' ,O NOTE: t Sequence of operations listed may change.eccording ti,. G di -

...i l-construction priorities.

~ '/g $.' '.. X ep / 'g..: - t. ",g&;, r <9 1 il y

t. THI.3 TAAVELER W RITTE N To.SATi$FY TI* E
s' v. (..a 'd

~ 5 ' '.2 - 'lE GUZR MENT.s or NCA ff-t't - 1000 2 9I. t<A 1M 11 '. ' ? ? ' l (m ~k k48 ihh s/jf 'b. I f 2. HEX N UT.S a JA M NUTS AND WAS HE RS y 8E ASTM AS 40 C RA DE B.s.3. ..,..y. ^g v. J ~ , ;b ; Q f U $M Of ffM NUTS A /tqul*r.Stryl i. . G. .t, Af e71AN EE M.SfD fw A TN1 Nt/f fr j; fSYn AS90 (,,aje B-13. ^ ' ',( 1 1-s$ l + CE RTIFIED ~ .TRUS . -pSMS I 'M[ %D. P.ERM.i21.T. RECORD g' ~ RT" L'.,g.f 1'l r,' { D !{-{' ge o-. w s n -.,-, - T _ ER NO.' 1 W.

g.,...' p ;.

m ~ .t .. ?.. }..y e

t l TRAVELER NO.: / I' - T '/ ~ /3 '/ 1"/e'2 PAGE 2 0F 7.- STRUCTURAL ASSEwSLY VERIFICATICN CARD P8ECE MARK NO. AND/OR HEAT /NIC NO. QC VERIFICATION A / w,~sa w.w.e,u. as<,sn ~ -<.,, m, z -s-o y Esus &,G s 4,,wsr V fi7// hE3W a,.,.~ a,.,,n --,an. - - -n n,,,-- -,,- Ef7Mhasn=w Ar2A*/ A"7N$w# SSY , y,y,"0 barf-ch AJ/'was r a v al tb r-m. ~wl ?99 A' 4~</C~}dO' bS. r.es s G-7 Y R /Y0G sa se

); ' n n M ".%

ra 24%%Od&& 01s n-vo n %' w si& $5$'2~ GNY'tb 9? M id S hV/ u u w<p..u <~ / ~ % s w b h e l /~2 W o~ /6 e L 1 n l s % 8 6. 0 h Sra.c-hldy & L As Ad$ .5FA'4/7/ N,..,. - ,a,,, n- - -,,., ~~, w -z-- -,n /, s kw. r/ur-6/ 9 SW,A/'9.W wtwo-e-Mn +a cesaJ ~99 qw) g, C G' I iu 20MATION Dant 7 MLFA 1 PDp\\/ i j 0

e C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445 and COMPANY, _et _al. ) 50-446 ) (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating Licenses) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Response to CASE's Motion Regarding Inspections of Crossover Leg Restraints" in the above-captioned matter were served upon the following persons by hand delivery,* or by Federal Express,** or by deposit in the United States mail,*** first class, postage prepaid, this 16th day of January, 1985:

  • Peter B.

Bloch, Esq.

      • Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chai rman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

      • Mr. William L. Clements
    • Dr. Walter H. Jordan Docketing & Service Branch c/o Carib Terrace Motel U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory 552 N. Ocean Blvd. Commission Pompano Beach, FL 33062 Washington, D.C. 20555

    • Dr.

Kenneth A. McCollom Dean,_ Division of Engineering

  • Stuart A. Treby, Esq.

-Architecture and Technology Office of the Executive Oklahoma State University Legal Director Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

      • Mr.

Robert D. Martin 7735 Old Georgetown Road Regional Administrator, Bethesda, MD 20814 Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory - *** Chairman, Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Panel 611LRyan Plaza Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 1000 Commission Arlington, Texas 76011 Washington, D.C. 20555

-f t ~2-

      • Renea Hicks, Esq.
    • Mrs. Juanita Ellis Assistant Attorney General President, CASE Environmental Protection 1426 South Polk Street Division Dallas, Texas 75224 P.

O. Box 12548 Capitol Station

  • Elizabeth B. Johnson Austin, Texas 78711 Oak Ridge National Lab.

P. O. Box X, Building 3500

      • Lanny A.

Sinkin Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Executive Director Nuclear Information & Resource Service 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 hh $k W David A. Repka cc: John Beck Robert Wooldridge, Esq.}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20112J281&oldid=4293007"