ML20034G745
| ML20034G745 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1993 |
| From: | Culver N SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#193-13679 92-669-03-OLA-2, 92-669-3-OLA-2, OLA-2, NUDOCS 9303110134 | |
| Download: ML20034G745 (9) | |
Text
.=.
/'j347 7'f r
recMiw USNPC i
'93 WR -5 P4 :05 i
SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE before the cng; idi irn, ?m i
ATOMIC LICENSING BOARD i
In the matter of l
Pccific Gas and Electr:c Co.
Docket No. 50-275-OLA _ 2,,
Dicbio Conycn Nuclear Power Plant 50-323-OLA Unit Nos. I cnd 2 ASLEP No. 92-ESS-03-OLA-2 Son Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Reply to PGSE's Preliminary Response and Motion for Protective Order i
On February 3, 1993, the Son Luis Obispo Mothers for Pecce.C"SLOMFF"]
filed a request for entry to the Diablo Ccnyon Nuclecr Pcwer Plant C"DCNPP"] for purposes of inspection, measuring, and photogrcphing, for observation of interim fire protection mecsures and maintenance and
[
i surveillance cctivities and for other activities os authorized in the I
provisions of 10 CFR 2.741 Ec][2].
On February 12, 1993, Pccific Gcs &
Electric Co. C"PG&E"] filed a preliminary response and motion for protective order, to which SLOMFP hereby replies. 1 t
I. Contention U: Thermo-Log Interim Fire Protection Measures i
PGSE cbjects to certcin aspects of SLOMFP's entry request on the grounds thct the request gces beyond the scope of Ccntenticn U.
In porticulcr, PG&E objects to SLOMPF's request to the extent that it seeks to hcVe cccess to "ecch cnd every fire barrier containing Thermo-Lcg materic1 at the plant," cnd disputes SLOMFP's request to cugment its inspecticn to include other crecs which are connected with systems and crecs where 1
" Pacific Gas & Electric Ccmpany's Prelimincry Respcnse to Disccvery Request" filed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.741 Cc][2] cnd Motion for Protective Order CFebruary 12, 1993J C"PGEE Mction for Prctective Crder"J.
SLCMFP's response to PG&E's Motion for Protective Order was initiclly due on February 29, 1993, but SLCMFP cbtcined c cne week extension of time tc i
[). C))
""EU" 9303110134 930303 PDR ADOCK 05000275 O
1 1
Thermo-Log is located. 2 PGSE Motion for Prctective'Crder et 5.
PGSE'cisc :
rejects SLOMFP's suggested list of five representctive creas to be inspected, Cc] Fire Arec 5-A-9, Unit 1 480 volt A.C.
switchgect rccm; Cb]
Fire Area 5-B-4, Unit 2 980 volt A.C.
switchgear recm; Cc] Fire Area 30-A-
]
f 5,
Units 1 cnd 2 intoke structure (if this structure contcins the Aux 111 cry Sclt Ucter system pumps and related components]; Cd] Fire Arec 10, Unit.1 l
12 KU A.C.
switchgecr room. Id.
Finally, PG&E objects to ELCMFP's request to excmine the control room, where fire alcrms are dispicyed, ld.
Fcr cli cf these objections, PG&E's general crgument is thct SLOMFP's requests i
" hove nothing to do with how well PG&E has implemented fire watches ct DCPP." Ida PGBE crgues that SLOMFP must be limited to these crecs in which Thermo-Lcg is instclied cnd interim compensatcry mecsures are implemented.
l lda
-i SLOMFP believes that the scope of Contention'U includes c11 matters j
relating to the adequccy of PGSE's interim compensatory fire protection r
I mecsures Ecr DCNPP, including such issues os whether the extent cnd f
coverage of the progrcm is adequate, whether it is designed in c ucy that f
f fire watches can be carried out in on effective manner, and whether fire-l
?
watchers con and will perform their assigned tcsks odequately.
- However, i
PGBE cpparently interprets the scope cf Contentien U to include only the t
limited examples provided in the contention's bcsis, i.e.,
" missed fire
[
watches and certain open fire doors."
PG&E Motion fer Protective Crder et I
M.
This view of Contention V, which is so ncrrow cs to reduce the 6
5~~~~5n 51ght of the Ecct that inspection Of ecch cnd every 1cccticn where
~
Thermo-Lag is installed could be very time-consuming. SLCMFP proposed to negoticte with PGSE for. inspection cf a mutually agreed upcn set cf systems !
cnd plcnt creas..
Requect for entry at 2-3.
Mcwever, the pcrties must be oble to choose this limited set cf crecs from the full spectrum cf crecs in !
which Thermo-Lcg is located.
l r
fs contention to o virtual nullity, is inconsistent with the Eccrd's crder cdmitting the contention and NRC regulations governing the cdmissicn of contentialis.
The scope of Contention U can be determined from the langucge cf the contention and the Board's order cdmitting it.
Contention U csserts th:t:
Thermo-Log mcterici fails os a fire barrier and, in fact, pcses c hozord in the event of a fire or on earthqucke.
Until this situation is adequately resolved, the license for Dicblo Canyon Nuclect Pcaer Plant should certainly not be extended.
SLOMFP Contentions ct 28.
On the basis of Contention V, SLOMFP cited l
safety hczords ccused by the use of Thermo-Lag in nuclear power plcnts, and criticized the compensatory mecsures taken by PG&E in response to URC 7
~i Bulletin 92-01, Supp.
1.
In particulcr, SLOMFP chclienged the relicbility of human observers and gcve several supporting examples of human errcrs-in l
fire detection cnd prevention.
In ruling on the contention, the Sacrd found " insufficient basis for the claim concerning the generic resciution of the Thermo-Log issue, os cpplied at Dicblo Canyon," cnd rejected that part of the contention.
Mcwever, the Eocrd found:
the portion of the contention opplying to the interim corrective l
cction stands on c different footing.
Facts cre provided to support this espect of the contention --
i.e.,
missed fire uctches cnd
~
disablement of fire barriers, together with the use cf Therm:-Lc; ct Diablo Canyon and the existence of prcblems with Thermo-Lcg.
Moreover, there is not basis for requiring MFP to demonstrate that the interim mecsures will become moot by the recapture period, as esserted by the Staff.
Those measures are scheduled to extend indefinitely, l
until superseded by c generic resolution of the issue.
f i
For these reasons, MFP has met cll opplicable requirements for setting forth a contention concerning the interim fire-protection mecsures.
We could provide various forms of relief, ranging from license denial to conditions designed to improve fire protection pending generic resolution of the Thermo-Lcg issue.
Accordingly, this contention is i
cccepted, limited to the litigation of interim fire-protection measures.
Prehearing Conference 0:
37-39 EJcrucry 21, 19933 [ emphasis cdded).
j In o later order, the Licu 1g Bccrd clcrified that the scope of the L
b contention does not include the " generic validity" of the interim mecsures ordered by NRC to compensate for the fcilure of Thermo-Log, but "the adequacy of the Applicont's cdherence to interim measures "
Memorandum cnd-Order [ Discovery and Hearing Schedules] [ February 9, 1993]. -Thus, while SLOMFP may nct chc11enge the " generic" wisdom of the type cf compensatory mecsures chosen by NRC cs on interim substitute for on effective fire I
barrier, the odequccy cnd effectiveness of interim compensctory mecsures r
token at CCNPP cre open to challenge.
In this regcrd., it is impcrtont to note that in Supp. I to Eu11etin 92-01, the NRC did not prescribe specific details for interim fire protection at DENPP or any other plant.
Ecch' j
licensee was left to design its own plcn.
Thus, the question of whether i
l DCNPP's interim fire protection measures are cdequate involves not just the issue cf whether fire watch personnel con carry out DCNFP's plcn, but whether the plcn itself is adequate to meet the requirements cf S-pp. 1 to Bulletin 92-01.
PG&E cttempts to restrict the scope of Contention U to the specific excmples provided in the bcsis of the contention.
However, such a limitation is inconsistent with the broader icnguage cf the Ecced's Preheoring Conference Order, which allows SLCMFP c hearing on "the interim.
Fire protection mecsures."
Moreover, cs the Licensing Eccrd pointed out in admitting Contention I, such a narrow interpretction of a contention _would not square with the NRC's cdmissibility stondcrd, which "dces not call upon the intervenor to mcke its case ct (the contention-submitting] stage of t he prcceeding, but rcther to indicate what facts cr expert opinicn. be it one fact or opinion er many, of which it is owcre gt_tbyt_pp10t_1D_t10e which provide the bcsis for its contention."
Preheoring Conference Order.ct 25, quoting 59 Fed. Reg. ot 33,170 Cemphasis in criginc1].
Thus, in the. basis
t i
I i
f
?
to Contention V, SLOMFP raised legitimate questions regarding the f
reliability of human fire watches as en effective substitute for fire t
I barriers.
The specific examples provided in support of that proposition l
cannot be used cs the limits of the contention, Accordingly, there is no basis for PG&E's various objections to SLOMFP's site visit request.
First, PG&E has no grounds for crguing thct the inspection of DCNPP should be limited only to those crecs where Thermo-Lag is installed and interim compensatory measures have been implemented.
PGBE Motion for Protective Order at 2.
Such a limitation would prevent l
['
SLOMFP from evolucting the adequacy of PG&E's interim fire protection t
measures with respect to the question of whether PG&E has correctly
[
r b
identified cll crecs where fire watches cre needed and provided for' fire j
l watches in those crecs.
For the some reason, SLOMFP should be able to i
excmine crecs near Thermo-Lcg installations, to which fires could spread' i
through foiled Thermo-Log barriers.
SLOMFP needs to inspect and measure all crecs of the plant where fire watches are required or needed in crder to evolucte such matters related to the effectiveness of fire watches cs cccessibility, visibility, and distances that must be traveled to conduct j
fire wctches.
l l
Similcrly, PG&E has no grounds for objecting to having SLOMFP inspect ony of the five crecs specifically listed in SLOMFP's entry request:.
Each 5
of these crecs was chcsen beccuse it hcs been designated for hourly fire watches, and beccuse all but one crea hos no fire suppression system at
}
c11.
See PGSE Response to Supplement 1 to NRC Eulletin 52-01, Attachment 1 Tcble 1 [ September 25, 15523 Cottoched].
Agcin, SLOMFP hcs c legitimate interest in examining these crecs to determine how effectively they con be monitored by fire watches.
It is also relevant for SLOMFP to inspect the j
'r
L i
F t
l i
control room, where the adequccy of interim fire protection mecsures depends on the ability of operators to respond to fire watch information and smoke detector alorms.
Accordingly, SLOMFP requests the Licensing Board to reject PGSE's request for o protective order barring SLOMFP from gaining cccess to the r
crocs described cbove.
II. Interviews with Maintenance and Fire Watch Personnel t
PGSE objects to SLOMFP's request to informally interview maintencnce cnd fire watch personnel; thus, SLOMFP will take any discovery of these i
individuals through formal means.
i t
Respectfully submitted, r
Ch Nancy C ver, President Scn Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace j
i I
March 3, 1993 i
i l
i
)
h l
l i
r-s m
O Table 1 196781 Thermo-Lag Installations Thermo-Lag Compensatory Fire Fire Area (FA)
Installation Detection Suppression Actions Duration (minutes)
- 1. FA 3-BB One 3* 4 conduit; box Smoke Sprinklers Hourly Fire 17 (Unit I made from pre-formed Watch Containment panels for one l' 4 Penetration conduit; boxes made Area) from pre-formed panels for 5 junction boxes
- 2. FA 3-CC Two 3* 4 conduits; Smoke Sprinklers Hourly Fire 11 (Unit 2 boxes made from pre-Watch Containment formed panels for 6 Penetration Area) junction boxes
- 3. FA 3-L One 4* 4 conduit; box None None Continuous Fire 15 (85 Foot Elevation made from pre-formed Watch, or Hourly Auxiliuy panels for 1 junction Fire Watch with Building) box Temporary 8-hour Lights to ensure a lighted path in case of Thermo-Lag failure causing loss of vital lights 4.
FA 4-B One 4* 4 conduit Smoke Sprinklers Hourly Fire Watch 32 (Access Control)
- 5. FA 5-A-4 One 2* 4 conduit Smoke None Hourly Fire Watch 34 (Unit 1480 V Switchgear Room)
- 6. FA 5-B-4 One 2* 4 conduit Smoke None Hourly Fire Watch 34 (Unit 2 480 V Switchgear Room) 7.
FA 22-C Two 2" 4 conduits None Sprinklers Continuous Fire 9
(Unit 2 Diesel Watch, or Portable Generator Detection System Corridor) with Hourly Fire Watch G. FA 30-A-5 Individual boxes made Smoke High pressure Hourly Fire Watch 19 (Units 1 and 2 from pre-formed panels CO for 2
Intake Structure) for two l' 4 conduits, circulating two 2* 4 conduits, and water pump four 3* 4 conduits; motors boxes made from pre-formed panels for 2 junction boxes 5846S/85K
Table I ggg7gg Thermo-Lag Installations (cont'd)
Thermo-Lag Compensatory Fire Fire Area (FA)
Installation Detection Suppression Actions Duration (minutes) 9.
FA 10 Thermo-Lag /Pyrocrete Smoke None Hourly Fire 23 (Unit 1 - 12 kV Barrier Watch Switchgear Room)
- 10. FA 20 Thermo-Lag /Pyrocrete Smoke None Hourly Fire 23 (Unit 2 - 12 kV Barrier Watch Switchgear Room)
- 11. FA 13-E/Il-B-2 Partial Wall constructed None/None None/None Continuous Fire 2 min /
(107 Foot of pre-formed Hermo-Watch, or Ponable 2 min Elevation Turbine Lag panels Detection System j
Building) with Hourly Fire Watch i
i i
5046S/85K
L f I. E f
"duw Certificate of Service 30 WR -5 P4 :05 i
I hereby certify that copies of the foregczng San LuisiObispojMothers for i
Peace Reply to PG&E's Preliminary Response and Motion'f6rTPrhfe'ctive Order F'?st class.
i have been served upon the following persons by U.S.
- mcil, Office of Ccemission Appellate Administrctive Judge Adjudication Chcries Eechhcefer, Chcirnon U.S.
Nuclect Regulatcry Commission Atomic Scfety cnd Licensing Eccrd Washington, DC'20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatcry Commission Wcshington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Jerry Kline Administrctive Judge Atomic Scfety and Licensing Eccrd Frederick J.
Shan U.S.
Nuclecr Regulatory Commission Atomic Scfety and Licensing Eccrd Ucshington, DC 20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Wcshington, DC 20555 Edwcrd O'Neill Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
Peter Arth, Jr.
Office of the Genercl Counsel Trumon Burns U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert Kinesian Washington, DC 20555 Peter G.
Fcirchild. Esq.
California Public Utilla es Commission Joseph E.
- Knotts, Jr.,
Esq.
505 Ucn Ness Avenue Winston & Strewn Son Francisco, CA SS102 1900 L Street, N.W.
Ucshington, DC 20005 i
Adjudicatory File Secretcry cf the Ecmmission U.S.
Nuclecr Regulatory Commission Dccketing cnd Service Eranch Washington, DC 20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulctcry Commissicn Ucshington, DC 20555 Rchert R.
Wellington, Esq.
Dichlo Canycn Independent Safety Ccmmittee 857 Cass Street, Suite D Monterey, CA S3940 Christopher Ucener, Esq.
Richard Locke, Esq.
Pccific Gcs and Electric Cc.
77 Beale Street Son Frcncisco. CA SS105 Octed Mcrch 3, 1993, San Luis Obispo County, CA Jill ZamEk h1