ML20028D498
| ML20028D498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1983 |
| From: | Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8301190201 | |
| Download: ML20028D498 (6) | |
Text
.
SERVED JAn181983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0f0LKETED UW ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JU18%S JTM 18 A11 :47 James L. Kelley, Chairman
- , ;;a Dr. James H. Carpenter,, @., St?!!C1 Glenn O. Bright
' AhC4
)
In the Matter of
)
ASLAB Docket No. 82-468-010L
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket Nos.
50-400 AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
50-401 MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,)
Units 1 and 2)
)
January 17, 1983
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Addressing Applicants' Motion for Codification) 4 On December 17, 1982, the Applicants filed a motion for codifica-tion of contentions in order to establish the precise wording of the contentions we admitted in our. September prehearing conference order.
In most cases, the proposed wording of a contention is exactly as it was proposed by its sponsor.
In some instances, however, the Applicants' proposed codification includes " alteration to the wording... simply to confirm [ Applicants'] understanding of the contention as accepted by the Board." Applicantn' Motion at 2.
Only two parties, the NRC Staff and Mr. Eddleman, filei.'. responses to the Applicants' motion. Neither objected to the concept of a codification of admitted contentions, but both took exception to some of the proposed wording changes.
The Board agrees that a codification of admitted contentions would be useful.
Subj ect to the changes discussed below, we grant the 8301190201 830117 N
PDR ADOCK 05000400 V
G PDR
q c
2-Applicants' motion and approve the proposed ~ codification set forth in Appendix A to the Applicants' Motion. These-changes reflect our rulings on the parties' exceptions to the motion and our rulings on the motions for reconsideration or clarification in our Memorandum and Order of January 11, 1983. In some instances, we also referred to the NRC Staff draft codification of October 18, 1982.
A.
CCNC 4.
l Applicants' codification cf CCNC 4, as set forth on page 5 of Appendix A to Applicants' Motion, is modified by deleting the phrases
", safety, and health" and "and no analysis of safety risks from long-term storage" from the first sentence. The Staff's exception to Applicants' j
proposed wording has been mooted by our clarification of the admitted contention in our January 11 Memorandum and Order.
B.
Wilron 1(e)-(f3).
In accordance with our January 11 Memorandum and Order, Wilson I(e)-(f3), as set forth on pages 9-10 of Appendix A to Applicants' Motion, should be modified to be entitled " Wilson 1(e)-(f4)" and to include-the following language:
(f4) Eyen if their calculations were taken at face value, the 79 cfs flow of Buckhorn Creek is too close to the 53 cfs projected average consumptive water use to not consider the Cape Fear River t:o_ be a f requent source of water for the Main Reservoir. The Applicant may indeed have had this in mind since the lack of j,
dependence on Cape Fear that was professed in the Environmental Review meeting is not explicitly stated in the written amendments, and section 2.4.2-5 still reads "Buckhorn Creek is not critical to plant operation."
C.
Wilson IVC.
Wilson IVC, admitted in our January 11 Memorandum and Order, a
should be added to Applicants' codification and read as follows:
p-y-
m w
r g---
A
. Wilson IVC.
The statistical methods employed in the preoperational and the operational radiological surveys are inadequate because they do not specify:
1.
A detailed description (time, season, weather) of the samples used to calculate the term Sb in the equation LLD = 4.66Sb
- ASU ExVx2.2xYxe on page 6.1.5-29 of the ER.
2.
The statistical methods used to determine the signifi-cance of a measurement which shows increased radioactivity. That is, is it a statistical variation within the normal range or is it freely abnormal?
3.
The way in which discrepancies between split sample analyses will be resolved.
D.
Eddleman 9.
Mr. Eddleman objects to Applicants' deletion of reference to the SER from Eddleman 9.
We find, however, that the FSAR is the appropriate document addressed by this contention, and not the SER, because the SER does not yet exist. Therefore, we accept Applicants' proposed wording without change.
If the SER, when it appears, provides some.new basis for a contention, Mr. Eddleman will have an opportunity to advance it.
E.
Eddleman 15.
Mr. Eddleman objects to Applicants' deletion from Eddleman 15 of reference to the effect of steam generator problems on capacity factor.
Applicants' proposed wording, however, accurately states the contention admitted by this Board. Applicants' proposed wording does not preclude Mr. Eddleman from introducing relevant evidence and argument on the effect of steam generator problems (or any other problems resulting in down time) on the appropriate choice of capacity factor. Moreover, as
. noted in our January 11 Memorandum and Order, Applicants have revised their ER, and we have offered Mr. Eddleman'the opportunity to amend his contention. Accordingly, Applicants' proposed wording of Eddleman 15 is accepted without change.
F.
Eddleman 41.
Mr. Eddleman objects to Applicants' formulation of Eddleman 41, and asserts that Applicants' formulation should be combined with the Staff's draft wording of Eddleman 41.
This would add to..the Applicants' formu-lation that Harris inspectors cannot read blueprints well enough to detect errors.
In our prehearing conference order, we stated that we were accept-ing the contention that there exist defective hanger welds that have been improperly inspected and approved. Applicants' proposed wording correctly limits Eddleman 41 to the specific issue we admitted for litigation. Therefore, Applicants' proposed wording of Eddleman 41 is accepted without change.
G.
Eddleman 45.
Mr. Eddleman objects to Applicants' deletion from Eddleman 45 of a
the " basis" (i.e., supporting argument) for the contention. We have examined Applicants' proposed wording and find it a simple and accurate statement of the issue the Board intended to accept. Applicants' proposed wording will not preclude relevant evidence or argument later on.
Accordingly, Applicants' wording of Eddleman 45 is accepted without i
change.
H.
Eddleman 64(f).
Mr. Eddleman correctly points out a typographical error in Appli-1 cants' reformation of Eddleman 64(f). Accordingly, in Applicants'
reformulation " radioactive containment" should be changed to read
" radioactive contamination."
I.
Eddleman 64(g).
In accordance with our January 11 Memorandum and Order, Eddleman 64(g) should be deleted from Applicants' codification.
J.
Eddleman 67.
Applicants' proposed wording of Eddleman 67 is a fair statement of the substance of the contention the Board intended to admit.
It will not preclude relevant evidence and argument, which could include evi-dence bearing on the amount of low-level waste to be disposed of.
Applicants' proposed wording is therefore accepted without change.
K.
Eddleman 80.
As pointed out by Mr. Eddleman, the last phrase of Applicants' formulation of Eddleman 80 should read:
"and below 10~ of these values in normal operation."
L.
Eddleman 83 and 84.
As Mr. Eddleman correctly points out, the chemical compounds listed as "NC13, NHC12 and NH2Cl" (Applicants' Motion, Appendix A, p. 21, 1st line) should read "NCl, NHCl and NH Cl."
In addition, the last 3
2 2
sentence ("All of these also include balancing of these effects in NEPA cost-benefit, but that should be a separate contention") adds nothing to the contention and should be deleted.
M.
Eddleman 116.
In accordance with our January 11 Memorandum and Order, Eddleman 116 should be added to Applicants' codification, to read as follows:
e.
B,
t Eddleman 116.
The fire hazard analysis of section 9.5A (Appendix) in the FSAR does not address the. availability of control and power to the safety equipment.
In general, the FSAR fire section 9.5 is vague, referring to " fire resistive" or " Fire resistant" materials without specifying them or.how long they resist fire in the cable trays, relying on surface flammability tests not shown to represent actual plant conditions or comparable conditions. Another vague statement is that fire barriers are used "where practical" without defining practical or stating the criteria to decide where a fire barrier is or is not practical (and what type-of fire barrier should be used).
FSAR 9.5.1.1.1.
The " analysis" of Appendix 9.5A does not demon-strate, as 9.5.1.1.1 claims it will, the adequacy of-other fire protection measures in all cases.
Rather, it estimates the BTU of combustible material, smoke generation and removal rate from the area, gives usually a qualitative description of some measures to mitigate or reduce fire effects, and assumes that the fire will be 3
promptly detected.(usually, no analysis of location of detection instruments, etc.) and the fire brigade will respond rapidly and put out the fire, or the automatic equipment will work. These assertions are made despite the time it. takes to get people into 4
the containment and to the fire (not well analyzed). Further, the
" analysis" of what happens if the tire spreads is generally a rationalization that it can't spread much, not an. analysis.
- See, j
egg. " Analysis of Effects of postulated fires." Somehow, the effect of a larger than postulated fire doesn't get dealt with in realistic terms. The whole analysis doesn't clearly deal with fires during an' accident, when containment would have to be isolated.
The plant firefighting capability for simultaneous fires is inade-quate, or at least unanalyzed.
N.
Eddleman 132.
{
In accordance with our January 11 Memorandum and Order, Applicants' j
codification of Eddleman 132 should be deleted and replaced by the i
following reformulation:
Applicants have failed to provide the design for a direct water level indicator for the reactor vessel.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
,k 4.=*
d' A
mss L. Kelley, Chairm pNINISTRATIVEJUDGE aD j
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 17th day of January, 1983.
.