ML19254B066
| ML19254B066 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1979 |
| From: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254B062 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909240026 | |
| Download: ML19254B066 (5) | |
Text
<
Cit Izens A' noc iat J on for Seued Enerny (CASE) Contention
- ContenLior 1 kpplicantsbr.ve failed to deinonstra te suf fic ient r.:anagerial and administ rat ive controls to assure safe operat ion as required by 10 Ch a Part 50, Appendix E.
Ponition*
,
TU (Applicants) S (Staff) I (1 n t e t .s nor)
A A A
.
Cont ent ion 2 Withdrawn. j ip CcIntent ionn 3'A Applicants have failed to deconntrate a need for the po.-zer to be generated by CPSES because
.
- a. The reserve targins presented in the Environ: ent al Report (Ett) reflect adequate reserve margins through 1985 wit hout CPSES.
- b. The figures for the Applicants' c a pab i li t. i e : . , demands an' reserven, set forth in the Ell are inaccurate, incorplete and out of date.
Ponition TU S I A (U) A (W) A '
Con t e n t_ i o n _.5_
The ER failt to adequat ely disenon and connider new inforuation concerning al ternativen to the operation of CPSES available to Applicants (specifically,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
,,,-
t n ( \: \ {_ ;
Key: -
. A = Agreenent au to voi d in;; and subst ance A(W) Agreenent an to wordfun only N = No agree:,ent a: to wordin"" or subst ance 7909240024
.
.
gar., coal, lignite and coal gasificatic.n).
.
l'Pl.] t_igl TU S 1 A (") A (W) A
.
-
'
Cont Mtion 6 A cost-benefit balance invorable to operation of CPSES ccnnot be struck because of the following costs, thich have not been adequately considered:
- a. Decommiraioning; ,
- b. The costs to insure that the reactor vessel for Unit #2 will fit correctly;
~
- c. Fuel over the life of the plant;
- d. Long--tera vas t e storage and/or disporal.
Position TU S I A (U) A A Contention 7_
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has adecuately considered the health or economic cost s of a possible accident involving spent fuel stored on-site, as discussed in Report No. 290 (MC Translat ion #161, " Studies Comparing the
'
Greatest Posn J bl e l'a ilure Seq _ ances In a Proces sing Installat ion and In A Nucl ear Powe r Plant") , SAND--7 7--1371, " Spent Fuel IIcatup Fo] Ice:ing 1.oss of Wat er During Storage," the st udies and testimony of Richard E. Webb, and the ef fects of a reactor accident on that spent fuel.
Position TU S 1
,
A (W) A A
-
,
.
.
'
. .
.3, pynty;ption 8_
The Applicantt. fail to analyze the probahi.T i ty of and healt h and econo:nic costs of a cla v 9 accident.
Position TU S' I
, A (U) A (U) A Contentions 9617 Neither the Applicant s nor the Staf f has adequately considered the heal th ef fects of low-level radintion on the population surrounding CPSES.
Position TV S I A (U) A A
-
j ContentJon 10 3 1
lg Neither the Applicant nor the Staff has edequa t ely consir!ered the pot ent ial econouic effects on operation of CPSES because of accidents which nay occur inreactorsofsidiardesibn to CP SI T, .
Position TU S 1 A (U) A (U) A
,
Contention 11 The c ot '.-bene f i t analysis is inaccurate in that Applicants' projection of a 30 40 yr. useful life for CPSES is unrealistic because of:
- a. ef f ect s of ctunulat ive rad i.ation on the plant, and
- b. economic incentives to discontinue plant operation at
.
solan shot t er t it!o.
Position TU S ( l. q -f. J 1
)-
A (t ) A (U) A.
- 4 ,
'
Contentipo 12 (incorporates contention < 12, 33, 14 and 15)
Applicants have failed to cc:. ply with 30 CPR Part 50, Appendix E, regarding cuergency planning. for the foll u.:ing renons :
- a. The FSAR does not ident ify stmte or regicual authoritics responsible f or emergency planning or who have special
. qualifications for dealing with en.ergencies.
- b. No agreements have been reached with local and state officials and agencies for the early warning and evacuation of the public, including the indentification of the principal officials by -
.
titles and agencies.
- c. There is no description of the arrangerc.ents for services of
. physicians and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies and arrangement s for the transportation of injured or contaminated individuals beyond the site boundary.
- d. There are no adequate plans for testing by periodic dri]]s of
.
en.ergency plans and provisions for participation in thc drills by persons whose assistance r,ay be needed, other than c:cployees of the ispplicant. s f
- e. There is no provision for redical facilitles in the i r :r.ed i a t e vicinity of the nite, which include <. Glen Rose.
- f. There is no provision for energency planning for Glen Rose or the Dallas /Ft. Worth netroplex.
.
fP_S_i_t_i on
'
TU S I A (U) A A Contention 16 The requ'ren. cuts of the Atomic Energy Act, as an, ended , have not been wet i r. that the Applicants are not financially qualified to operate the proposed facility.
Position
. TU S I A A o N c07c s1 /_ v
-
,
.
.
Contention 18 (incorporated into 6) 6 Contention 19 The Applicants' failure to adhere to the quality araurance/ quality control provisions required by the construction peraits for Co.,ance Peak, Units 162, and the requircraents of Appendix B of 10 CFR 50, and the const ruction practices enployed, specifically in regard to conertte work, welding, inspec-f tion, tr.aterials used and craf t labor qualifications, hr.ve raised substantial
- questions as to coupliance with 10 CFR 950. 57(a)(1).
Position
-
TU S I A A A
.
.
t g I
\ (. I
L ' (,