ML20215L602

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ack Receipt of Util 870429 Application to Extend CP Expiration Date.Same Significant Hazards Considerations That Apply to Unit 1 Also Apply to Unit 2
ML20215L602
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 05/09/1987
From: Ellis J
Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To: James Keppler
NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
References
NUDOCS 8706260113
Download: ML20215L602 (2)


Text

- _ _ _ - _

C A S E==

214/946-9hk6

~

(CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERG9) a i

d1,(f f May 9, 1987 m

E 9% S7 f,

Mr. James E. Keppler Director, Office of Special Cases U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Keppler:

Subject:

In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et a_l,.

Application for an Operating License Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unito 1 and 2 I

Docket No. 50-446 Applicants' Request for Renewal of Construction Permit No. CPPR-127 for Unit 2 CASE has received Applicants' 4/29/87 letter to the NRC Document Control l

Desk in which Applicants are seeking an extension of the Construction Permit i

for Unit 2 of Comanche Peak.

Although, in this instance, at least l

Applicants did not allow their Construction Permit for Unit 2 to actually expire as they did for Unit 1, it is CASE's position that there exist the same significant hazards considerations involved regarding Unit 2 as exist for Unit 1.

Therefore, hearings must be held before the NRC Staff takes any action to renew the Construction Permit for Unit 2.

We are currently in the process of preparing responses to interrogatories, but we will forward you additional, more detailed comments as soon as possible.

In the meantime, we refer you to the various pleadings and rulings by the ASLB (which is constituted of the same members as those who are hearing the CPA case), the Appeal Board, and the Commission, and in particular the Board Ord.er admitting the CPA Contention for Unit 1; CASE believes that the same significant hazards considerations apply for Unit 2 as for Unit 1, and that an identical contention would also be appropriate for Unit 2.

(Expedition of the process could, of course, be accomplished by consolidation with the i

CPA proceedings on Unit 1.)

j 8706260113 870509

\\

PDR ADOCK 0500 6

1

\\

A

i

. tI m

I It appears that the NRC Director of the Comanche Peak Division of the Office of.Special Projects, Mr. Christopher Grimes, is already becoming aware of some of the problems encountered in the design, construction, and 0A/0C of Comanche Peak through the years (see attached article from the 5/6/87 FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM). CASE is hopeful that-the new Office of Special Cases will begin immediately to recognize and deal with the. severe problems at Comanche Peak in a manner which is more appropriate and fitting for a regulatory body than has been the case regarding Comanche Peak for many years.

Sincerely, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) l irs.) Juanita Ellis President cc:

Service List -- mailed May 11, 1987 Attachment 6

2 m