ML20024F348
| ML20024F348 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1983 |
| From: | Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | EDDLEMAN, W. |
| References | |
| 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309090301 | |
| Download: ML20024F348 (3) | |
Text
-
r 1
4,
[ P i f
-00LKETED uswa:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s --
'83 SEP -8 NO:37 p{
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0FF CE OF SECHLIA* '
r
'e-Berore Administrative Judges:
00CKE4tNG & 3EFV!f.f.
e James L. Kelley, Chairman BRANCH
~
Dr. James H. Carpenter Glenn 0. Bright m-SERVED SEP 8893
'^
w
)
Docket No. 50-400 in the Matter of
)
50-401
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGitT COMPANY ASLBP No. 82-468-01 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUHICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
September 7, 1983 Units 1 and 2)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Wells Eddleman's Proposed Co,ntention 161)
On May 7, 1983, Wells Eddleman submitted proposed contention 161 for consideration ty this Board.
Proposed cententien 161 alleges the following:
Applicants have not demonstrated that the Harris nuclear reactors can be safely shut down when shutdown is required, because of defects and possible malfunction of Westinghouse DS-416_ circuit breakers used in the safety-related shutdown systems at Harris.
Mr. Eddlenan's contention grew out of a Westinghouse report to the NRC on April 20, 1983, that Westinghouse had discovered defects which can cause the 05-416 circuit breakers to malfunction.
As reported in Inside NRC on May 2, 1983, at 4-5, such malfunctioning "could create conditions under which the RTBs (reactor tripbreakers) might not open 8309090'301 830907 PDR ADOCK 05000400
}
g PDR
- p. automatically on demand from the reactor protector system, "
Mr. Eddleman's motion at 1.
Mr. Eddleman states that "[t]his failure could cause an ATWS [ anticipated transient wihout scram] event like that which occurred at Salem, especially given the use of the same type breaker in Harris redundant shutdown sytems."
Id.
Mr. Eddleman addressed the five factors for late-filed contentions in a supplemental
~ filing on May 14, 1983.
The NRC Staff filed a response in support of Mr. Eddleman's t
proposed contention 161 on May 31, 1983.
Applicants filed a response in opposition to the proposed contention on the same date.
Neither Applicants nor Staff challenge the timeliness of the contention.
We conclude that upon a balancing of the five factors the contention should not be rejected on grounds of untimeliness.
Applicants argue that the contention should be rejected because it "is far too sweeping an allegation to be supported by the
[ identified]designproblem." Applicants' Response at 3.
In their response, they explain the nature.of the deficiency and the corrective
-action that Westinghouse has taken and has committed to take.
In addition, Applicants state that they submitted a report to the NRC cn May 26, 1983, in which they committed to implement the corrective design changes. Applicants represent that they are considering other design changes, now under industr,' review.
As ar, as an alternative to.the Board's rejecting the contention, Applicants suggest that we allow Mr. Eddleman a period
(
3-of time to review Applicants' responss and revise or withdraw the contention in light of the information contained or referenced herein.
They represent that they have discussed this proposal with Mr. Eddleman and that he does not oppose the proposal if the Board rejects the contention as written.
Proposed contention 161 is quite broad and does not identify t
any specific defects in the original circuit breaker design.
The Applicants' propos,al would serve the useful purpose of giving Mr. Eddleman the opportunity to formulate the contention (if he still chooses to do so) on the basis of more coniplete information now available.
Therefore, we adopt Applicants' recommended procedure.
Mr. Eddleman shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to revise or withdraw proposed contention 161 in light of the information contained in Applicants' response.- Applicants and Staff shall have 15 and 20 days, respectively, to respond to any revised contention.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
' %. - - _l /
Ja(ief L. KeVley, Chairman ADm NISTRATIVE JUDGE
/
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 7th day of September, 1983.
F 4
g,g,w--.
- -, - -, - - -