ML20023A824

Reply to NRC & Applicant Responses to M Sinclair Revised Contentions 6,34,37,43,56 & 57.Contention 6,bases (A),(B) & (d)(4),Contention 43 & Contention 56,Basis 3,withdrawn. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20023A824
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	10/15/1982
From:	Bishop L HARMON & WEISS, SINCLAIR, M.P.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8210200054
Download: ML20023A824 (7)

Text

-. _

DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

12 00118 50d2 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 0FFICE OF SECRETAWl 00CKLIWG & SERVIC'

) BRANCH In the Matter of: )

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329

) 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License

)

REPLY OF MARY SINCLAIR TO STAFF AND APPLICANT RESPONSES TO REVISED CONTENTIONS 6, 34, 37, 43, 56, 57 On September 30, 1982, Staff and Applicant submitted their objections to Sinclair contentions 6, 34, 37, 43, 56, 57 as revised after discovery. By this pleading, Ms. Sinclair responds. For the sake of clarity, this reply follows the format used by the Staff, which clearly sets out its position with regard to each basis for each contention. The Applicant's-objections also will be responded to in this format, where their objections can be identified and correlated. Also, for the sake of brevity, the contentions will not be restated.

Contention 6 - QA/QC Adequacy.

Staff does not object to this contention, or any of its bases.

The Applicant objects only to bases (a), (b) and (d) (4) .

With regard to (a), the Applicant argues that the contention be limited to the Landsman memo. Ms. Sinclair agrees, with the understanding that any other further issues subsequently discovered by the Staff in its investigation of the Landsman l

o 82102cooffs- gc;D'h

. 2 memo _(Staff reply at 4) and the various "Zack issues" will be grounds for amendment of this contention. With regard to bases (b) and (d) (4) , Applicant objects due to the " Applicant's resolution" of the bad welds that have been found. (Reply at 2-3). Applicant misses the point of the contention.

The contention challenges the adequacy of the QA/QC program, not the integrity of any particular weld. The discovery-of improper radiographs is_ evidence that the entire QA/QC program with regard to welds is inadequate. The Applicant's " resolution" of the particular welds described in I.E. Bull. No. 82-01 does not " resolve" the adequacy of the QA/QC program, which failed to detect the_ altered radiographs in the first place and permitted the acceptance and installation of defective materials.

Contention 34 - Pipe Supports Staff does not object to this contention.

The Applicant objects on the ground that the bases are not specific and are outside the scope of the original 1978 contention. (Reply.at 4). Through discovery, the Staff.has disclosed information relating to the operability assurance of snubbers, as.a component of the pipe support system.

This contention is clearly specific enough to allow for testimony and cross examination, and represents a fair development of the issue from its initial-formulation in 1978.

Contention 37 - Pipe Breaks Staff and Applicant object _to this contention, as they contend that the analysis of small-break LOCA's (the asserted

s 3

basis.of the contention) is " unrelated to the possibility of pipe breaks." (Staf f . Reply at 5) . This argument is spurious.

The SER's acknowledgment that the Staff is conducting a re-review of B & W's small break LOCA methods clearly casts doubt on the adequacy of pipe breaks and the protection of the public from their effects.

Contention 43-- Sabotage Upon consideration of the objections of the Staff and Applicant, Ms. Sinclair agrees to withdraw this contention.

Contention Station Blackout.

Staff does not object to the admission of this contention, as it agrees with bases #1 (ice load on power lines); #5 (common corridor); #7 (turbine placement) ; and #8 (Big Rock weather. effects). The Staff objects to basis #2, arguing that the effect of ice loading on the diesel generator building will be covered in the soil settlement (OM) hearings.

(Reply at 9). This is incorrect. Ms. Sinclair's contention states that snow and ice loading could cause the failure of the DGB, an effect which is not to be litigated in the upcoming OM hearings. Staff also objects to basis #3, as the various Zack-related issues are the subjects of a separate contention. Ms. Sinclair agrees with this argument, and withdraws this basis.

The Applicant objects to the entire contention, as it asserts that the contention does not provide basis for the -

two events which must occur to result in station blackout--

lossaof offsite' power and failure of the deisel generator.

n.

-: . [

4 j (Response at 1). Applicant is incorrect. Excessive ice j and snow loading can result in simultaneous failure of offsite l power lines and failure of the GDB (basis #2), resulting h in station blackout. In addition, failure of the deisel generator can result from bases 4, 5, and 7. i Moreover, the Midland steam generators are subject to i

other failures that could accompany loss of offsite power i

~ and cause station blackout. The Midland FSAR (1-3-1), states t t

i i that the reactors to which Midland can be compared in its j l

various aspects of construction are Rancho-Seco, Turkey j l

Point 3 and 4, and Oconce. In the Report called " Enhancement j of Onsite Emergency Deisel Generator Reliability" (NUREG/CR-f 0660), there is an analysis of the problems that have occurred f with diesel generators at various reactors, including

I Rancho-Seco and Turkey Point 3 and 4. The Licensee Event  !

Reports (LER) state that Rancho-Seco had a total of eight I events that were engine and related problems. Five of them had to do with starting problems, one with cooling, and two I with the governer. There were four electrical problems.

This chart also states that Turkey Point 3 had seven engine j and related problems. Five had to do with starting, one  ;

I with fuel system, and one with cooling. There were also {

four electrical malfunctions having to do with relays and i

breakers and three in the general catagory. Turkey Point 4 l l - i reported one starting problem and one electrical problem with  ;

i i

. i 5-h i

I

, i i __- - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - - _- ____---____-_L-- - - - - - _ . - _ - _ _ - - _ . - - - - _ - _ _ . - - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -

n o 5

. relays _and breakers and one design problem. Since these diesel generators are similar to the type installed at Midland, these failures establish a basis for a contention that similar malfunctions can occur with these diesel generators.

Contention 57 - Electrical System Adequacy Neither the Staff nor Applicant object to this contention, provided that its scope is limited to fire protection. Ms. Sinclair agrees, with the caveat that further deficiencies discovered in the investigation of QA/QC failures will be the subject of either new contentions or amendment to this contention.

Respectfully submitted, Lee L. Bishop' Attorney for Mary Sinclair IIARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W.

Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9070 October 15, 1982

~

c , ,

l'Ni II,O

• l A!! A t?i lJ'." i, i l /

'a.; t ! .R , i . A 0h i i r"i; ' ii t.

!

• i V hi! ".l tN ii ms ili : i ' l l!' , ',' ! r ./4;..

In the Matter of 1

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMFANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL

) 50-330 0:1 & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing REPLY OF MARY SINCLAIR TO STAFF AND APPLICANT RESPONSES ' O REVISED CONTENTIONS 6, 34, 37, 43, 56, and 57 have been mailed first class, postage paid, this 15th day of October, 1982, to the following:

' Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Frank J. Kelley Administrative Judge Atterr.cy General of the State Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of Michigan U.S. Nuclear Regalatory Comis'.inr. Steward it. Freeman Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division 525 W. Ottawa St., 720 Law Bldg.

La. ming, Michigan 48913 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Sumerset Street Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Midland, Michigan 48640 Administrative Judge 6152 N. Verce Trail William D. Paton Apt. 5-125 Michael N. Wilcove Boca Raton, Florica 33433 Office of the Executive Legal Director

'Dr. Jerry Harbour Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 James E. Brunner, Esq.

Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 A M# Meid , w a.ee - - - - -

--_7_w_^ -

~-

, , . . . . 7

.g . bart'c.ra S t. .t ri s 'Au..n '

, t e t ., enc ! iu nune Lu.rc l'. L. Put . . :. r L.eu.le tc ry ( crr i n t on E79E N. Fiser .

Freelant. '4icnicc- ~:t.? Rsi umten. D.r . .%f 55 Janet F.. Lates *ttonic dat.ty ano Licensing Aspeel 703 5. Wasnugen Au nue Pa r.e l Saginaw, Michigcn 4 605 U.S. Hur leur W gulatory Cor.nission Wuhington, D.C. 20555 Wencell H. Marshall, Fresloent Mapieten Intervenors

• Docketing and Service 5ection RfD 10 Office of the Secretary Midiend, Michigan 48640 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormission Washington, D.C. 20555 Steve J. Gadler, P.E. .

Wayne'Hearn

• Bay City Times 2120 Carter _ Avenue 311 Fifth Street St. Paul,f1N 55103 Say City. Michican 4S706 Frederict C. Williams Paul C. Rau Isham, Lincoln & beale Miciand Daily hews 1120 Connecticut Avenue,IW 124 Mcdonald Street Washington, D.L. 20036

. Midland, Michigan 4M40 My rc,n M. Che r ry , p . c . flichael I Millcr, Esq.

Peter Flynn, 0.c. Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.

Cherry & Flynr. Alan S. Farnell, Esq.

Three First Naticnal Pla:3 David M. St.ahl, - Esq.

Suite 3700 Isham, Lincoln I, Beale Chicago, IL 60602 Three First National Plaza 52nd Floor T. J. Creswell Chicago, Illinois 60602 Michican Division Legal Department Dow Cnemical Company Midlard, Michigan 48640 L f D:l m October 15, 1982 Lee L. 4 Bishor. f ^ r l

1 I