ML20062M874

Restated Contentions,Superseding Contentions Filed on 820718,23 & 0803

ML20062M874
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	08/12/1982
From:	Bishop L HARMON & WEISS, SINCLAIR, M.P.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8208200232
Download: ML20062M874 (5)

Text

_

w .

&f 6 . '

$3 . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . s. . DOCKETEo NUCLEAR REGULA'IORY COMMISSION - USilRC Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. AGO 19 P2:03 .

$7 fjCR TARy* '

In the Matter of: ) BRANCH

) Docket.Nos. 50-329 -

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, ) 50-330, e

)

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License RESTATED CONTENTIONS BY INTERVENOR MARY P. SINCLAIR August 12, 1982 This statement of contentions supercedes contentions filed by Mary Sinclair on July 18, 23, and August 3. In the interest of clarity and an expedited hearing, as more fully set out below, Mary Sinclair resubmits these restated contentions:

1 The environmental documents submitted by Consumers Power Co. and-staff have failed to analyze the absolute and incremental effects on the environ-ment (including the cost-benefit and risk benefit considerations) of the entire fuel cycle, as well as the serious problem of the storage of nuclear wastes on site.

In NRDC- vs. NRC, Docket Nos. 74-1586, _ et. al. (Slip Op. , April 27,1982), the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. struck down the S.3 Table which had been relied on for this purpose. Because of this Court decision, the NRC cannot comply with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act on the basis of their ' existing Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements.

2 The experience of the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI), as well as recent' research conducted for the NBC, has established that operator error can

~

significantly contribute to serious accidents, involving core melt. For example, a study by the Brookhaven Laboratory found that a number of human errors could

. -lend to core melt, given an initiating event. Moreover, the study found that human errors were more likely to result in more serious accidents.(NUREG/CR/1979; 8208200232'820812 gDRADOCK 0500032 hh

Sensitivity cf Risk Parameters to IIuman Errors in Reactor Safety Studies for a PWR (Brookhaven Laboratory, Jan. ,1981) Nevertheless, the staff SER imple-ments the TAII Action plan by requiring emergency operating procedures necessary to cope with accidents analyzed in the FSAR and SER. (SER at 13-34) Those acci'-

dents, described at 515 of the SER, assume "no operator action for at least 15 minutes", and eventual long term proper operator action.(SER at 15-3) Thus, the SER is deficient in the implementation of the Th11 Action Plan as it fails to analyze the consequences of operator error as described in NUREG/CR/1870.

3. The assessment of the likelihood and severity of " severe accidents" (or class 9 accidents) in the DES is inadequate in that it relics for methodology and probability of occurrence of severe accidents on the Rasmussen Report (WASil-1400)

DES 5-45-06. However, a new NRC report reveals that the Rasmussen method-ology, at least as it pertains to more severe accidents (total meltdown), significantly understates the risk of such accidents by a factor of 20. Precursors to Potential Severe Core Damage Accidents: 1969-1979, a Status Report, NUREG/CR/2497 (June 1982). This report shows that probabilities of severe accidents should be derived on the basis of actual accident sequences and significant events, rather than the Rasmussen methodology. The failure of the DES to incorporate this analysis cripples the entire Class 9 analysis of the DES.

4 Experience at Davis-Besse-1 (NRC Response to Interrogatory 15) has shown that maintenance of critical safety related components can disrupt those systems, or result in accidents. Nevertheless, the SER does not place any limitation on the type of maintenance that can be performed ddring plant operation, thereby threatening public safety. (SER, at 13-33,34),

5. The staff DEIS is deficient in that it continues to base its analysis of the -

cooling pond's effectiveness in controlling thermal discharges (DEIS at 4-0) and ice and fog generation (DEIS at 54) on a study based on coolhig pond performance -

in a substantially different climatic region. Instead,' the DEIS should analyze infor-mation from the Dresden, Illinois nuclear facility (or other data from a comparably-

. sized and situated facility) for both purposes, and present the baseline data from that facility to allow the agency and the public to reach an informed decision on the adverse effects of the cooling pond.

b

. . i that two sets of records--a shop record and a QA record--which are required to be kept to guarantee the integrity of the welds and therefore, must be signed ,

/ by the same welder, were, in fact, signed by two different persons. This violates related systems in a nuclear the federal standprds AL, Me cb.umafgr documentation for i safety-Q Go,ctest vuw power plant. Sh;cc this.depcdc from the incipal niethod that the NRC has for of the elds in the liVAC system (which s already guaranteeing the integrity & L MfLa wm h  %

built into a large part of the pl tg the protection of the public alth and safety cannot be guaranteed as required by 10 CFR D E 50.57(1), 50.57 (2) and 50.57 (3) ga_d l hv 57), CLf Alf R y Reasons for Filing Restated Contentions v

l The foregoing contentions are revised, clarified versions of coptentions originally filed by Mary Sinclair on July 18, 23, and August 3 In addition, certain  !

contentions raised in those pleadings have been dropped, i e, Nos. 2 (psychologic stress); 8 (unit interaction); 9 (PORV interlock); 10 (faulty weld); 11 (hazardous f waste dump); and 12 (brine well injection).

The remaining contentions have been restated, where necessary, to more fully and precisely describe the basic and specificity necessary under 10 CFR 0

2. 714(b). Those contentions should be admitted for the following reasons: 1) Con- ,

tention 1, 2, and 5 are based on staff analysis in the DEIS and SER, which obviously J could not have been predicted prior to the preparation of those documents; and ,

2) Contentions 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are based on information only recently available f to Mary Sinclair. The contentions should be admitted by the Board, following the I

criteria in 10 CFR 5 2.714(a): ,

a) Good cause Contention 3, 4,' 6, 7, and 8 are clearly admissable, as the events on which they are based occurred only within the last few weeks.' The other contentions are based on the staff analysis in the'SER and DES. While these contentions were filed slightly out of time, given the limited resources available to Mary Sinclair, ,

l and the considerable time before these contentions can be heard due to demand L on staff witnesses, her small delay will not prejudice any party to this proceeding.

O i

~ ~

, . ~

G. Albert T. Iloward, formerly of the Zack Company, has provided a signed affidavit to the NRC staff stating that substandard materials have been used in the heating and ventilating system of the M!dland nuclear plant that will not be

~

able to withstand the temperatures and the radioactive and chemical environments that are part of the operating conditions for the Midland nuclear plant. Since these materials that went into the ductwork are built-in au through the plant, including all safety related structures, no assurance can be given for the safe operation of this plant as far as the workers or surrounding population is concerned.

7. The issue of synergism between chemicals and radiation (Contention 61, (old 55) Contentions of Mary Sinclair,1978) must be re-opened based on a new

! study. Scientists at Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico, have i

conducted tests sponsored by the NRC on polymer cable insulation and jacketing used in nuclear power containment buildings. (Industrial Research and Development, i June,1982) They have found that long-term low doses of gamma radiation degrades many polymers more than do equal doses administered at higher rates in shorter testing times. Besides the dose rate effect, the researchers have also found that synergistic effects can occur when polymers are exposed to radiation and mildly -

l elevated temperatures. Dr. Roger Clough, of Sandia National Laboratory, has stated that the present testing method underestimates the loag-term effects and synergisms that display themselves only in longer tests. This study indicates that the usefullife of the plant will be shortened considerably because of this problem.

J

8. The Zack Company of Chicago which has been the contractor responsible i for the heating, cooling and ventilating system of the Midland nuclear plant has filed a non-compliance report with the NRC on or about August 4,1982, indicating i

l t

i

r b) Other means to protect her interest Mary Sinclair is the only intervenor admitted which has raised these or similar contentions. If the contentions are not admitted, her interest in their resolution will not be satisfied by any other means, c) Development of a soond record The issues raised by Mary Sinclair are fundamental to the development of a sound record in this case, if her contentions are not admitted, the various SER and DEIS issues will simply be ignored, to the detriment of the public's interest in a full consideration of environmental questions, d) Representation by other parties No other party has contentions similar to those of Mary Sinclair as her conten-i tions challenge the staff's analysis in the DEIS and the SER, the staff cannot realistically be considered to represent her interest.

e) Broaden or delay hearing -

Preparation for, and hearing of, Mary Sinclair's new contentions will not prejudice any party to this hearing. Staff witnesses will be delayed in proceeding to the OL phase of this proceeding due to the need to conclude the combined OM-OL hearing. This phase alone is expect d by the staff to extend through October.

Given such a lengthy time frame, admission of these contentions would not be significant.

Wherefore, for all the above mentioned reasons, Mary Sinclair requests that the above described contentions be admitted to this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted, Lee L. Bishop Ilarmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, NW #506 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 833-0070 Attorney for Mary Sinclair ,