ML20091N060

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Annotated OL Contentions of Intervenor Stamiris
ML20091N060
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 08/11/1982
From: Stamiris B
STAMIRIS, B.
To:
Shared Package
ML17198A223 List: ... further results
References
CON-BOX-10, FOIA-84-96 OL, NUDOCS 8406120184
Download: ML20091N060 (4)


Text

.

~.

s f

' j t... S. Nuclear llegulatory Commission In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-3290L CPCo. Midl' nd Plant-

' 50-3300L a

Units 1 and 2 BEF0,aE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD OPERATORS iICENSE CONTENTIONS OF INTERVENOR STAMIRIS.

S/ll/82 l

NRC's egnomic c, cst benefit annlysis of the DES is faulty and misleading g

3 becauseitj ignores con.st ett a costs, outstanding to the public f"$ h s,p.# d N b

  • "" d "' * * * *

, y,,

overestirNe'-

,, /.

e.

' 5lh;- ]C

]

overestimt'.cn electrical growth rate in Michigan (using bPC 3.2%

rate instoa+ M Attorney Gengays M 1/2% rate) k

\\3 PC/NBC internai reporting' systems intended to allow plant workers to raise b

concerns or critic,~.sms about inndequate workmanship or practices are' ineffective N

resulted in job losses due to QA/QC reporting.(Midland Daily because they have l

News articles d[tc.d 7-20-82, 6-28,82, and Howard affidavit, 7-30-82) )Iore-5 over, paragraph 4 of the Bechtet Eccrecy Agreement (attached) does not allow plant workers to p, ovide information freely to the NRC, further frustrating 1

these reporting syt.tems.

Extensive deficien les'in the procurement system for proper qualification of 3.

5 ' equipment has resgtcd in unrcsolved safety deficiencies concerning i

s. bolting (RP./ yl0, LAQT 80 00, pipe whip restraints 8-11-81 MCARR)
b. HVAC comi, nents (G AP lloward allegations) j electrical p mponent5 (83-01, 82-03) c.

g s

9

and these EQ proII/

are es9,1ved (SER 3.11) despite their ent cien entier.,5 1978 (55e 78-10) id%t i

1 s

'\\

h 0406120184 840517

~'

'i <

.e PDR FOIA

,/

+

,'s RICE 04-96 PDR o

s

.'h

p.

3

'/

-,f (htf(5 bkb T-(l 4 2 g

4 Welding conditions, practices, and qualification deficiencies have resulted 13 in unsafe weld conditions and lack of assurance about inaccessible welds, as seen in.

a.

class 1 and 2 piping (SER p 5-14)

b. Iow alloy steel welding (SER 5 -1 0, 5 -11) c.. corrosion damage to piping due to electro-chemical attack because of improper grounding during welding,(FES p 9-39, No. 7, Midland Daily News, 7-20-82) 5.

Despite extensive deficiencies and reliability questions associated with the DGB

/6 onsite power supply due to soil settlemeht problems, the offsite/onsite blackout power failure accident is not a postulated design basis event for safe shutdown and tlkis represents a serious unconsidered threat to public health and safety,

(The AFW system--see contention 15--and a turbine driven pump are not designed for and cannoIbe relied upon to provide sufficient cooling water from the non-category I condensate tanks to perform this essential safety function.

(SER p C-16,17) k l

6> The NRC risli assessment concerning potential release of radioabtivity to T

g underlying groundwater (DES p 5-58) is unconservative because it depends too b

heavily on the natural safeguard of the " essentially impervious" clay layer, "Q e 6 whose properties have not been clearly establisheJ to provide the assumed' barrier (Kane OM-QL testimony p 4292), and it does not consider potential effects of permanent dewatering on the ground-water relationships. Therefore, h

g public health and safety is jeopardized by these inadequacies.

40 7. Reactor containment integrity.is compromised by the combined effects of:

N

a. RVP Support Modification (79-10) 6
b. lack of adequate shear reinforcement (81-05') which is uncorrectable i'
c. inadequate loading combinations (SER p 3-21) d.

failure to postulate containment pipe break effects (SER 3.6.2)

N

e. NSSS Seismic /LOCA deficiencies (80-07) and the interrelated effect of these unresolved safety issues is not addressed by the NRC in the SER.

,.y Respectfully submitted, k WlY I

Oulw t h auN2 l

Barbara Stamiris

, - ~

b in's b tm h

[-[l-g 2_

.}

7 r

..t 9

s. The ACRS has recommended an assessment of Midland's design adequacy

^

and construction quality in their 6/18/82 report (SER Supplement 1, Appendix G)

~

In order to assure that this audit be thorough and objective, it must be per

- formed by an indepanden. third party ob compe ing contracting firm., Such r-a requirement was imposed by the ASLB in the Houston Power and Light, 50-498 and 50-499 OL proceeding, 4/30/82 And, due to the pattern of design deficiencies (4/20/52 SALP,'p 163 such an independent audit is n'ecessary to assure the design' integrity of this plant. However, the NRC has not required (SER Supplement 1, p 19-2(1)). and CPC has not committed (7/9/82 Tedesco to Cook letter) to ruch an independent audit.

L

(

Respectfully submitted,

}rst) L.-

1Milih

_, Barbara Stamiris h

e A,.

iG

,/

L-t g

i t

b.

6 F

k e

l_

+

/

t

[*,

+

4 q.

f c

.~j!

f

,J _..

s.

' i./

s,7_

-s.-u a

  • .e p/

^(l!

s

'/

s' og. x ; -

~ ~-

wu v>ure a

.1 MIDLAND INTERROGATORY RESP 0NSE ASSIGNMENTS Contention Questions Reviewer Sinclair 3 1,3,4,6,7 J. Mitchell 2

A. Thadani 5

F. Manning Sinclair 5 1-11 C. Billups Sinclair 7 1-5 H. Walker Stamiris ib and Ic 1-9,11 S. Feld 10,12-18,21-24 B. El1iott 19,20 R. Johnson q Stamiris 2 1-11 Region III '

~

Stamiris 6 1

J. Kane 2

R. Gonzales m

Stamiris 8 1-9 Region U

l f

Q

.h MMb a

.w o

e

+

,m.

_.