ML19224D725

Motion to Amend Suppl to Petition to Intervene Submitted by Citizens for Fair Util Regulation.Motion Supersedes & Clarifies 790522 Motion to Amend.Restates Contentions in Proper Form.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19224D725
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	05/29/1979
From:	Fouke R CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION
To:
References
NUDOCS 7907160207
Download: ML19224D725 (8)

Text

.

05/29/79 NRC PUBUC Tuv;mEST E0fd <p 8:

4 6

U';ITED STATES OF AMERICA Tda7 \

NUCLEAR REGUI ATCRY CC!?ISSION ,

{ -

BEPORE TRE AT0"IC SAFETY AND IICENSING BOARD au n 4 1373 7.$

6 #,*IoS p

In the Matter of )

)  %

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50 2*5 CCMPANY, ET _AL.

) 50 446

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

MOTICN FOR LEAVE TO A!END SUPPIDENT TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BT CITIZENS FOR FAIR-UTILITY REGULATION (CFUR)

NOW TCISS CrUR and files on this 29th day of May,1979 this its Motion for Leave to Amend Supplenent to Petition for leave to Intervene for the scle purpose of clarification of the aforementioned Supplenent. "he reason for this clarification is that CrUR learned after the Pre-hearing Con!erence on May 22, 1979 that its Supplenent was not worded in such a way as to easily determine CFUR's issues, even to the point that some of CPUP.'s issues had been nisunderstood by various parties. CPUP. hereby sets forth clarifications of its issues, becauss CrUR has a better understanding of a proper form, with the understanding that the Supplement in all its parts serves as a basis for CFUR's issues. CFUR is not adding any issues but merely correcting the form of its Supplement so that CPUP's issues may be more easily understood.

Each Statement of CFUR's issues can be dimetly correlated by number with the detailed bases found in " Supplement To Petition for leave to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR)5, dated May 7,1979.

1 This Motion sunercedes CrUR's Motion served on May 22, 1979 on the Board and all parties.

1 35/ 202 7007160 A 7

5 CNTEhTICN I - A full hea-ing is necessary to assure that the acclicant andergo extensive and direct cross-exanination in order to evaluate whether or not the applicant is aware of the operational linitations of the nuclear island (NSSS) and of the extent of the assumptions nade in evaluating accident sequences, as well as the various actions assuned to have been taken by operators to prevent a nore serious accident fran occurring.

CFUR contends that such a hearing is absolutely necessary since the applicant has relied substantially on Westinghouse for the preparation and defense of this portion of the FSAR and has thus removed the only principal means of establishing the technical qualifications of the applicant in accordance with 100:?.50 57(a)(4).

CONTENTION II. A - CFUR contends that, until all reports used in the construction of connuter codes for CPSES/FSAR are suitably verified and fomall;r eccepted, any and all conclusions based upon said conputer codes are invalid.

CONTE?? TION II.B - CFUR contends that the conputer codes used in CPSES/FSAR r:ust be tested and, if necessary, nodified to accept the pr.raneters reflecting the sequence of events at Three Mile Island and then to realistically predict the behavior observed at Three Mlle Island in consideratien of those parameters.

CONTENTION III. A - CFUR contends that the consequences of postulated Class 9 accidents need to be calculated because the probabilities of occurrence of these accidents cannot be accurately detemined at this tino, thereby renoving any assurance that these accidents occur so infrequently as to allow then to be ignored.

CONTENTION III.B - CFUR contends that a hydrogen explosior. accident sequence needs to be added to the list of possible accidents for which censequences will be detemined for CPSrS.

357 203

CC::TE:: TIC? IV. A - The Ap:14snt has failed to establish and execute a QA/QC progran which adneres to tne criteria in 100FR50 Appendix E, as proved in part by the alr. cst casual attitude of the applicant towa-d GA/QC in prac-tically every critical stage of construction of CPSES to date - an attitude which pemitted a pattern of repeated violations of said criteria to arise despite the fact that the applicant is charged by law with the ultimate responsibility of the QA/QC progran.

CO?:TE!CIO!! IV.B.1 - The applicant has failed to establish a QA/QC program which adheres to the criteria in 10CTR50, Appendix B, as evidenced by a substantial amount of inferior welding detected in CPSES construction to date, as has been anply do unented in nunerous !aC Inspection Reports.

CONTENTION IV.E.2 - An allegation of fraudulant practices with respect to Cadwelds used in CPSES constiaction, whereby improper ruterials were introduced in order to fool the inspector, has been nade, which, if true, violates the requ.irenent of 10CFR50, Appendix B, Criterion IX. When this allegation is taken in centext with the NRC Inspection Recorts' docunented evidence of inferior welding and the use of unqualified personnel, the level of credibility is promoted to the point where CrUP. conterds the allegation should be investigated by the applicant under the direction of the NPS staff to the satisfaction of the !.to .ic Licensing Boart: bert. .e an operating license is issued for CPSES.

CONTENTION IVe .1 - The Applicant has failed to establish a QA/QC Program which adheres to the criteria in 100FR50, Appendix E, as evidenced by a number of violations regarding the quality and installation of the steel used in CPSES censt: action to date, violations which have been detected and

. anply docu .ented in NRC Insueetion Reports.

CC::TE!,'"IC:, IV.C.2 - An allegation has been nade that reirforcing steel n ound penetrations has broken when atte pts were nade to bend it, wnich if true, 357 204

. _h_

indicates the quality of the steel is in question and violates one or nore of the following requirenents of 10CFR50, Appendix A, Criterion 51 and Appendix s, Criteria IV, VII and VIII. When this allegation is taken in context with the NRC Inspection Reports docunented evidence of violations in regard to the quality and installation of the steel used in CPSES, the level of credibility is promoted to the point where CFUR contends that the allegation should be investis ated by the applicant under the direction of the NRC staff to the satisfaction of the Atomic Licensing Board before an operating license ir issued for CPSES.

CONTENTION IV.D - The applicant has failed to evaluate the consequences of the drawdown of the groundwater under CPSES and CFUR contends that thc effects on all parties need to be delineated.

COPTENTION IV.E - The applicant has failed ostablish a C.A/QC Program which adheres to the Criteria in 10CFR50, Appendi'< B, as evidenced by an overwhelming number of inferior and unsafe practices ret;arding concrete used in CPLES construction to date, which have resulted in repeated violations of 100FR50, Appendix 3, as analy docunented by NRC Inspection Reports (especially in the following areas: use of inferior naterials, lack of consolidation, hiring of unqualified personnel, improper curing, inadequate testing and falsification of test documents).

CCl:TENTION IV.? - An allegation has been made that an expansion joint between the Auxillary Building and Containnent Unit 2 contains a structural defect that was not corrected before concrete was poured over the defective part, which if true, raises serious questions as to the safety of the structures involved, and violates ICCFR50, Appendix A, Criterion 50, as well as 100FR50, Anpendix 3, Criterion II. When this allegation is taken in context with the numerous NRC Inspection Reports citing consistent violations by the applicant of the Criteria in 100FR50, Arpendix E, the level of credibility is pronoted 357 205

to the point where C:U contends that the allegatien should be investigated by the applicant under the d;rection of the NRC staff to the satisfaction of A Atonic Licensing Board before an operating license is issued for CPSES.

CC::TE::TICN 1.G - The applicant has failed to establish a GA/QC program which adheres to the criteria in 10CFR50, Appendix E, as is denonstrated by the fact that the applicant allowed fracture toughness testing on the reactor vessel, stean generators cnd pressurizers for both units to be conducted by the supplier of those sane connonents (Westinghouse), a practice which clearly violates the spirit of 10CFR50, Appendix E, and, fur herr: ore, contradicts the position taken by the NRC in NRC Report 75-06, where in regard to Brown and Root Quality Assurance testing in a less critical area, it was inplied that a co :mitnent to indeoendent testing of critical components is incunbent on the applicant.

CONTE? TION IV.E.1 - The applicant's failure to adhere to the quality assurance /

quality control provisions required by the construction pemits for Conanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirenents of Appendix B of 10CFR Part 50, raises substantial questions as to the connitnent of the applicant to conduct an effective QA/QC progran during the operation of CPSES, thereby creating the necessity for special operating ccnditions before an operating license is issued for CPSES.

CONTENTION IV.E.2 - The applicant has calculated the consequences of sna11 accidents but has ignored accidents with large consequences, thereby critically conpromising the ef ectiveness of even a well-intentioned QA/QC progran, since any properly cena acted QA/QC progran incorporates re .inders to the plant en-playees and supervisors of the possible consequences of any mistakes on their

- part and does not belittle--in their ninds-the consequences of large accidents.

357 206

CC':TENTICN V.1 - CFUF contends there is absolutely no assurance that the Spent Fuel Storage Area can withstand the effects of tornadoes-a clear violation cf 10CFR50, Appendix A, Criterion 2--because the various mathenatical and statisti-cal analyses leading to the derivation of the Design Easis Tornado are perfune-to:f, outdated, unreliable and unacceptable, thus rendering the DET itself out-dated, unreliable, unacceptable end therefore "inapproprintely considered",

according to 10CFR50, Appendix A, Criterion 2 CONTE!"2 ION V.2. - CFUR contends there is absolutely no assurance that the Spent ruel Storage Area can withstand the effects of tornadoes--a clear violation of 100FR50, Appendix A, Criterion 2-because as a direct consequence of (1) the loading analyses based on the D3T have themselves been "iraprrepriately considered" and are therefore unacceptable; additionally, said DST loadin. nnalyses fail to

" appropriately consider" a specific potential loading co:iination involving tornado-generated nissiles, as well as the appropriateness of the use of a tornado load factor of 1.0 for loadings in conbination with "nomal and accident conditions," again a violation of 100FR50, Appendix A, Criterion 2 CCNTENTION V.3 - CFJR contends there is absolutely no assurance that the Spent Fuel Storage Area can withstand the effects of tornadoes-a c] ear violation of 1007R50, Appendix A, Criterion 2-because the D3T parameters used in CPSES/FSAR section 3.3.2.1 are less conservative than the paraneters found in NRC 1.76.C.2, and no justication is offered, a clear contradiction of the NRC position in 1.76.C.2 CCNTENTION VI. - According to 10CrR100, Appendix A, V (pai-ts (a)(1)(iv) and (d)(1)(1)(b) ), the rock "overbreak" and subsequent fissure repair using concrete grout which were reported in I.E. Inspection Report 75-C5 nake it impeiative that additional testing by the applicant be nade 1. o-der to dete:--ine whether er not the overexcavation and/or subsequent ccrrective actions have jeop crdised 357 207

the ability of an;. and all Category I Structures to withstand seismic disturbances.

CC::TE!! TIC:: VII.A. - Because the applicant's statement that no hardware modifications are required to nitigate the consequences of Anticipated Transients Without Scran continues to be based on two five-year-old Westinghouse studies which are currently still under ?!RC review, CFUR contends that the applicant should be bound to whatever generic decision is finally nade concernint; Westinghouse reactors of the CPSES catagory--even if hardware nodifications are scecified and if the ecmdssion grants an exemption to applicants for an operating license submitted in this specific time frame.

CC::TEl. TION VII.B.- CFUR insists that the current listing of unresolved safety issues affecting reactors of t's CPSES catagory be dealt with appropriately before an operatir.g license is issued for CPSES.

h~nrJ2 FORE, PRE'HSES C0!! SIDE?ID, CFUR prays that the Atenic Safety and Licensing Board will order a full and open hearing and that C.WR be accepted as an Intervenor with all of its contentions accepted as issues.

Respectfully cutnitted.

l & .-1 Xe M VQ

/

fidw Richard L. Fouke CFUR 16683 Carter Drive Arlington, Texas 76010 357 208

_CE?.TICAE OF SEF?lI E I hereby certify that ecpies of the " Motion for Leave to Anend" have been sent to the following by deposit in the nail, on this 29th day of May,1979:

Elizabeth S. Eowers, Esq. , Chaiman Mr.-Geoffrey M. Gay Atomic Safety and Licensing Eoard West Texas Legal Serrices U.S. Nuclear Regulatorf C omis s'.on 406 W.T. Waggoner Building Washington, DC 20555 810 Houston Street Fort Worth, TX 76102 Lester Kornblith, Esq., Member Atonic Safety and Licensing Board Richard W. Lowerre, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regt'latory Ccruission Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 Envior. nental Prctection Division PCEox 1.i548, Capitol Station Richard Cole, Esq . , M enbe r Austin, TX 78711 Atonic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atonic Safety and Licensing Board Danel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory comission Washington, DC 20555 Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.

Office of Executive Legal Director Atonic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 washington, DC 20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Docketing and Service Section Devevois & Libeman Office of the Secretary 1200 17th Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccr:nission Washington, D: 20036 Washington, DC 20555 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 South Folk Street Dallas, TX 75224 t// J4 /

v b. Ww te-Richarc L. Fouke CFUR c,) 13 6 maco usNEG \

~

S Jutt 4 I370 # ~ 2

-m

%es=,n w c

uw e 4 \

%( \ P 357 209