ML19254B068

Revised Contentions of Intervenor Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.Submits Safety Contentions 1-33 & Environ Contentions 1-7

ML19254B068
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/21/1979
From:	ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM
To:
Shared Package
ML19254B062	List: ML19254B063 ML19254B066 ML19254B068
References
NUDOCS 7909240031
Download: ML19254B068 (11)

Text

. .

.

[1C011:.i_ _ Cot _it < a t l oig.

.

SA E_T. _Y___C.O. N T.E._N_T._I O N S_

-_F 0_.le.

Original is set forth below:

The CPSES* design failr, to adequntely account for the effect of asy; actric loading resul ting f rota a pipe break in the

• area between the reactor veasel and the shield wall.

.P. o s i t l on E *

--

TU (Applicants) S (Staff) I (Intervenor)

A (W) A (U) A

.Typ Original is set forth below:

Kh'C Staf f review 15, inadequate to identify and correct t. odes

.

of int eraction between reactor systens in the OpSICS design which can adversely affect the redundance or independence of sa f e t:. systens.

Poaltfon 1

}

Ill S I

{

A (W) N ~A Th.re e.

.

Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has a reliable nethod for evaluating or ensuring that C l a r <, IE safety-relat ed equi;n.: ut is designed to accorrodate the ef fects of and to be compat ible wit h the conditions associated with the

._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

• "CPSES" has been substituted for " Comanche Peah" in all of the contentions.

A0 Key:

A Agreeuent as to wording and substance A ('..') - Agree. nt as to wordinn only

.

N " No agr ecuent as to wording or substance '

'

l ' '"

,

(

'

00 ) l

.

• 2, rnost severe pontulated accident, thun, General Design Criterion 4 has not been natinfied.

Position TU S 1

.

A (U) A ,

A

.

Your Neither the Applicants nor the Staf f has reliable i ethods for evaluating and ensuring that struct ures, systens and components impert ant to safety are designed to withstand the effects ef the safe sh u t d ce..u earthquake without lo' sing the capability to pcrform their safet y functionn; thus, Cencral Design Criterion 2 har not been satisfied. t

p

.

Position .

~

(W) (W) A Vive The elect rical cabler, for all redundant safety syste:us have not been designed and located to mininize the probability and ef fect of fires and explosions; thun, General Design criterion 3 has not been satisfied.

.

PonitIon TU S I A (U) A (W) A fil5 Original is net forth,below:

The D.C. Power Syst em for the CPSES plant f ails to w "t the

-

single failure cr iterion an defined in 10 CFit Part 50 Appen-d ir. A. .

,

,

o \l'

-

(t /

6-

.

.

_. 3 --

4 Position TU S 1 N N A Seven One change - cc:ma inserted af ter the word " adequate" on the first line.

The CPSES design docs not provide adequate, reliable instru-raentation to c.onitor var _ bler, a n.1 syster.s affecting the integrity of the reactor core, the pressure boundary or the containment after an accident, in violation of General Design Criterion 13 of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50.

,

Position TU S I A (W) A (W) A

'

4i

f. i ght_ g Original is set forth below:

The CPSES design does not adequately account far failure of passive cor:ponents in fluid systems important to safety.

Position TU S 1 N N A

,

Nine Original is set forth below:

The CPSES design does not provide adequate equipment outside of the control roon to pr,mptly put the reactor in hot shut-down and so maintain it until attaining, cold shutdown, also

, _ , ,

l \

- '

L

,.

c

. fron outside the control rocn, as required by Genera] lie s igo Criterion 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part LJ.

Posit ion TV S 1 A (U) A (U) A

.

.Tal Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has adequately considered the effects of aging and cumulative radiat ion on safety-rel ated equip:..ent which must be seismically and environacutally qualified, t h u t. , General Design Criterion 4 has not been satisfied.

.

Position TU S 1 A(U) A (U) A

,il

} cye_n Original it, set forth belou:

The CPSES design fails to address the possibility of a Class 9 Accident.

Pcsition TU ,

S 1 A (U) A (U) A (W) .

.Twelyg Uithdrawn.

, q u 'g

.

Thirteen Applicants lack the ability to detcet and adequately <;ize fla. s within 1) the

.

reactor vev;e1 and 2) pipes within the cont airu cat .

Position TU S I

. A (U) A (W) A

.

Fourteen One change - a slash has been innerted after the word "prennure" on the third line:

Appl i can t s ' FSAR fails to present a mean~. for dealing with

.

prennure transients produced by co;nponent fa il u re , personnel error, or r,puriour valv. actuation which exceed the pressure /

te:perature 1 I r.ii t s of the reactor ves<:el.

Position TU S 1 A (U) A (U) A Fifieen 96 0##

'

Withdrevn.

'

_S i x t e n ,_ Srn en t een , Eiy_h t e en ,_a nd ?' i n e t e en Incorporated in 1;oard': QA/qc cont ent ion.

Ponition TU S 1 N N A

-. ~

f

- f .e c , , ,

..

,

.

, .

.Tweilt y The CPf>::S design f ail- to protect againnt corrocica within the ste:u generators which causes cracking of pipen and lea': age of radioact ive water.

Position TU S I

,

A (W) A (W) A

,

. ._

The CPSES design in inadequate to prevent a water hanner proble:a which could af f ect a nu::ber of critical safety corponents.

_ Ppsit10y TU S 3 A (U) A (U) A

.

Trientv-Tuo

.' i t h d r. in . ( #

.Twp n t y;_7_h_rT e c; Original is set forth beleu:

The CPSFS design does not adequately address the possibility of a steati line break inside con t a limen t , nor does it insure the ability of equipn. int within containnent to nurvive such -

an event so as to assure safe shutdown of the plant.

Positien TU S I A (W) A (W) A

,

'

,

i-

\)'

-

A

.

. . -7, ,

Twentv-Four The CPSE5 design do, . not adequately in:..ure the reliab]c operation cf en-site criergency power.

Position TU S I

, A (W) A (U) A T_ wen ty-J'iv_e The words "due Lo" (on the last line) have beca deleted and the word "and" has been inserted in lieu thereof.

The CPSES design han not adequat ely resolved a generic safety-

-

problen for pressurized water react ors wherein the steam generator and reactor coolant pump support materials are sub-ject to lauellar tearing and low fracture toughnis<.

- Position TV S I A (W) A (U) A

{\

Twentv-Six The CPSi:S design deer not ad:quately insure t.h a t sa fety-related w. iter supplien vill be available for plant operation in the event of ice build-up at the service water intake st ructure, ,

Posi. tion TU S I A (U) A (U) A

.

( ,y s-L.

.

.

- 8

.,

'I '.:( o t y- S even The CPSES deaign has twt given due con ;f der ation to the need to withstand nn act of rabotage.

Posit ion

'

1V S I

. N A (W) A

.

Tuentv-Eighti The CPSES design fails to protect against accidents involving the trovettent and handling of he; vy load: in the vicinit y of spent fuel at the f ac ility.

, Position, TV S I

,A (W) A (U) A

.

Twe_n t y--N i n e incorporated in P.vard's QA/QL contention.

g

,Th i r ty,

.

1he CI'S F.S de <:i gn doca no t adequately protect against potential damar,e fro.

t urbine ni? ' iles to synters e ntial to the cooling and safe r. hut down of t he pl. nit .

Posit ion TV S I A (U) A (W) A

-

'

,,

\_ . )

' ' 8

_

.

.

.

.

%

_ 9_

'.

'l h i t t y__On e Applicants have f a 31ed t o co. . ply wi t h 3 0 Ci'it Par t 50, Appendix E, regarding emergency planning, bec.iu:.e there is no provinion for e:.;ert;ency planning for Glen Rose or the Ibilas/Ft. L'or t h I m t rople: .

.

Position

• TU S 1 A (W) A A Thirty-Two Neither the App 11cante nor the Staf f hn, ade<piately considered the licalth ef fects of, low-level radiat ion on the population surrounding CPSES.

_Po s i t ion, TU S 1 A (W) Defers A

.

e

• 1eh i r t y '1=h r e e l

Original is set forth below:

The CPSES design doe:, not adequately protect human safety and insure that rad ic iod ine rel e;" . <. are ar. "Jou as reasonably

.

achlevable".

Position 10 S I A (U)

.

Defers A

.

.

4

~

.)

-

(U {

.

'

.

- 30

.

<

ENVIPO: MENTAL CON 11. a lONS 01g The energy to be generated by CPSES is unneeded, unsalable and unecononically priced in view of the order of the Texas Public Utility Co:.aission in Docket No. 14, and thur a favorable cost-benefit balance cannot be struck.

'

.

Position TU S .I .

,

A (U) A (U) A

.

1"P.

Applicants have failed to de: astrat e a need for the potter to be generated by CPSES because:

a. The reserve margins presented in the ER reflect adequate margins through 1985 without CPSES.

.

b. The figures for the Applicants' capabilities, demands and reserves set foith in the ER are inaccurate, incomplete and out of date.

Position (U) (U) A N Ihye_q

,

Uithdrawn.

-

Four The Applicants have not considered the costs of replacement of major piecer of equipnent and their disposal in their cost-benefit balance.

Position TU S I

_

-.

,

A (U)_

A (U) A  ; i _. 1

..

. -

-

-

11 -

<

,

Five Applicants have not consid .r ed Llw envii ennent al effects of storar,e and ul t ii':it e

.

d isposal of nuclear s acte in the ir cost-bene fit halnnce.

Position TU S I

. A (U) A (U) A

.

Six

- - . -

The Applicant s have f ailed to postulat e the possibilities, the effect on the avitonnent, and t.he cost of "cleanupa" wh ich necessarily follow a nuclear acrident such'that a favorable cost-benefit balance cannot be struck.

E"E! tion TU S I A (U) A (W) A

.

J ('!!

'i Applicants have not considered the costs of safeiy decor :innicni .g the

a.ility after its useful life in the cost-benefit balance.

E0ALLion TU S I

.(> A (m> A gg

.

. f

\

..