ML19254F816
| ML19254F816 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1979 |
| From: | Eyed J SASSAFRAS AUDUBON SOCIETY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911190102 | |
| Download: ML19254F816 (6) | |
Text
. .
'h.. ' .- e The SASSAFRAS AUDUBON SOCIETY
N4 \..([M.
r N/ ?h of LAWRENCE . GREENE - MONROE . BROWN .
T, MORGAN & OWEN COUNTIES < ] cu,
' WJ R .I' / g' ) INDIANA j f %
e M 9' D
M\ \ w'- %'.UDLIC DOCUMid gM W.o m ssp 79-1 % gs+ce., m - --
bkY N *Q Cetober 20, 1979 D p.
? D 0 l% y;p Va3 m i, a
~"
In the Matter of Docket ::0. 5C 546 5C-5L7
?U31!C SE':7 ICE CQ'?iTI C? E7DIA::A (Marble F4" !!uclear Cenerating Station, }
Units 1 ="A 2) ) (Order confi=ir) suspension of const=ction SASSA?oAS AUCU3CN SCCIZIT MC?IC'T CO?CSEM EC ST.W MCTICU TO CI?iT EZA3E!G CU Wa3LE EIL o n - -
I D 1 D D ,
o s.d ' w ._ .. U _ _ o The dSassafras indubon Soc:.ety opposes the Motion of the Nuclear Regulatory Cen-
=isa,on (EC) staff to deny our recuest for a Hearing on the ERC Ordar of August -
15, 1979 confi=ing suspension of safety-related constmetion of Marble 'M" Huclear Generating Station, Units l<and 2.
II D ?W && N }'u i0,o ,,
i . . _ ,
The Motion of the NEC staff to deny the request =ust be viewed in the conte:ct of SAS's efforts to secure a Eearing on seri:us problens associated with Marble F'"'s const=ction and ope ation.
The Staff notes on pages 11-12 of the Motion to Deg, the availability of 10 CFR 2.:'.C6 "whereby petiticcerts (SAS) i=terest will be p etected."
Earlier on page 9, foot cte 15/ of the Motion to De:7, the Staff had noted that "SAS had a petition WAar 10 CFR 2.2C6 peadSg before the Director of UER on atters u=related to the cons =ction problens addressed in the August 15th Crier." .
'# 4%.ro date is given in Footnote 15/ for the SAS petition, the 3E;.UCS2 SAS filed under 10 CFR 2.206 with Mr. Harold R. :'enton, Director of ::uclear Reactor ?.egula-tion (HRR), on Jure 29, 1979, TO SUS?ID A':D RI7CFE CC'ISTRUCTICN ?Z3:C2 A'ID TO 32-CPEN SA7IZI FT.c ARE GS C:I lC331.5 HIII NCCIZAR GE'IRATI';G STA'"ICN contained, comrary to what is stated in footnote 15/ of the Staff Motion to Dev, a section on con-st=ction problens e= titled 2:'ICULCUS E:0E --C"G, CCUSTRUCTICU, AND ;UALIII ASSUR-A':CZ FCR "ARSI2 HII1?.
1 second request was ade to Mr. Denton on July 27, 1979, askinc 9 at the Report of the Natio- 3 card of Boiler and Pressure 7essel Inspactor", to the 1:erican Society of PacF edcal Er.-ireers (ASG) on vidsspread probless in quality con:rol and =aterials k"4 .g at Marble F#", be considered part of the section of the petition af Jure 29, 19'79 on :C:'ICULCUS I:0Ec.:..tE:G, CCESTRUCTIC:I, IQ ;UA12:'I ASSURaECE FCR MA2SI2 ZIII?.
7g i90/0N 4
.27 $ 2l2 _. _ _ .
Mr. Dedon acknowledged receipt of SAS's two requests at the time of issuance of Mr. Victor Stello Jr. 's 02DIR COU7I?2ING SUSoIESIC:t CF CO:is 2COTIO:: of Au;;uct 15, 1c7/9, and noted that the part of Ur. Stello's 0%r susperdi g constraction on the basis of constraction deficiencies, granted SAS part of the relief reque:ted.
SAS's reply to Mr. Denton of Septo bar 4,1979 added several new items,1) siting criteria, 2) site evacuation, and 3) need for Marble Hill's power?, to the list of those sub=itted previously for justification of a Hearing on Marble F411 A pro-test was =ade at the sa=a ti=e of the 52C decision to restrict a possible hearing on the Marble F417 project to the failure of PSI to instituta a quality-assurance progran for the const=ction of Marble F"' and requested a Hearing on whether the constraction licensa of Marble F4'1 should be revoked.
Mr. Denton acknowledged receipt of SAS's letter of Septecher 4th on October 11, 1979 and said that we would be infor=ed of the decision regarding our requests "within a reasonable time.
Cra poid =ust be stressed. SAS is seekine a Hearinz at a ean-ine:1 coid in the licensi _2 cmcess (page 1, paragraph 4, ?aquest of June 29, 1979).
The Staff notes in the Motion to Deny (pages 11-12) that SAS "will have an opportunity at the operating licensa stage to mquest a hearing",
as if that possibility were a factor weighi=g against intervention at this ti=a! Such an " opportunity" is fatuous in view of the question
- /nich enists at this poid as to whether furth7r construction of Marble Will should be pe=itted.
m D*r D *D N r a4 The Motion to Deny SAS a Hearing is characterized by the red"-d' o a l JT In@\_ ,
y of three prin-cipal themes: 1) the petitioners do not object to and, indeed, an in favor of the action ordered; 2) SAS does not state how its iderest =ay be affected by the Order; and 3) a hearng on the Order is discretionary (resu=ption of constraction can be sr--ily cuthorized without a prior hearing.) Ihese principal thenes will be ad-dressed in order.
SAS does not object to the suspension of safety-related constraction at Marble Hill, and as M: . Denton noted in his letter of lugust 15th, the suspension g anted part of the relief SAS mquested on June 29, 1979 It is =isleading and erroneous, how-ever, for the Staff to infer that we " favor" the Order in whole or in part since it is so strikingly circu= scribed in ta=s of our requests and objectives.
Ue contest the factual sufficiency of Parts II and III of the Order for they do not give an adequate accou=t of the exposure of serious constractional deficiencias at Farb24 F#11 nor of the extent of the violations of quality-control procedures. Ap-perdit 1, as noted in SAS 3equest for a Hearing on the Order of Suspension, is an inpressive accou=t of non-cc-'d' ce of ?SI personnel and personnel under contract with PSI with 10 C?R Part 50 Ap e-di'- 3, / nether co plete or not, but there is no assess =ent of what this =eans in ta=s of the q"'1dty of coceleted constraction at Marble F4" .
SAS is par *;icularly concerned with iten (1), page 5, of the 9 items listed in the Order of Su.r;ension which the Director is to consider in his deter =i .ation as to whether PSI can msu=e safety-related constraction. Iten (1) is concerned with the entent to which the licensee (?SI) has: "Paviewed the work cc9ted as of the date E 4.213 _ _
. of this order to dater =ine whether the Licensee's quality ascurance progran was adequate to as:um such verk vas properly perforced, and described what repaire, if aq, are required."
7e can scarcely be e:cpected to accept PSI's assess:ent and assurance concerning the q"d dty of work c0=pleted as of this date at Marble Hill. PSI officials continue to state public-17 that no safety problets have been asscciated with the con-stmetion and have described repairs they were -*d g on the honeyec:bing as "overPd'1."
Contrary to the Staff's assertion on page 3 cf the Motion to Deny that SAS seeks to "present its version of recent construction proble=s at Marble F4'7", SAS seeks to achiave through the. hearing process ard through introduction of i:nestigative reports, expert testi= cry, etc., aa complate a factual record as possible for the acces== ant of the e:ctent and seriousress of constnctional deficiencies at Marble Fd and the extent to which they have been and can be repaired and =itigated.
Ue do not believe that the public vd " be apprised of the actual cordition of the construction at Marbic 'Jd" sithout a hearing. The public press and news media do not constitute an adequate fon:n with their 74-4ted i:nestigation and 7d d ted
- eporting. SAS lea =ed in Mid-June 1979 that little could be leamed from the pub-lic fi24 in the Jefferson Cou=ty-City of Madison Public Library of const=ctional ceficiencies at Marl F4'1 such as were revealed at that ti e through worker affi-dnvits. In fact, the role of worker affidavits in securing a =c:e thorough imesti-gation of the quality of construction and quality-control program of PSI cannot be underesti=sted.
The Staff = entices on page 13 of the Motion to Deny that it is contd*"4 g its in-vestigation of const:uction at Marbla Hill. Cther imestigations of Marbla F4'1 are in progress, that of the Senate Subco dttee on Nuclear Fogulation, the Jus-tice Depart:ent's imestigation of construction practices ard of worker al'ags-tic s of " cover-ups", the A=erican Society of Vochanical Engireers (ASC) of charges-in the Report of the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors, etc.
These i=7estigations relate in ore form or another to the Order of Suspension and safety-related construction of Marble F471 ard Paports of these imestigations shculd for: part of the record of a Hearing on that subject. The Ee:eny Co==ittee Paport on Th:ee-Mile Island-2 vill possibly have recc==endations applicabla to the situation at Marble F41', as well.
Through the process of discovery and a Hearing to develop a factual record, the p""'4 e can develop an inic=ed opinion with which to judge and evaluate future action with regards Farble F4.
U ooh 0 () D I
. F I! m at h 'An The Staff notes on page 6 of the Motion to Deny that the CO:=i eien ap ben 3 dicial concepts of "st" Mag" in deter =ining rights to a hearing and to in:erven-tion in an existing hearing "*r Section 189 a. of the Atc=ic Energ7 Act and 10 CFR 2.714 of the Cc-4sion's ?"'as of Practice. SAS =ust therefore show that it veuld be adversely affected - injured - by the 6r of Suspension to ec=:el the holding of a Eearing under Section 189 a. On page 3 the Staff reiterates that there =ust be a concrete har= to SAS "which will or could flew frc= a result unfavorable to then - whatever the result d ft be. On page Il of the same ction the Staff refers 1
7Ak 2)k _
. to various factors >.thich weight in favor of inter ention, listin; under (2): Tne ns.;ure 0.rd exten; of the petitioner's property, fir-ial or other iderest in the proceed 4- .
'.le contend that the potential exists for the Society (which is its renbers) to be injumd under the Order of Suspencion were the Director to exercise his authority under the provision on pags 7, 7, paragraph 2, and sauthorice rest et. ion of safe-ty related constraction at F.aiole F41', in spite of f4'd g of requests for a hear-ing or pendency of a proceeding on the order.
If such action were taken urder this Order, it could be without an adsquate assess-cent of the quality of safety-related constr2ction of P.aicle F4'1 and the entent to which it can be repaired, and a decision nade =erely on PSI's submission in writing
'*r cath to the Director of. Inspection ard Inforcenent a description of its re-vised q"$t7 assurance progran and steps taken to desure qualit / -constr:ction in the future.
Tne p*i.':as tle right to '/ .ov the results of the imestig tions of const=ction at ::arble F4" ard frc expert appraisal the extant to which poor constmetion practices have lowend the quality of safety-related constraction a-d the exted to which the pvhW's health and safety =ay be affected as a consequecce from "nor:-
al operations" through accidents of varicus d4 ansions up to and including a Class 9 accident. Tnis ve had hoped to learn in part at least from a F. earing.
Eut since we =st show injury to qm1'#7 for' a' hea'ing;(catclL-22) we cust rely on such infn-=ation as was prcvided by ar 12C inspector cho noted that: radiation vill lea'c th cuch seats and hone rac b catches at a lot larrar rate than t it uns colid concrete ca.d done right; i" air bubbles am lar e (and undetected) thar vill affect the str:ctural stabilit r of the clad; the eense-uence of nota eSating sur'icial here'rcents vill be difficulties in cleaning un af'** -ed4 cactive stills . le 2'ca e s . et c . '-d recuest ans ;ers frc the l'?.C staff to the cuestions ashed about the const=ction ('q"a'#ty) in our ?.equest for a Hearing on the Order.
Tne probability of =ajor = clear accidents 4-~1"d4 g a Class 9 accident has not been accurately cale"ted according to the ?.isk Assess ent ?.eviev Group, nor have the potential consequences of sericus accidents, /nich have been +d-4 ed up to this poi =t by the 120. Tney can be expected to happen and have sericus con-sequences 'inich =ay vary accor d ing to at=ospheric corditi:ns. / _-
~2.at is the poid beyond which the public can feel " safe" fros radiation eleases fro: !!arble F' during an acciden: of the severity of Tnree-74 % Isb -d with (per-haps) core porous concrete constnction a factor and u=favorhhla at:cspheric con-ditions preva 4-- at the ti ^ n# the accident? SAS 's nenbership is a' 'y confined to Scu h Centrcl r-44 '" witWsc=e e:bers living as far south as Sey cur and "ew Alban/, appro-r'-'tely 30 'Ns frc hrble 7"' . Given the a'csance of realistic predictions of accidents and their potential u der varicus conditions, can the :3C say with certad-ty that such an accident wculd not injure citicens in Scu:h Centrcl I.24,.27 SAS's embers do res 4da 4~
"SI's service area ard there are econcaic factors irfolved with Farble " 's const=ction proble s core 4 adu.te than the potential ff-ed
burden which physical and rental inju-y frc: a = clear accident =igh; icoose on citicens. ?.atepayers in PSI's se: rice area ars =-4 '" be bear:---g the ine eased rates result:.ng frc: its constnetion. A question has arisen, hewever, as to who should bear the cacts of stoppage of const=cticn at "z_-ble Hill?
PSI has reported to the public that stoppage of construction at :Iarble vi" is cost-ing 312 ~4" " per =cnth and that this =s be borne by their custo:ers. SAS is OkOD h n 17 4 215 ' u 3 qOdIAhn
1: nstigt. ting this issue belisving that ratepcfors should not be liabla for the 5ross ' +'~ ~' '.s oyen recalcitre.nce of -=-'p=ent t=uard corrscting thsir Cista'les, as exhibited by ?SI at Marble Hill, resulting in forced susr.ension of construction. The Per.sylv' #a Public Utilities Co::ission is considsring a sizi-lar qusstion regardd g :harges placed on utility customers of Yetropolitan Idisen becatu.e of the T:E 1 shutdown. Their decision will be of interest to PSI custo ars.
PSI cus:ccers obviously have a legiticate concern in the quality of safety-related constraction at !'arble F4'7 as it =ay effect econo:ic inju-/ to then not only during construction fron forced suspension of constr ction but fron the potent'e' during operation of bontributing to the cauce of nuelsar accidants and heighten-ing their consequsnces. The potentdO also exists for a later-q"a'dty concrete constrwtion than is desirable to incraase the aging rate of plants. The ground of econo:ic injurf should provide sufficient " status" and "right" to recuset a' hearing on safsty-related constr2ction at 7.arble m'.
7 The unsee:ly emphasis of the Staff in their Motion to Ceny on the discretienary powers of the :GC in grantds; intertention n-d in granting discretionarf hearings raises the questien as to uhether our efforts to "c a'dy" for a Hearing is an exercise is futility, and as to whether the Cc :iss" ion and Staff would 3. ant a "discretionarf hearing" on the Order to Suspend however worthy the status of the i=tervenors erd however rabstantial the issues which pronpted the Ordar (catch-22).
%vertheless, a Hearing is va.- anted on the quality of the safety-related con-driction ec=pleted at Marble F4 77 as it concerns the public's health and safety prior to a decision on resumption of constraction. It should not be simply a closed =atter between PSI and the 120.
v~- s sf neere1r,
[
/
> onn .%. Eyets, . .e den 3assafras Audubc Society 10 0' Clock Ridge ?. cad Eashr'1'=, TrA'n-a 47?J2 D
9]' D "D 'M ej .1 A I o
w 3u 4 216
Copies of the Sassafras au:iuben Society Motion Cocesir e the :7.C S'~af~# w+ 4
- 0f8o-o,7.
E ng,F.sa-ing on the :G.C Order5of August 15,'i979 . ave b o.obe- "- ?. S'eph3cs Mience, 'e
~ ':~~=.4 ~ ~ de* ?8-v Attorney Gene-21 -
biby & l'ac. be Co=cmealth of 7.e.+ 'cky Trankfort, Kent'$:ky 20601 -4
", ,I,
' a9"' #* '#*
--2 0.,
- D.w. <CO3 S. W* Shields Sa=uel J. Chilk rio Systes 8 Secretar7 of the Co=ission p 3, '7 U.S.161 ear Regulatory Cc=ission 1000 Eas ei
. tres+* Wasp ~ "4- ' n, D..
- . 20 n--
P' es . #ield, L-h--2 gMa Docketing and Serrice Section GeorS -. c.cuser, Pres:.uiem; Cffi #
Knob & 7 alley Audubon Society U*S* -MNeL: ,
+*he-~aC111~ tori Cocission P.O. Sox 556 d , . 20555 rev Albany, T-se , , 47150 Pr I y
. g
>. a u
'e
.+
ec,.pvp-m w
rs. ota -w' _. d.csit
.s/ , --/ /\a a
f.
' ll 1 s' D}{ } f, 1714 217
_