ML20136J340

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Case Preliminary Comments on Applicant Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan.Review Incomplete.Listed Items,Including Umbrella Qa/Qc Program & Responses to Sser 11 Have Not Been Provided by Applicant
ML20136J340
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 08/15/1985
From: Garde B
TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
To: Bloch P, Grossman H, Jordan W
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20136J345 List:
References
CON-#385-276 OL-2, NUDOCS 8508200687
Download: ML20136J340 (2)


Text

,

J76 .

TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE. P.C.

COUN5tt10R$ AT LAW SUITE 611 2000 P STREET. NORTHWEST ANTHONY 2. ROISMAN %ASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 (202)463-8600 tucuTu tuticton ARTHUR BRYANT sTAn ATTOaNEY 00( f({ 7"r ~

U$qgg l SANDRA SHtPHERD I omes m mn

'85 A% 20 A10:58 August 15, 1985 -

0FFICE DOCKETING Orx 5Ely-Q),

BRANCH Administrative Judge Peter Bloch, Chairman . -

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, ,,,,,,,,q g . //Y d_"' b[ , {

Washington, D.C. 20555 7400, a UTL M--

Administrative Judge Herbert Grossman, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter Jordan, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20S55 Re CPSES (50-445/6-2) t

Dear Gentlemen:

CASE has been asked by the Staff to provide ou'r current views on the Applicant's CPRT Program Plan. Those comments are enclosed. The submittal to the Staff represents our current' evaluation of the CPRT, based on the review and analysis we have coupleted to date. It should not be misconstrued as the definitive position of CASE on the Program Plan. However, since the Staff requested our preliminary views we have provided it for-their consideration. l 1

8508200687 850815  % l hDR ADOCK O 5 m.

o /%

i This review is far from complete. First it is made without the benefit of any discovery. Second the Applicants have not yet provided the umbrella OA/OC program, the responses to the SSER fil, the inspection procedures and attribute checklists, the justification for the selection of homogenous hardware groups for the self-initiated evaluations, and other details described in our letter to the staff. Third, no evaluation of the CPRT can be adequate without a determination of the scope of the problems it is designed to correct, a scope to be determined either by concession in or completion of litigation of Docket 2. Fourth, we have not had sufficient time to evaluate the data already provided and being provided in trickles from the Applicant.

Sincerely, IW Billie Pirner Garde cc: Service list w/ attach 1

e

%