ML19254B063
| ML19254B063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1979 |
| From: | CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254B062 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909240022 | |
| Download: ML19254B063 (3) | |
Text
.
COMA!;CllE PEAK STEA?! ELECTRIC STAT 10 (CPSES)
Citizens for Fair Utility Refyilation (CFUP.) Cont entions Contention I Applicants have not demonstrated t.echnical quali fications to operate CPSES in accordance with 10 Crn fiS0.59(a)(4) in that they have relied upon West ing-house to pre pare a portion of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
Position
- TU (Applicants)
S (Staff) 1 (Intervenor)
A (W)
A A
t Contention II.A One or more of the reports us(d in the construction of couputer codes for the CPSES/FSAR have not been verified and fornally accepted; thus conclusions based upon these conputer codes are invalid.
,1losi t i on TU S
I
[
EmlEnti_on 11. B_
11e f e r r ed Contention III.A Some accident sequences heretofore considered to have probabilities so low a r. to be considered incredible based upon the findings of WAsil--1400, are in AKey:
A = Admissible as to wording,and substance A (U) = Admissible as to wording only 7909240o %(z is
- 2 probable in light of the findfug< of the Lewis Con ::it t ee and should fact core be evaluated as credible accidents for CPSES.
In order to insure conservatisn, the probabilities associated with such accident sequences should be the highest prohr:hilities within the speelfied confidence band.
Position TU S
I A (k')
A (W)
A C,on ty n_t i on llI. li Deferred.
Cont ention IV The Applicants have failed to entnblish and execute a quality assurance / quality control program which adheres to the criteria in 10 CFit 50, Appendi:.
U.
Appli-cants have f a i.l ed t o den.onst ra te sufficient uanagerial and administ rat ive control to assure safe operation as required in 10 CPR Pai t 50, Appendix E.
Therefore, special operating conditionu nhould be required.
Position k
Contention V There is no assurance that the Spent Fuel Pool area can withstand the effects required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 2 becaune:
of t ornadoes, ar The analyces upon which the Design Basis Tornado (DP,T) is a.
based are perfunctory, outdated and unreliable; b.
The loading analyses based on t he Den i p,n Eas i s Tor nado (DBT) are inappropriate because they fall to consider
,n,
'k)n[
fa k a
the potential loading conbination of the DBT and a tornado-generated missile.
c.
The assignment of a loading factor of 1.0 for load cou-bination equationa incorporat ing t ornado loadings in corbination with "nornal and accident conditionn" in unacceptable, d.
The DST parawters used in FSAR Section 3.3.2.1 are less connervative than the paraneters found in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.76 c.2.
Position A (l')
/
Centention VI App [icantshave failed to adequately evaluate whether the rock "overbreak" and subsequent fissure repair using concrete grout have impaired the ability of Category I structuren to withstand seisnic disturbances.
P_o n i t i on.
TU S
1 A (U)
A (U)
A Coatont_fon VII_
Uithdrawn.
Contention Vill (former IV.D.)
Applicants have failed to adequately evaluate the impacts of the drawdown of the groundwater under CPSES during and as a result of plant operation.
fSS.i t ion 1 :l '.'
L
' 'L TU S
1
.ri t
A (U)
A (U)
A
'