ML20199H239
Text
.
+
7
_vn C A S E = =
w'f) l/
7 214/946-9446 k Ib (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY) p!
April 12, 1985 (Mailed April 14, 1985)
Mr. Vincent Noonan Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/ ]h
),'
Washington, D. C.
20555 f73
Dear Mr. Noonan:
l During the meeting of 3/23/85 in Arlington, Texas, there was a discussion regarding my concerns with HVAC supports which did not appear to have any bracing for a vertical load from the pipe.
I am supplying herewith further information regarding this which I hope will be helpful to the TRT members who are looking into this matter.
The supports indicated by the red arrows in the attached newspaper arnicle appear to be cantilevered supports from the liner in the containment in Unit 1.
These supports, cantilevered from the liner, appear not to have any bracing for a vertical load from the pipe; specifically, the vertical losd from the pipe or pipe support due to self-weight excitation is not braced in the vertical direction, which appears obvious.
The loads imposed upon the supports either due to an axial restraint or due to thermal expansion of the pipe must be considered, as is readily admitted in Applicents' Motion for Summary Disposition.
Friction has to be censidered also because four of the piping systems shown in the photograph appear to have thermal loops, which would indicate a thermal problem within the piping system or they would not be there, and these supports (because of the high stiffness because they're so close
'.o the liner) exhibit high 8607030235 8606:3 PDR FOIA GARDE 86-A-18 PDR 1
4 s-stresses within the plate : hat is under discussion. With these high stresses in the plate that is under discussion (i.e., a 3/8" plate attached to a liner), one loses the assurance that the supports will operate under a seismic or dynamic load combination.
I am assuming that this condition exists for both Units 1 and 2.
Sincerely, l
bl b v
Mark A. Walsh 5 [
2 b
~~ --- -
X
\\
r" l
D12 Austin American-Statesman Sunday, March 13, 1983 Nuclear plant at Glen Rose feac
[ E ~ MY%l By BILL MCCANN American statesman staff ,pl p,y 4.4 GLEN ROSE - Near this north central Texas p. r.- fj f'.M;
- g city, where diaosaurs roamed 120 million years
. j, f . N ;- ..q r.r p aga, cmetal tes's have begun on yhat is planned to -j' r:j:- . k.. 3]?91.# A , w,$'sv."- P{ d be the first operating nuclear power plant in the n -- aa s state. - :..j'. g, T ;2 e,1 The project is Comanche Peak, named after a 1 butte jutting out of the horizon north of a 3,275-K. ; 7 ,,,; ;p g acre man-made lake that will supply cooling water . KjeqJp " f..p f., -esw fA e g.-g, to the twin 1,150,000-kilowatt nuclear umts: The first unit is scheduled to begin operating "'"6.;, ~ ' tl 'I.hiti ^ x . A if si . "f-i" next year, If construction and equipment prob-e. -. 4 -- 2W 3,. ]"Q ;. - {d lems can be corrected to the federal government's nomic and environmental nightmare, officials of d $ [pg--{8idi.,4.[; Y I h y} g#D y ( satisfaction.
- ,5gj
'f Although opponents see the project as an eco-r, v. ,3 C J*p,' : the Dallas-based Texas Utilities Co. see it as a D -[. }r a l,D;~ )M b %.D, '.%\\ " g] C 7. -+#1 k -~ + -i, f g$g '/. sound way to meet growing electricity demands in 3-7 '*'NaQ g i i i: j q northern Texas into the next century. ALTHOUGH IT HAD a one-year head start in fF' [ < g 17]lp {'*lQ' [g 2'y)^ D$> kH e t 7, l j .7 Ji-!. m, e i construction, Comanche Peak Unit 1 is three (fC ' 1 .' N
- . ~
'd. ^ vears ahead of the first unit of the South Texas Nu g[ y 4 gI]. a.> I 7" ~ ' W di di i " clear Project, the only other nuclear facility being ) gg;:3 O ff c built in Texas, n-. w.',..,....s m .: o .s 'y. f~., v of 4 f. gj 3:ag (- Q;-g, 7(; g ; ,;"~7 Comanche-Peak's second unit is scheduled for p zi;> operation in 1985, four years ahead of the Sot.th [{) Q,;3r 3, [ ,(= . -g Texas project's second unit. c. $j$./ l. @T. I ' *J..' % '".,. [ 'k; Ti' The milestone tests at Comanche Peak include 1 running the Unit I reactor system at operating l temperature and pressure, but without the nu-E c,g,y,,, ~^Q Q[*Aj j "i ' - g-W "{ g ?,Mf 'A
- clear fuel. The plant does not yet have a license s.i
. i from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission m.' W~ 'N. a to operate with nuclear fuel. Project officials say they will be prepared to w [ load the fuel in September, if they have federal t approval. The dry-run tests began a few days ago by vent-j ing air from the reactor coolant system and filling the system with water. THE NEXT STEP IS to activate pumps that will begin heating the water over a period cf weeks un-til_it reaches,557 degrees Fahrenheit. l / ,f 1 l eg
t .e w f-h UN:TED STATES ' NUCLE AR R EGUL ATORY COF*,*.ilSSION ,j
- . -Shin G TC.N. D. C. 2035b
.,3 Y/ g,p C 7 'iUM MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements FROM: John T. Collins, Regional Administrator Region IV
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA FOR TESTIMONY OF AN ALLEGER (COMANCHE PEAK) Under NRC Manual Chapter 01303 and the April 13, 1984, " Delegation of Subpoena Authority," I propose to issue the attached subpoena at the request of Thomas A. Ippolito, Comanche Peak Project Director, for the testimony of Mr. Charles Atchison and documents held by Mr. Atchison concerning the adequacy of construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. The April 13, 1984, Delegation requires that I advise the EDO, through you, a minimum of three days in advance, of the proposed issuance of a subpoena. The Delegation provides that you will acquire ELD's concurrence and to expedite this process; I am transmitting a copy of this memorandum directly to Mr. Cunningham. Additionally, for a trial period of about ten cases, the Delegation indicates that the Commission will be advised in advance of the ED0's authorization of issuance of a subpoena by a Regional Administrator. Accordingly, I am requesting that you acquire the' concurrences and undertake the required consultations. The circumstances surrounding the proposed issuance of a subpoena to Mr. Atchison have been discussed between my Regional Counsel, William Brown; the Comanche Peak Project Director, Thomas A. Ippolito; and James Lieberman, ELD, and are discussed in the attached draft memorandum for the Commissioners. The Comanche Peak Technical Review Team considers this subpoena essential to the proper disposition of allegations and concerns regarding the adequacy of construction of the Comanche Peak facility. Mr. Atchison has stated to the staff that he has approximately 1000 previously unidentified concerns regarding this facility. Mr. Atchison has refused to make the substance of these concerns known, in spite of repeated requests by the staff, and consequently, the issuance of a subpoena is appropriate. F0iA-85-59 o>J,%- W-ruw uw w
6 r SEP,7.s' Victor Stello, Jr. -- ~ Your prompt concurrence will be appreciated. lH John T. Collins, Regional Administrator Region IV
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures: HDenton,1:RR ECase, NRR RDeYoung, IE GCunningham, ELD JScinto, ELD SIreby, ELD JLieberman, ELD TIppolito, NRIt DEisenhut NRR bec w/ enclosures: PDR RF SF TIppolito Rk'essman DEisenhut rf JCollins JCollins rf 4.,)e .......[.....y....... RIV ' N O NRR D IN. ELD
- ,, cc p'..p.
GC .I..n. g.h..a.m... J. C..o..l. l.i. n. s........ 4 n s k.'.M...p p/.o.l..i.t..o. P..ab....... .,.e.n..h.u. t =3.cp!09/, /84 09/ G84 0 84 09/; /84 I _A. I
Mnitch 9tates nf itnerica NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0 SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM AND DUCES TECD1 In the rnatter of: Texas Utilities Generating Company (Cemanche Peak Steam Electric > DOCKET NO.s 50-445 Statien, Units 1 and 2) 50-446 TO Charles Atchison P. O. Bex 901 Azle, Texas 76020 (Sy Registered Mail. Return Receipt Requested) YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear at NRC, Region IV, Parkway Central Plaza Building, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 in the city of Arlington, Texas 76011 on the 20th day of September 1984 at 1:00 o' clock p.m. to provide NRC Comanche Peak Technical Review Team with sworn testimony before a Court Reporter regarding the adequacy of the construction of the Co=anche Peak Steam Electric Station and to bring with you and make available for inspection and copying any and all records in your possession, including but not limited to documents and logs, co'ncerning the adequacy of such construction. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission John T. Collins, Regional Administrator Recion IV ATTORNEY FoR j 9,_,,_ ".5. 'uclear Reculatorv Commission 4 1, 4.-- T o,. m (S17) 860-8271 TILEPHoNE 0....otion made promptly, and in any event at or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance by the person to whom the subpoena is directed, and on notice to the party at whose instance the subpoena was issued, the Commission may (1) quash.or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable er requires evidence not relevant to any matter in issue, or (2) condition denial of the motion on just and reasonable tenns. Such motion should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
t UN TEC STATES ' DRAFT i
- ^
NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COr.'.MISSIC.1 i e f 5
- e. ss u.-
.c,.c. m 3s 5
- 1. ?,?
'j MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissionar Zech FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA FOR TESTIMONY OF AN ALLEGER (COMANCHE PEAK) u John T. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV, has requested my authorization to issue a subpoena for testimony and documents held by an alleger at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. This material concerns the construction adequhey of the Comanche Peak facility. The circumstances concerning the issuance of the subpoena are as follows. I Since July 8, 1984, the NRC has had a,n extensive stgff of personnel at the f i i Comanche Peak site to evaluate various technical issues, allegations, and l i l concerns regarding the construction of this facility. As part of this i evaluation, the staff has interviewed individuals who have raised allegations regarding Comanche Peak. In the course of these interviews, additional allegations or concerns were, in some cases, revealed. These additional matters have been included in the onsite staff review. i On August 2, 1984, the staff interviewed Mr. Charles Atchison, a former I Comanche Peak employee, to clarify technical aspects of allegations he l previously had provided to the NRC. In the course of that interview 4 4 I a h l I i
^ Mr. Atchison provided a list of approximately 80 concerns. Also, he stated that he had approximately 1000 additional concerns regarding the construction of Comanche Peak which had not previously been revealed to the staff. Mr. Atchison declined to provide the substance of these concerns, but stated he held documents and logs regarding the concerns. The staff has repeatedly sought the release of this material from Mr. Atchison, but he has continued to decline to provide the material. It is believed that the material may have the potential to identify new concerns i as well as be relevant to other allegations being evaluated at Comanche Peak. The staff desires to complete its evaluation of the Comanche Peak allegations (currently numbering about 500) in a timely manner to support a licensing decision on the facility and to avoid the potential situation of l additional allegations surfacing at the last minute. The applicants state that } they would be ready to load fuel in early October 1984. Therefore, unless otherwise directed by the Commission, the proposed subpoena will be issued by Mr. Collins on September 12, 1984. William J. Dircks-Executive Director for Operations cc: SECY OGC OPE ELD 4 L}}