ML19296D517
| ML19296D517 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1980 |
| From: | Chandler L, Reynolds N, Rothschild M DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296D505 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003040712 | |
| Download: ML19296D517 (17) | |
Text
55?
s
., '. - 6 O
S' e
geewo Q
csMBO
'T g $$$ Y {j L
sersi,.
J r-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C)
\\'#
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket No. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
(Application for Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Operating License)
STIPULATION The NRC Stat (Staff), Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (Applicants), and Texas Association of Community Organizations For Reform Now (ACORN or Inter-venor), by their respective attorneys or authorized repre-sentatives, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1.
Intervenor, having been admitted as a party to the proceeding by the Licensinr. Board's Order dated June 27, 1979, agrees that the sole contentions it is asserting in this proceeding are those set forth in the attached Statement of Contentions (hereinafter " Attachment"), subject to the reservation set forth in paragraph 7(c) below.
The renumber-ing and wording of the contentions set forth in the Attachment supersedes that set forth in Intervenor's Supplemental 8003040 f
~
, Petition and Contentions dated May 7, 1979. 1/
The parties to this stipulation agree that the bases for the contentions set forth in the Attachment are as stated in the Intervenor's Supplemental Petition and Contentions.
2.
Except as set forth in the Attachment, the Intervenor hereby withdraws all other contentions submitted by it in all of its previous petitions and filings.
3.
The Intervenor asserts that all of the contentions, as set forth in the Attachment, meet the requirements of 10 CFR S2.714 and thus constitute admissible contentions herein.
- 4. The Staff and the Applicants request that the Board defer i
ruling on the admissibility of contention 25 pending resolution by the Commission of the following question certified to it by the Appeal Board in Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-573, 10 NRC (December 7, 1979), slip. fo. at 29:
"Where. routine radioactive emissions from a nuclear power plant will be kept
'as low as is reasonably achievable' in 1/
The numbers in brackets following each contention in the Attachment indicate the contentions in Intervenor's filing from which the contentions in the Attachment are derived.
The Attachment also reflects the general position of the parties with respect to each contention (as stated in the following paragraphs), subject to the reservation in paragraph 6.
. accordance with Appendix I, is litigation of the health effects of those emissions in an adjudicatory proceeding involving initial licensing barred by 10 C.F.R. 52.758 as an impermissible attack on Commission regulations?"
5.
Subject to the resolution of the matter described in paragraph 4, above, the Staff and the Applicants stipulate, as follows:
(a)
The Staff and Applicants agree that none of the following contentions are proper issues for this proceeding, but stipulate that the wording of r
contentions 1, 4,
5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, as set forth in the Attachment, is acceptable, and should be adopted by the Board in the event that the Board finds any of these contentions to be admissible.
/
(b)
The Staff and Applicants aaree that contention 21 is not a proper issue for this proceeding, but the Staff stipulates that the wording of contention 21, as set forth in the Attachment is acceptable, and should be adopted'by the Board in the event that the Board finds this contention to be admissible.
(c)
The Staff stipulates that contentions 3 and 24 meet the requirements of 10 CFR S2.714 and thus 9
, constitute admissible contentions herein.
- However, the Applicants believe that contentions 3 and 24 are not proper issues for this proceeding, but stipulate that the wording of these contentions as set forth in the Attachment is acceptable and should be adopted by the Board in the event that the Board finds these contentions to be admissible.
(d)
The Staff and the Applicants agree that con-tentions 2, 6,
8 and 14 2/ are not proper issues for this proceeding.
6.
The parties agree to file or present such statements of position as the Licensing Board may deem necessary or appro-priate with re'spect to all of these contentions.
7.
Nothing contained in this Stipulation:
(a) shall be deemed an admission by the Staff or the Applicants of the merits of any contention or the validity cf any allegation of fact or law stated in any contention; nor (b) shall be construed as a waiver by any party to this Stipulation of any rights 2/
As indicated in the "NRC Staff Memorandum Regarding Contentions and Further Answer to ACORN /WTLS Petition for Leave to Intervene,"
dated May 17, 1979, the Staff does believe that the subject matter covered by contention 14, namely, quality assurance / quality control, is proper for consideration in this proceeding.
However, the Staff cannot stipulate to the specific consolidated contention ACORN proposed to adopt to cover contention 14.
O
. with respect to the admissibility of evidence pursuant to 10 CFR S2.743 of the Commission's regulations; nor (c) shall be deemed to prevent Intervenor from proposing new or amended contentions upon a showing of good cause as required by 52.714 of the Commission's regulations.
8.
Each party to this Stipulation expressly reserves any right to move for summary disposition pursuant to 10 CFR S2.749 of the Commission's regulations in regard to any cent.ention a6vanced by Intervenor and admitted by the Licensing Board.
9.
Nothing contained in this Stipulation shall prevent any of the parties hereto from filing any motion for consolidation of the Intervenor with any of the other parties in this proceeding with respect to all or any of the issues placed into controversy.
3 Geoffrey M. Gay (date)
Counsel for Texas Association of Community Organizations r Reform Now (ACORN)
Q f>u d S [
m u..a. m d a e 76Amm4 2r,1990 taw D J.
Chandler (date)
Marjorie U Rothschild Counsel.f NRC Staff e
i M 'h3, MBo Nichol S. Reynolds e
(date Counse f o rt)Applican ts
l'.
ATTACH'1ENT STATEtiENT OF ACORN CONTENTIONS Contention 1.
The CPSES* design fails to adequately account for the effect of asymmetric loading resulting from a pipe break in the area between the reactor vessel and the shield wall.
Position **
TU (Applicants)
S(Staff)
I (Intervenor)
A (W)
A (U)
A
[FOR4ERLY " Safety" Contention 1.]
Contention 2.
NRC Staff review is inadequate to identify and correct modes of interaction between reactor systems in the CPSES design which can adversely affect the redundance or independence of safe,ty systems.
[FOR'tERLY " Safety" Contention 2.]
Position TU S
I N
N A
- "CPSES" has been substituted for " Comanche Peak" in all of the contentions.
- Key:
A = Agreement as to wording and substance A(W) = Agreement as to wording only N = No agreement as to wording or substance
1 Contention 3.
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has a reliable method for evaluating or ensuring that Class IE safety-related equipment is designed to accommodate the effects of and to be compatible with the environmental conditions associ-ated with the most severe postulated accident; thus, General Design Criteri-on 4 has not been satisfied.
Position W
S I
A (W)
A A
[FORMERLY " Safety" Contention 3.]
Contention 4.
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has reliable methods for evaluating and ensuring that structures, systems and components important to safety are designed to withstand the effects of the safe shutdown earthquake without losing the capability to perfona their safety functions; thus, General Design Criterion 2 has not been satisfied.
)
Position TV S
I A (W)
A (W)
A
[FORMERLY " Safety" Contention 4.]
Contention 5.
Present fire protection measures proposed by Applicants are not adequate to minimize the probability and effect of a fire from disabling the electrical
3-I cables for all redundant safety systems; thus General Design Criterion 3 has not been satisfied.
[FOR!tERLY " Safety" Contention 5.]
Posi tion W
S I
A(W)
A (W)
A Contention 6.
The D.C. Power System for the CPSES plant fails to meet the single failure criterion as defined in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A.
[F0PMERLY " Safety" Contention 6.]
Position TU S
I N
11 A
Contention 7.
The CPSES design does not provide adequate, reliable instrumentation to monitor variables and systems affecting the integrity of the reactoh core, the pressure boundary or the containment af ter an accident, in violation of General Design Criterion 13 of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50.
[FOR!iERLY " Safety" Contention 7.]
Position TV S
I A (W)
A (U)
A
e w Contention 8.
The CPSES design does not adequately account for failure of passive components in fluid systems important to safety.
[FORMERLY " Safety" Contention 8.]
Posi tion TU S
I N
N A
Contention 9.
The CPSES design does not provide adequate equipment outside of the control room to promptly put the reactor in hot shutdown and so maintain it until attaining cold shutdown, also from outside the control room, as required by General Design Criterion 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.
[FOPJ4ERLY " Safety" Contention 9.]
Position TU S
I A (W)
A (H)
A Contention 10.
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has adequately considered the effects of aging and cumulative radiation on safety-related equipment which must be
.. seismically and environmentally qualified, thus, General Design Criterion 4 has not been satisfied.
[F0PfiERLY " Safety" Contention 10.]
Position W
S I
A(W)
A(W)
A Contention 11.
The CPSES design fails to address the possibility of a Class 9 Accident.
[F0PJiERLY " Safety" Contention 11.]
Position TU S
I A(W)
A (W)
A Contention 12.
Applicants lack the ability to detect and size flaws within (1) the reactor vessel and (2) pipes within the containment.
[F0PfiERLY " Safety" Contention 13.]
- Position, W
S I
A (W)
A (W)
A e
Contention 13.
Applicants' FSAR fails to present a means for dealing with pressure transients produced by component failure, personnel error, or spurious valve actuation which exceed the pressure / temperature limits of the reactor vessel.
[FORMERLY " Safety" Contention 14.]
Position TV S
I A(W)
A (W)
A
/
Contention 14.
Incorporated in Board's QA/QC contention.
[F0FMERLY " Safety" Contentions 16,17,18,19 and 29.]
Posi tion TV S
I N
N A
Contention 15.
J The CPSES design fails to protect against corrosion within the steam genera-tors which causes cracking of pipes and leakage of radioactive water.
[FORMERLY " Safety" Contention 20.]
Position W
S I
A (W)
A (W)
A
. Contention 16.
The CPSES design is inadequate to prevent a water hamcer problem which could affect a number of critical safety components.
[FORMERLY " Safety" Contention 21.]
Position W
S I
A(W)
A(W)
A Contention 17.
The CPSES design does not a'dequately address the possibility of a steam line break inside containment, nor does it insure the ability of equipment within containment to survive such an event so as to assure safe shutdown of the plant.
[FOPfiERLY " Safety" Contention 23.]
Position TV S
I A(W)
A(11)
A e
Contention 18.
The CPSES design does not adequately insure the reliable operation of on-site emergency power.
[F0PiiERLY " Safety" Contention 24.]
Position W
S I
A (W)
A (11)
A
. Contention 19.
The CPSES design has not adequately resolved a generic safety problem for pressurized water reactors wherein the steam generator and reactor coolant pump support materials are subject to lamellar tearing and low fracture toughness.
[F0PfiERLY " Safety" Contention 25.]
Position TU S
I A (W)
A (W)
A Contention 20_.
The CPSES design does not adequately insure that safety-related water supplies will be available for plant operation in the event of ice build-up at the service water intake structure.
[FORMERLY " Safety" Contention 26.]
Position TU S
I
?
A (W)
A(W)
A Contention 21.
The CPSES design has not given due consideration to the need to withstand an act of sabotage.
[F0PfiERLY " Safety" Contention 27.]
Position TU S
I N
A (W)
A
_9 Contention 22.
The CPSES design fails to protect against accidents involving the movement and handling of heavy loads in the vicinity of spent fuel at the facility.
[F0PJiERLY " Safety" Contention 28.]
Posi tion W
S I
A (W)
A (W)
A Contention 23.
The CPSES design does not adequately protect against potential damage from turbine missiles to systems essential to the cooling and safe shutdown of the plant.
[FOR!iERLY " Safety" Contention 30.]
Position W
S I
A (W)
A (W)
A
}
Contention 24.
Applicants have failed te comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, regarding emergency planning, because there is no provision for emergency planning for Glen Rose or the Dallas /Ft. Worth metroplex.
[F0PfiERLY " Safety" Contention 31.]
Position TU S
I A (W)
A A
- Contention 25.
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has adequately considered the health effects of low-level radiation on the population surrour..syg CPSES.
[FORMERLY " Safety" Contention 32.]
Position TU S
I See stipulation, paragraph 4 A
Contention 26.
The energy to be generated by CPSES is unneeded, unsalable and uneconomically priced in view of the order of the Texas Public Utility Commission in Docket No.14, and thus a favorable cost-benefit balance cannot be struck.
[FORMERLY " Environ:nental" Contention 1.]
Position TU S
I A (W)
A (W)
A Contention 27.
Applicants have failed to demonstrate a need for the power to be generated by CPSES because:
a.
The reserve margins presented in the ER reflect adequate margins through 1985 without CPSES.
b.
The figures for the Applicants' capabilities, demands and reserves set forth in the ER are inaccurate, incomplete and out of date.
[F0PfiERLY " Environmental" Contention 2.]
Position TU S
I A(W)
A (W)
A Contention 28.
The Applicants have not considered the costs of replacement of major pieces of equipment and their disposal in their cost-lenefit balance.
[F0Pf4EPLY " Environmental" Contention 4.]
Position TV S
I A(W)
A (W)
A t
Contention 29.
~
Applicants have not considered the environmental effects of storage and ultimate disposal of nuclear waste in their cost-benefit balance.
[F0PJiERLY " Environmental" Contention 5.]
Position
?
TV S
I A (W)
A (U)
A Contention 30.
The Applicants have failed to postulate the possibilities, the effect on the environment, and the cost of " cleanups" which necessarily follow a nuclear
accident such that a favorable cost-benefit balance cannot be struck.
["F0Pf4ERLY Environmental" Contention 6.]
Position TU S
I A (W)
A (W)
A Contention 31.
The Applicants have not considered the costs of safely decommissioning the facility after its useful life in the cost-benefit balance.
[F0PfiERLY " Environmental" Contention 7.]
Position W
S I
A (W)
A (W)
A
)
e