ML20049H892

Reply Brief Supporting Motion to Expand QA Contention,Motion to Resubmit Contention & to File Addl Contention on Control Sys.Proof of Svc Encl

ML20049H892
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	02/26/1982
From:	Wilt D SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE, WILT, D.D.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20049H891	List: ML20049H890 ML20049H892
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8203040441
Download: ML20049H892 (7)

Text

.'

Zpbt fW.+ ,7M, io.3 j.;. .

~.s  : . . ,. w \ , . .

I

,- .-  ;<.. \ -.

I, , .' ..

t, ..i

.r .

l7 t*

i e...

s. \e,u

'g . r - ,

s .;

- .I s

. :.1 Ti D . '1 ...; v. e w. h.

u pf

..UG;2/d; .Et,ELei10.0 m .a h :.

\. ,.. . c fj' /;7) j ..;/h. Y N ' E

.t.re:t. TD i?f C 7 U :,/ F~f'i /!.D L T C'.:s M ! G PU. hD j .

. ?;-~. fd, F

%;~(.s

) Da h t '.c s In tne Matter of 50-4 +L-OL

)

50- M1-OL CL;VLL/J.D .LLGIRIC ILLhil!;?.T!hG )

conP/J.Y, et at )

)

(Perry Lucient Po..cr Plent, )

Units 1 ana !) )

?;UI.FLO .I.R ALLI;;.CF I!.C. , et ri GPLY ar. EF i: SPFPORT OF !;OTION TO i'.P, ! D ".UnLI'iY ?.SMP:C.NCE CUNTr.NYIUt.; !.UTIOh r

To re..iUB:!IT CU5 ff.NTION 7 ; F.OTION 'to FI LE ADDIT _IONAL CONTh!.TIOh 0. COhTROL ';Y STI:!;'s P., c t 0:m : .'ualitv < . S .s u r r.n r e Incur:

In tnc cri;,inal filin;, of %nfim.er, 5. .:n f l o .c r nouga t to contest the quality .auurance Pro 6 cam af Applicant. In sun;> art of ita contention, i,unflos er t.ttached copies of NRC insptetion r.-ports severly criticir.ing Appliennt's QA Program. Ir. inet, in Foi.ruary, I Q const ruction vad st.opped because of Applicant'3 poor QA progr:.....

Originally, this Board admittec as a cone ntion a very broad QA-issue but then later li:nited the issue to the February, 1976 stop.

work ' order and the consequences thereof. Subsequent to the June 1981 bearings, several events have occurred at Perry which uandate that the

-entire QA program of- Ap;ilicent be em.iined by this Board.

It is'81gnificant that both the. Applicant.and the Staff seek to deny this expansion on mere technicalities. Tne reason, 'no doubt, is:

~

l .

due to the f611owing facts.:In November, 1981 a 719 foot defective weld' was discovered in Unit One and the defect was deliberately suppressed.

l 1

Wnere was applicant's QA inspector? Lhy did it.take employees to call I r l this defect-to the' attention of appropriate. officials inster.d of.

I i

( Applicant's QA.inspectore.? Appliennt's excuse that the defcet would i ~8203040441'820226 I ~

20PDR-ADOCK 0500044o pm

eventuall, been di scovered c:ot s :mt c h c t.y -e f ict t b ;; tne c c it s defectivc; that it t c. .s not c i .s : we red r;. -7:.a ant's e i .-;. e c _ a r ;

that there was a covert.p.

Lecond, on 1over.ber 23, I n 1 i.pplict.nt q_, i n w e. s .!itcovered to be in. properly palling a 100 foot - 0 volt c'ectrical. cable tnrough c conduit in the er..t.ri,ency se rvi ce wa te r pu :p 'ouse, nere was Applicant's CA inspector? '.ny mas it that an h RC in s p e c '. c r spotted this defect?

Third, in February, 19 5 a void in t.c t ucretc in tne bioshield was discovereC by nn employee. Inis defect _xs back to the summer of 1961. i.here ucs .~.pplicant 's yi. ir epc c t or? -

o :. J not pplicant's 1A inspector discover this defcet?

These are all docutented fatlures ir ?--: ! c ar.t 's Q i prn;;ra9s .

This list is by no means complc te. Regien ;;;'s file s ar.d repot t s are full of documented qA violations c ad ( ove rt- .  ;.:a l i t - .am rance is r.n important ele c.ent of the Nef's defense t- rotect the public frer rndiation. The public has the ri;+t t o c c- > t i c.: qn be tchen seriously by Applicant and Applicant has certainly taken anythin;; but a serious attitude touard Q .

Eve: assur.ing that xn . > . <..u . .c .0, rules es far as tr.is issue is concerned (and Sunflo... 'cs not violated NRC rules) this is not deterr.inative on m power of t-i- Joard to expand thi, contention and restore it to the originclly nuit.t ed cont ention. ~1hi s Board, even absent a contention raised by a party, has full authority to, sua snonte, raise independent issues. It has been said:

Quality Assurance (facluding quality control) is an importcnt element o f t h e Cor.:mi s si c ' s d e f e n se in depth approach to nuclear safety. '.c c o rd i ng l y , every u t i li t;. seeking a license to cons.cact a nuclear power plant must develope a qualit;. r.srurance pro-gram tailored to the proposed plar.t, which program must be detailed in the licensee's PSAk to the Commissitm. The ade zu..c:. of thatg cgrna is then ,

_3 u stse cg.mnst the quality ':_r .e regulations betr

,, tacory and as pu:. trto prcetis :rino comtruction.

It tbo ' .n t t e r o f : Con s t crs Pocer Co (!;1dlend Plant, Units I t. 2), i. lad-263, 2 1,hc 11, 4

('uTS).

In addition it r,as been said:

'. 3 c.arlier ob served, tne issuet not.ber :.hc applic.:nt's proposed rethod of rack disposal cc . plied with the i.L./.kA s t andard fourd in 10 CFit 20.1(c) was not placec int.o centroversy by any party to the pro-c c e J.i ty; b u t , rather,*:ns c on.si de re u by the Licensin;;

l'oard on its o n initict vc. The h o c rt. had, of

c

r se, tr:cb ri ht to take this ction; indeed, if it

.:ce::.ed t he re to be a s( rious que st ion re specting ccmp-liance eith Conr:i ssion regulations, tne Bocrd would ncve been cerelict in tne dischcrge of its responsibilities tcc it not Jone so.... Prrirfe T e' r no Nucl ear Genernt f r;-

Mcnt, Units 16 2 rnd Ver ont Y;.nkee huelear 1 m er strtion, LL. .B-4 5 5 ( 19 7 :. ) .

Thus, e t tu;;n Sunflouer had f r.t led to raise the issue, the conrd can.

/.pp li c t .t .n. a St.2ff n..ve been or notice since !. arch, 19b1 of .,un-fic.xr': :nntern. sunflower ss rb 'ys referred to the C.rm:i s s i on ' s cun insyt tion repe rt s. Factuallc, tne q/. cm.ctions still exist 4. t Pe r ry . ... .;e t t.a r e flagrant as ca h da: pec n s.

Fi r s. l l y , 10 CFR 2.104(c) grants power to this Boaril to consider nny at.cr brought to the boarc'.e rttentim ,

... . = , :. . t

..i t errte, grc. s tr e N :-  ;.c (r ., , :r e , c o ;; s . , t r ,

s ri ca - snitty is<:ue that it leerns of durir; the licensing process.

O., 1.4 ritical element. unfle.eer alleges that /.pplitant's

prograr 13 woe fu ll:. inadequate. The f c c. t :, der.onstrate this inndequacy throught-ut the construction. The Board must expand ond restore this contention back to its original form.

Part Two: !!otion to Re nubmit Contention Seven:

Applicant's and staf f's objections to this . contention are

_ purely tracedural. It it;nores the inportvnte of the issue. First of ell, it is up to the ..ppliernt to ;: rove :t -t it h.., conplied uith .11 re l c vc:. t rc c.:l a t i on s not Interw nor'..lc to '

'tter o': Consurerr Po-er

co 0:id!.*rd Pinnt. Units 1 6 M , ..L.2-2b3, ' : RC II , '7 (1975).

Secondly, this Board h 2e plentrv cutharity m. hns ful'. nutherity to recont,1.. r centention seven. h=.n Bot t r tcM e P.v r .trtlen, Units ? 6 ?, ALAB - 3S9 (1977). Suth Staf f .m:: ?.ppliennt are on full notiec of Sunflower's concern as Sunflower h s nm. presented a credible scenario.

/.p p f e t.n t rnd Staff both ccmplain nboet an c.11eged lack of specifit: . The issue of specifieft) i s cerel: a smoke screen to hide the issue. Most of the major disasters of t're nuclear industry are a result of non postulated events. D:cc.ple: Prcuns Ferry. Thus, to require zunflouer to postulp.te chat even the indust ry cr.nnot postulate is absu.;. .?unflouer's concerns art: 1) whether the hydrogen gas control cysten will'be operated in r t ime l:. and effective manner;

2) the effectiveness of hydrogen rccombine c. J.p p l i c :.n: ' s statements that Sunfi n.er's conc (rns ..rt in:pp;;c Q:e < c r c i r.1, are not specific enough to require rejection of this contentien.

Part Three: 140 tion to Add Additional Contention Both Staf f and /.pplicant set forth the usual procedural objections

, regarding this issue. These objections are not adequate to deny consideration of this issue. This Board has full authority to consider at any time serious safety issues either as presented by parties or on its own motion. Prairie Island Nuclenr Generatine Plant, Units 1 & 2 and Vermont Yanke- Nuclear Power Station, ALAB-455 (1978).

both Staff and Applicant. complain about a lack of specificity.

Yet, each knew exactly what Sunflower's concerns were as expressed in their briefs. It can hardly be argued that there was a lack of notice.

+ m 4

The 1-iotion state s that based on medir. reports the control systens c nuclear power plants are vulnerable. Tne terr " control sy s t ems" seer s to have a meaning in the industry as we are inmediately airected te USI A-47. Thus, it can been seen that bocl. Staff and Applicant knew what Sunflower was talking about. The protests are not c onvi nci r.g .

A review of Chapter 7 of 'he t Perry FSr.R is of no help. Little infornation is presented in Chapter 7 as to how individual syst c .s cer.-

fern to General Desigr. c r i t e r i r. , tvgdcter Guices or anything (1st.

Tnere ;: no infor.mation in t: e Perr: Edf.h,. Scut start up transient monitoring systems. Nothing is said abm EP.; systems in FSAR Secticn 7.2 and the EPA assemblies are not shown in Fibere 7.2-1. Chapter 7 is lacking more in specific 1y. t ' u r n.: of sun'inxer's pleadings.

Part IV:

T1.c issues presented tc tb. cor.rd 9 Sarfl ecr cre directea to safety cor.ponent s of the Perrv plant. Thi s Ber.rd i s bound t o consider all safety reinted issues. This prcet sing is yet young e r.d fully capable of handling (dditional i ssues . Staff cnd Applican r .-

fully cognizant of Sunflever's concerns. There is no icgitimate substantive reason for not hearing these issues. ett least no surb reason has been offerred b-, ,pplicent or Staff. Procedural ploys t.r e usually offerred to hide subst atice fcults. This Board ir vise to such manuvors ar.d should ignore ther.

Respectfully subnitted, ,

~^

Il i (Q t {a,i y ,

Dribel D.' CiJt7 Esq.~ ~

/it t e rney for sunflewer '. l i r r e c- Inc, et al 7301 Chippeun Rd.

3rtcksville, 01.1 o 44141 210-526-2350

- ,,~.

e

' y I

.

6Dt m'$>/

Gy m'.i'~s,N  %-

. v-

%? T.t, '.t

. A :r ,

s C'~P Mq

. , p.,q. 'i

.. C, 1 s.. t. ,. 1 Proof of St reice _ /?

a 4s

~

y.

,s (

's, ~ .

/. copy of this ::cp1;. brief has beer ser- to all persons on the sittnched service list by regular first c'.ys r. ail on t.iis 26th dt, of February, 1962.

7 m,' (*

,) -

il /0 v t hb(

3(r.;-- D. '.1 1 t , ' E s q .

.t t :m e;. for Sunflower i.111.'nce Inc. +t c1

.- ~.

4

, . ~ , ,

SERVICE LIST _

Dr. Jerry R. Klein Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Muclear Regulatory Commission Washington. D.C. 20555 Washington , D.C. 20555 Jay Silberg, Esq.

Frederick J. Shon 1800 M Street N.W.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20036 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Daniel J. Herron, Esq.

Donald T. Ezzone, Esq. Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Ashtabula County Courthouse

• 105 Main Street Jefferson, Ohio 44047 ',

Painesville, Ohio 44077 .

Tod J. Kenney Jeff ' Alexander 228 Scouth College St. Apt. A 920 Wilmington Ave.

Dayton, Ohio 45420 ,

Bowling Green, Ohio 43402 Terry Lodge, Esq. Robert Alexander

' 2030 Portsmouth St. Apt. 2 915 Spitzer Bldg. Houston, Texas 77098 Toledo, Ohio 43604 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary Nuclear Regulatory CSamission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles Barth, Esq.

Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Washington, D.C. 20555 S

4 i

e