ML19331A321
| ML19331A321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1971 |
| From: | Cherry M MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY |
| To: | Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007160898 | |
| Download: ML19331A321 (5) | |
Text
.
~
DOCKET NUMBER i
2800. H DL,
.0%
a McDERMOTT. WILL & EMERY Ill WEST McN ROC STRCCT y
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60603 3:2WANWN 2 2000 O!! ice et at sestery C ASLC ADDRC55
""" 7
/
June 10, 1971
~*^"'
g kb e
4 to N',
%<[,..
/
O)
,73
@[
N s
y g? A:
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman
.[
,,N
~
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board it.
'.g '
N
\\ g ),'9 ' W,,
Columbia University School of Law rg Box 38, 435 West ll6th Street
^fg W ' s New York, New York 10027
.O'~
/ f f v[ G Re:
AEC Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This document will serve both as a beginning state-ment of the topics as to which Intervenors will cross-examine, as well as.a statement of the underlying and more specific problem areas thereon which Intervenors were to file on or before June 18.
Intervenors are filing this document in ad-vance in an effort to give the Regulatory Staff and Applicant, as well as the Board, as much notice as possible.
We have considered carefully Dr. Goodman's suggestion that as the hearing considers a particular topic, Applicant's witnesses and Regulatory Staff witnesses be cross-examined one after the other.
We believe this is a sound suggestion, and accordingly, request that such procedure be followed.
Below are set forth the areas which we will cover in our cross-examination.
These areas are listed in the order of our' choice, beginning immediately upon the close of Applicant's and the Regulatory Staff's direct case.
1.
Since the suitability of the proposed site for the proposed Midland Units under Part 100, as well as the guide-line TID 14844, is a critical starting point, Intervenors will begin cross-examination of the analysis underlying the proposed site in light of the aforesaid regulations.
This cross-examina-tion will attempt to ascertain from the Applicant precisely what credit or reliance is placed upon each specific safeguard i
system and whether or not the factors underlying Part 100 and t
TID 14044 have been followed, and if not, whether, pursuant to l
8007160hg2 g
a
~
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman PaSe Tuo June 10, 1971 Section 100.1, the Applicant can demonstrate the applicability and significance of such other factors.
We would also expect appropriate witnesses from the Regulatory Staff to be able to testify as to its conclusions and opinions in this area with respect to its Safety Evaluation of the site.
In connection with examination of the Regulatory Staff witnesses, we would expect such witnesses to be able to testify concerning the credits permitted by the Regulatory Staff, if any, with respect
~
to its analysis of the Applicant's assertion that it has com-plied with Part 100 and TID 14844, or has justified the appli-cability of a deviation from sudh guidelines.
In snalyzing the underlying basis for site selection by Applicant and its apparent approval by the Regulatory Staff, we would hope to determine which safeguard systems are being relied upon to justify the siting of a reactor so close to a population center.
The obtaining of this information is im-portant to determine further areas of inquiry.
Accordingly, this analysis is necessary to determine whether or not the conclusion of reasonable assurance of no undue risk is legally and factually supportable.
We would expect that given appropriate witnesses, the cross-examination in this area would last from one to three days.
2.
The next area of cross-examination will be directed to having the Applicant and the Regulatory Staff give a sequen-tial statement and analysis of the Design Basis Accident.
In-tervenors will attempt to demonstrate during this cross-examina-tion that Applicant and Regulatory Staff have not analyzed reasonably the safety implications of the failure of a specific system or systems at various specific times during the total time history of the Design Basis Accident.
This phase of the cross-examination will not necessarily touch upon the integrity of a given safeguard system, but will seek out the safety im-plications if such a safeguard system fails at any specific point.
Intervenors would anticipate that this examination, as well as No.1 above, would aid the Board in focusing carefully upon which specific systems should be analyzed.more thoroughly to determine that system's contribution, if any, to an overall conclusion of reasonable assurance of no undue risk.
We would expect that this phase of the cross-examination would last from two to five days.
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman Pago Three June lo, 1971 9
3 The next area of cross-examination will concern the integrity of specific systems.
There obviously will be certain systems which become more relevant and important as a result of the examination contemplated in Nos. 1 and 2 above.
However, in addition to any such systems, Intervenors will question and examine the integrity of the following systems in the following order in an effort to demonstrate that they do not adequately contribute to a conclusion of reasonable assurance of no undue risk:
A.
The Emergency Core Cooling System.
Inter-venors intend to question the integrity, analysis and assumption underlying Applicant's Emergency Core Cooling System, the Idaho Semi-Scale Tests notwithstanding.
Intervenors request that witnesses from Applicant and the Regulatory Staff be available to explafn not only how the system is intended to work, but also be able to explain in detail the assumptions inherent in the computer codes used in the analysis.
Intervenors will also in-quire into what experimental evidence is available to support the assumptions and conclusions reached.
Intervenors will later' be in a position to identify what specific experiments they are most interested in after the experiments have been identified through cross-examination.
If appropriate at this point in the examination, Intervenors would intend to analyze the effect of the Idaho tests upon the Applicant's conclusions, but Inter-venors are amenable to defer that portion of the examination subsequent to the Regulatory Staff producing for inspection and review the information underlying the Idaho Semi-Scale Tests; B.
The Iodine Spray Removal System.
Inter-venors, in addition to analyzing the overall integrity of this system, will inquire into the effectiveness of the reagent in tended to be used in the system, both from a standpoint of its reliability in removing iodine, and its adverse influence, if any, upon the components and materials in the reactor building.
In addition, Intervenors will inquire into the scientific justi-fication for the assumption of 50% plateout, and in connection with this assumption, Intervenors will examine whether it is supportable in light of the intended operation of the spray re-moval system.
C.
The Emergency Power System and its Reliability.
Intervonors intend to examine into unether the ancrgency Power System can or will perform.
An a starting point, Intervenors will attempt to determine what differences have or will be built into the Emergency Power System to prevent circumstances of non-performance which have been observed in other power reactors such as, for example, the Connecticut-Yankee reactor; and
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman Page Four
- u. -
June 10, 1971 D.
All other safeguard systems which are demon-strated to be significant or important to the siting of the plant or the analysis of the Design Basis Accident.
Intervenors will identify such other systems well in advance of their consid-eration at the hearing.
Intervenors believe that the cross-examination con-templated by Parts A, B and C of this Paragraph will last a minimum of ten hearing days.
4.
The next area of cross-examination, to the extent that it has not overlapped with any of the Paragraphs above, uill be an inquiry into those safeguard systems which have not yet been designed by Applicant or analyzed by the Regulatory Staff, but which are asserted to be resolynble duling the period of construction.
Intervenors, after ascertaining the nature and extent of such safeguard systems and their related research pro-grams, will. attempt to demonstrate that certain safeguard sys-tems not yet designed contain problems which cannot~be resolved given the current state of the art, and accordingly, require the denial of a construction permit.
Intervenors fully believe that this submission serves the purpose of both identifying the topics and the problem areas for the beginning days of the hearing.
This list is by no means intended to be exhaustive and Intervenors will, from time to time and substantially in advance of their consideration, deline-ate such further areas as they will be covered in the hearing.
Obviously, some of the areas later to be considered will include the two kinds of synergistic effects which could occur as a re-sult of siting the proposed Units next to a chemical-industrial complex.
The Board should be mindful that a substantial portion of the Intervenors' case will be to probe and demonstrate that sufficient uncertainty exists in Applicant's pr'esentation so that it cannot be assumed that the proposed Units as a total engineered system satisfies and supports a finding of reason-able assurance of no undue risk.
-+
c-w g-e
~
\\
~
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman 4
Page Five June lo, 1971 Although Applicant, and a't times the Board, have indicated that a pre-condition to cross-examination is a demon-stration that something is wrong in Applicant's analysis, In-tervenors do not believe that as the hearing commences, the Board will find such a formnia appropriate, lot along legally sound.
The first order of business is to demonstrate whether Applicant has carried its burden of proof and this obviously involves an analysis of the assumptions underlying its presen-tatica.
In addition, the adequacy of the Regulatory Staff revein and the substance of the ACRS report are significant to determine whether the intent of the regulatory scheme em-bodied in the Atoric Energy Act has been complied with sub-stantially.
Since Intervenors will be residing in Midland during the course of the hearing, they request beginning now that a copy of all papers served by anyone upon Intervenors, in ad-dition to being served at Intervenors' counsel's office, also be served upon Mary Sinclair at 5711 Summerset Street, Midland, Michi6an, 4c640, and upon David Comey at 109 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1001, Chicago, Illinois, 60602.
Sometime during the week of June 14, 1971, Intervenors will be filing a document which lists all of the technical material which Intervenors have used in their preparation and which may form the' basis for Intervenors' documentary evidence.
Resp ctfully, O
s lNh4 bv
)
i M. Ch rry MMC / cam cc:
Dr. David B. Hall Dr. Clark Goodman Mr. Stanley T. Robinson, Jr.
All Counsel of Record 3
..