ML19309E803
| ML19309E803 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1980 |
| From: | Fouke R, Reynolds N, Rothschild M CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309E802 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004240424 | |
| Download: ML19309E803 (11) | |
Text
'
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING Docket No. 50-445 COMPANY, el d.
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric (Application for Operating Station, Units 1 and 2)
License)
STIPULATION The NRC Staff (Staff), Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (Appli-cants), and Citizens For Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR or Intervenor), by their respective attorneys or authorized representatives, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1.
Intervenor, having been admitted as a party to the above proceeding by the Licensing 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 8(c) below. The renumbering
)
and wording of the contentions set forth in the Attachment supersedes that set forth in Intervenor's Supplement to Petition For Leave to Intervene dated May 7,1979, Motion For Leave to Amend Supplement to.
Petition For Leave to Intervene dated May 29, 1979, and Motion to Add 8004240
'12.-y
- Contention dated October 31, 1979.M The parties to this stipulation agree that the bases for the contentions are as stated in the Inter-venor's Supplement to Petition For Leave to Intervene, Motion for Leave to Amend Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene, and Motion to Add Contention.
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 Staff and Intervenor agree that contentions 1., 4.B. and 5. as set forth in the Attachment, meet the requirements of 10 CFR 6 2.714 and thus constitute admissible contentions herein. However, the Applicants believe that contentions 1., 4.B. and 5. 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 any of these contentions to be o
admissible.
4.
The Intervenor asserts that contentions 2.A., 3.A.(Alternative 2), 6, 7, and 9. as set forth in the Attachment, also meet the requirements of If The numbers in brackets following each contention in the Attachment.
indicate the contentions in Intervenor's filings from which the con-tentions 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 7.
M
10 CFR Part 2.714 and thus constituts admissible contentions herein.
i However, the Staff and Applicants agree that contentions 2.A, 3.A, 6, i
7 and 9 are not proper issues for this proceeding, but stipulate that f
the wording of contentions 2.A. 3.A (Alternative 1), 6, 7 and 9, as i
set forth in the Attachment, is acceptable and should be adopted by the Board in the event that ths Board finds any of these contentions to be I
admissible.
5.
The Intervonor asserts that contentions 2.B. 3.B and 8 should be deferred until furthur infomation is obtained.N The Applicants and 1
Staff believe that contentions 2.B. 3.B and 8 are not proper issues for this proceeding and should not be deferred, but stipulate that the wording of contentions 2.B ond 3.3 as set forth in the Attachment is i
acceptable and should be adopted by the Board in the event that the Board finds any of these cor.tentions to be admissible.
2/ Intervenor's position is that these contentions were agreed to be deferred by all parties at the request of the Staff because they were Three Mile Island related. Consequently, neither wording nor content was discussed by the parties. The Staff has now identified that the deferral was for the purpose of detemining the results of three investigations described in the Rogovin report (Three Mile Island - A Report to the Comission and to the Public, issued on January 24,1980): the Kameny report (Report of the President's Comission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, October 1979) and the I&E report (NRC Investigation Into the March 28, 1979. Three Mile Island Accident, by Office of Inspection and Enforcement NUREG-0600,, August 1979). Intervenor has not had access to Volume II of the Rogovin report (Staff states "the report is being printed in final fom and a copy will be furnished to you upon issuance") and contends that wording of the contentions should remain deferred until Intervenor has had a reasonable opportunity to detemine the results of these investigations.
The Staff's position-is that the parties agreed to defer contentions 2.B and 3.B pending issuance of these reports and since the reports have now Leon issued, there is no reason for deferring these contentions. With respect to contention 8 the Staff proposed in "NRC Staff's Answer to CFUR' Motion i
to Add Contention", dated November 20, 1979, that the I,icensing Board defer ruling upon the admissibility of this contention until the parties have filed their stipulation or respective statements of position on all contentions.
,.~ !
l 6.
Contention 4.A., as set forth in the Attachment, is identical to the i
i contention which the Board determined encompasses all the quality assurance / quality control contentions.E Th: Staff believes that the subject matter covered by contention 4. A., namely, quality assurance /
quality control, is proper for consideration in this proceeding.O However, the Staff does not stipulate to the wording of contention 4. A.
The Applicants believe that contention 4.A is not a proper issue for this proceeding.
~
l 7.
The parties agree to file such statements of position as the Licensing Board may deem necessary or appropriate with respect to all of the contentions, i
8.
Nothing contained in this Stipulation:
(a) shall be deemed an admission by the Staff ar the Applicants of the merits of any contention or the validity of any allegation of fact i
or law stated in any contention; nor, (b) shall be construed as a waiver by any party to this Stipulation of any rights with respect to the admissibility of evidence pursuant to 10 CFR H 2.743 of the Commission's regulations; nor (c) shall be deemed to prevent the Intervenor from proposing new or amended contentions upon a showing of good cause as required by 5 2.714 of the Commission's regulations.
y See Licensing Board's Order of June 27, 1979, Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-79-18, 9 NRC 728 (1979), at 733.
y See "NRC Staff Memorandum Regarding Contentions and Further Answer to ACORN /WTLS Petition for Leave to Intervene," dated May 17, 1979.
l
- 9.
Each party to this Stipulation expressly reserves any right to move for summary disposition pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.749 of the Comission's regulations in regard to any contention advanced by Intervenor and admitted by the Licensing Board.
l
- 10. 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 i
of the issues placed into controversy.
I
[b 8,NId u
dichard L. Fouke (dater On behalf of and as representative of Citizens for Fair Utility Representation (CFUR) i f $w AdWacAN.ic0 43Millo,fiD Marjor e U an Rothschild (da te)
Counsel f r NRC Staff S
l I
M r
(0, (%s Nicho l!
Reynolds (da te)
Couns l e f' r. Applicants Y
4
-i-
1 l
t ATTACHMENT STATEMENT OF CFUR CONTENTIONS s
Contention 1.
Applicants have not demonstrated technical qualifications to operate CPSES in accordance with 10 CFR 6 50.57(a)(4) in that they have relied upon Westing-house to prepare a portion of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
I
[FORMERLY Contention I.]
~
Position
- TV (Applicants)
S (Staff)
I (Intervenor) l i
A (W)
A A
Contention 2.A One or more of the reports used in the construction of computer codes for the CPSES/FSAR have not been suitably verified and formally accepted; thus conclusions based upon these computer codes are invalid.
[FORMERLY Cohtention II.A.]
Position TU S
I A (W)
A(W)
A
- Key:
A = Admissible as to wording and substance A (W) = Admissible as to wording only B = Board (Language set forth in Licensing Board's Order of June 27 1979.)
D = Deferred by CFUR until further infonnation is obtained N = No agreement as to wording or substance j
i Contention 2.B I
The computer codes used in CPSES/FSAR must be tested and, if necessary, modified to accept the parameters reflecting the sequence of events at Three Mile Island and then to realistically predict the behavior observed at Three Mile Island in consideration of those parameters.
l
[FORMERLY Contention II.B.]
Position TU S
I A (W)
A (W)
D r
Contention 3.A
[ Alternative 1]
l Some accident sequences heretofore considered to have probabilities so low as to be considered incredible, based upon the findings of WASH-1400, are in fact more probable in light of additional findings of the Lewis Committee and should be evaluated as credible accidents for CPSES.
In order to insure conservatism, the probabilities associated with such accident sequences n
should be the highest probabilities within the specified confidence band.
1
[FORMERLY Contention III.A.]
Position TV S
A(W)
A (W) l
[ Alternative 2]
Some accident sequences heretofore considered to have probabilities so low as to be considered incredible, based, in part, upon the findings of
WASH-1400, are in fact more probable in light of additional findings, such as those of the Lewis Committee and should be evaluated as credible acci-dents for CPSES.
In order to insure conservatism, the probabilities asso-ciated with such accident sequences should be the highest probabilities within the specified cor.Tidence band.
[FORMERLY contention III.A.]
Position TU S
I N
N A
Contention 3.B A hydrogen explosion accident sequence needs to be added to the list of possible accident sequences for which consequences will be detennined for CPSES.
[FORMERLYContentionIII.B.]
l Position TU S
I A (W)
A (W)
D Contention 4.
A.
The~ App 1tcants have failed to establish and execute a quality assurance /
quality c.ontrol program which adheres to the criteria in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
v..
I i
i B.
Applicants have failed to demonstrate sufficient managerial and adminis-trative controls to assure safe operation as required in 10 CFR Part 50, 1
Appendix B.
Therefore, special operating conditions should be required.
[FORMERLY Contention IV.]
Position TV S
I
\\
4.A.
N See Stipulation, B
paragraph 6 4.B.
A(W)
A A
I Contention 5.
i There is no assurance that the Spent Fuel Pool area can withstand the effects of tornadoes, as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A Criterion 2 because:
a.
The analyses upon which the Design Basis Tornado (DBT) is based l
are perfunctory, outdated and unreliable; b.
The loading analyses based on the Design Pasis Tornado (DBT) are inappropriate because they fail to consider the potential loading combination of the DBT and a tornado-generated missile.
c.
Thd assignment of a loading factor of 1.0 for load combination equations in:orporating tornado loadings in combination with
" normal and zecident conditions" is unacceptable.
d.
The DBT parame '.e.rs used in FSAR Section 3.3.2.1 are less t.onser-vative than the parameters found in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.7t: c.2.
[FORMERLY Cetention V.]
Position
[
TU S
I A(W)
A A
' ' ~
. =.
- Contention 6.
Applicants have failed to adequately evaluate whether the rock "overbreak" and subsequent fissure repair using concrete grout have impaired the ability i
of Category I structures to withstand seismic disturbances.
[FORMERLYContentionVI.]
l Position TV S
I A (W)
A (W)
A i
Contention 7.
j Applicants have failed to adequately eveiuate the impacts of the drawdown I
of the groundwater under CPSES during and as a result of plant operation.
]
[FORMERLY Contention IV.D.]
Position TU S
I A (W)
A (W)
A Contention 8.
Applicants have failed to make any effort to detennine the effect of radio-active releases on the general public other than at the exclusion boundary.
Various transport mechanisms may cause, in certain cases, the bulk of the health effects to occur some distance from the exclusion boundary.
[FORMERLY Contention IX.]
Position TU S
I N
N D
l Contention 9.
The Applicants should be bound to any hardware modifications required to mitigate the consequences of Anticipated Transients Without Scram concerning l
Westinghouse reactors of the CPSES category even if the Commission grants an exemption to Applicants based upon some specific time frame.
[FORMERLY Contention VII. A.]
Position TV S
I A (W)
A (W)
A
/
j O
9 O
\\
I I
)
O