ML20062K477
| ML20062K477 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1982 |
| From: | Baxter T CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062K471 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8208170221 | |
| Download: ML20062K477 (13) | |
Text
o 7
g 00CKETED USHRC
- 62 hb \\b AugustFrl'3fI ~58[2[]ff; l
u m, c.. - a.,. s...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,,,....,..<.-~~s"~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED CONTENTIONS Applicants herein present a status report on proposed contentions discussed during the Prehearing Conference held July 13-14, 1982 by showing 1) those contentions that have been agreed to by a petitioner or petitioners, NRC Staff and l
Applicants as litigable in this procedding; 2) those that have been withdrawn or superceded; and 3) those that are pending l
before the Board for decision.
+
6 9208170221 820813
{DRADOCK 05000400 PDR
Joint Contentions At the prehearing conference petitioners Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort (CHANGE)/ Environmental Law Project (ELP), Conservation Council of North Carolina (CCNC), Kudzu Alliance (Kudzu) and Wells Eddleman proposed a number of joint contentions which consolidated and/or superceded various contentions previously proposed by the four petitioners --
" Joint Contentions of Intervenors" dated July 13, 1982 (" Joint Contentions").
During conference negotiations, Petitioners, Staff and Applicants agreed to the wording of Joint Contentions I (Management Capability) and VII (Steam Generators).1/
Joint 1/
Contention I (Management Capability) at Tr. 236-37:
"The Applicants have not demonstrated the adequacy of their managing, engineering, operating and maintenance personnel to safely operate, maintain and manage the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant as evidenced by their record of safety and performance at their other nuclear power facilities.
A pattern of management inadequacies and unqualified and/or inadequ-ste staff is likely to be '
reproduced at Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant and result in health and safety problems."
Contention VII (Steam Generator) following Tr. 229:
" Applicants have failed to demonstrate that the steam l
generators to be used in the Harris Plant are adequately designed and cad be operated in a manner consistent with the public health and safety and ALARA exposure to maintenance personnel in light of (1) vibration problems which have developed in Westinghouse Model D-4 steam gen-erators; (2) tube corrosion and cracking in other Westinghouse steam generators with Inconel-600 tubes and/or carbon steel support plates and AVT water chem-istry; (3) present detection capability for loose metal or other foreign objects; and (4) existing tube failure ana-lyse s. "-
l I
l 1
Contentions II (Health Effects),2/
III, IV, V and VI await ruling by the Board.3/
Following is a listing of the proposed contentions of Petitioners Kudzu, CCNC, CHANGE /ELP and Mr. Eddleman, showing the status of the original contentions.
Where contentions were discussed on the record, a transcript reference is provided.
Kudzu Proposed contentions as set forth in " Kudzu Alliance's Supplement to Petition to Intervene," dated May 14, 1982:
Status Contention Transcript No.
Pages Superceded /
14/
Withdrawn 4-7 67, 238 8-10 67-68 14-15 77 i
Awaits Ruling 2,3 63-67 11 72-73 12 73-77 13 77-79 2/ 'As stated in " Applicants Response to ' Joint Contentions of Intervenors' Dated July 13, 1982 -- Contention II.d. (HEALTH EFFECTS)" filed contemporaneously, Applicants do not object to admission of paragraphs a, b,
c, e and f of Contention II.
Staff opposes admission of Contention II.
See Tr. 247-50.
3/
Joint Contentions were discussed during the Prehearing Conference at the following transcript pages:
Joint Contention I (Tr. 235-43); II (Tr. 244-58); III (Tr. 259-67); IV (Tr.
267-72, 290-92); V (Tr. 272-74); VI (Tr. 277-85); VII (Tr.
228-35).
4/
Superceded per " Joint Contentions.". -.
CCNC Proposed contentions as set forth in " Conservation Council of North Carolina Supplement to Petition to Intervene," dated May 14, 1982:
Status Contention Transcript No.
Pages Withdrawn /
5,6 183 Superceded 7
183-186 8,9 186-90 13 197 15 203 21 210, 238 Avaits Ruling 1
169 2
169-71
[
i 3
171-73 4
173-83 10 190-93 11 194-95 125/
195-98 14 198-203 16-18 203-208 19 208 t
20 209-210 5/
During the Prehearing Conference, NRC Staff stated that it does not oppose admission of CCNC contention 12.
(Tr. 195) 1 -,
_m
~__ _-
CHANGE /ELP Proposed contentions as stated in " Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene," dated May 14, 1982 and " Amendment to Petition for Leave to Intervene of Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort (CHANGE) and Environmental Law Projection (ELP),"
dated May 24, 1982:
Status Contention Transcript No.
Pages Withdrawn /
1 292 Superceded 5,6,7 296 10 297 11, 12, 13(a & b) 300 15 301 17 306 18 307,315 19,20 315 21,22 238, 315-16 23,24 316 26,27 320 29-33 232 34-35 321 36,37 238) 321-22 42,43,45 324 47-59 325 60 325-26 61-67 326 Withdrawn /
Superceded, continued 68 326-27 69 327 70,71 330 73a 331-32 74,76,77 332 80 333 Admitted /
44 324 Agreed to Awaits Ruling 2
292-94 3
294-96 4
296 8
296-97 9
297-99 14 300 16 301-06 25 316-20 28 320-21 38 322 39,40 323 l
41,46 323-24 72 331 73b 333-38 75 332 78,79 332 W
Wells Eddleman Proposed contentions as set forth in " Supplemental to Petition to Intervene," dated May 14, 1982, " Amendments to Contentions and Additional Contentions," dated June 5,
- 1982, and "6/28/82 amendment to petition to intervene by Wells Eddleman, pro s_e," dated June 28, 1982:
E A
Status Contention Transcript No.
Pages 1
Withdrawn /
3 354 Superceded 13p/
18 232 19 232 37 c, f,
h, 244-45 9,1C
~
447/
46 374-76 l
47 376-77 51 432 i
70 427 913/
101 238 1029f s/
Superceded per " Joint Contentions."
7/
Id.
8f Id.
9/
Id.
l.. - - -.
Withdrawn /
Superceded, continued 106 427 112 232,423 113 232 114 232 123 238 127 238 127X 238 Admitted /
13210/
Agreed to 425-26, 448-49 Awaits Ruling 1,2 4
354-58 5
6 427-28 7
358-64 8
372-74 9,10 430 11,12 14 364-66 15 366-68 10/
In their July 13, 1981 " Response to Amendments (Second Set) to Contentions of Petitioner Wells Eddleman," Applicants agreed to a reformulated version of Contention 132 as f'ollows:
Applicants have failed to provide the design for a direct water level indicator for the reactor vessel.
NRC Staff stated it had no objection to admission of Contention 132 as reformulated by Applicants (Tr. 448-49).
. I
y_
4 4
_ou,a_gwn 4
~-->*bu-MA+-
ed
-' ~
a b
+4 s
-"5 nn-nA--
a-4 M*-
A41-A=
a
&A II i
4 I
f 16,17,20-32 33 428-29 I
i-34-36 l
f 37 a,d 368-72 38-40 1
l a
41 391-97 I
I 42 388-97 i
43,45,48-50,52,53 j
I Awaits Ruling, continued 54-1,54-2 377-80 l
l
)
55,56 i
57 380-81 l
j 58 l
i i
59 381-82 t
i i
60 381-82 61-63 L
f 64 381-82 L
64X 383-88
[
s 65-68
}
69 372-74 1
71,72 i
I 73 429 74-77 r
78 400,413-18 3
79-83 84 397-400 r
t t
l 1
85-86 87 418 88-90,92-100,102 103 431 104 105 418-23 107-111 115 423-25 Awaits Ruling, continued 116 427-29 117-119 120 430-31 121,122,124-126X, 128-131 133-140 Lotchin, CANP and Wilson Contentions proposed by Phyllis Lotchin in her May 14, 1982 " Contentions Filed in the Licensing Proceedings of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant" remain before the Board for ruling.
Ms. Lotchin's proposed contentions were discussed during the Prehearing Conference at Tr.79-105.
Citizens Against Nuclear Power (CANP) proposed Contention 7 as stated in CANP's June 28,,1982 " Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene" awaits ruling by the Board and was discus-sed during the Prehearing Conference at Tr. 307-15.11/
Staff and Applicants have agreed to admit Intervenor Richard Wilson's Contention I(a)-(d).12/
The remaining contentions proposed by Dr. Wilson in his May 14, 1982
" Contentions of Petitioner to Intervene, Richard D. Wilson M.D."
await ruling by the Board and were disc'ussed at the following transcript pages:
i 11/
Mr. Slater Newman, CANP representative, stated that CANP proposed contentions 1-6 would not be discussed at the Prehearing Conference because they were offered in support of the contentions proposed by Mr. Eddleman.
(Tr. 48) 12/
Dr. Wilson agreed that the underlined portion is the basic statement of his contention.
(Tr. 106)
That portion as stated in his May 14, 1982 filing is as follows:
(a) The extent and impact of chlorine dispersal is not adequately defined. (b) The chlororganic compounds dispur-sed in cooling tower evaporation may be toxic to the sur-rounding biosphere.
(c) The sulphuric acid and hydrogen peroxide added to correct pH may be toxic to the surround-ing biosphere.
(d) These 'other chemicals' could include biocides added to cooling tower water which could be toxic to the biosphere."
Applicants in their June 15, 1982 " Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene by Richard D. Wilson, M.D."
suggest the following wording for Wilson Contention I(a)-(d):
, Applicants have not adequately considered the impacts on the surrounding orchard ecosystems (including impacts on plants and bees) of the following components which may be present'in cooling tower vapor dispersed to the environs of the Harris Plant: (a) chlorine, (b) chlororganic com-pounds, (c) sulphuric acid and hydrogen peroxide, and (d) any other biocides that will be added to the cooling tower water which could be toxic to the orchard ecosystems.
Status Contention Transcript No.
Pages Awaits Ruling I(e)-(f)13/
108-15 I(g) 115-23 I(h) 123-25 II(a)-(h) 125-35 III(a),(b) 135-46 IV A 146 IV B 155-57 IV C ( e-), ( f )
157-62 IV D(f) 162-66 Respectfully submitted, W
George F. Trowbridg'e, P.C.
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
John H. O'Neill, Jr.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &
TROWBRIDGE~
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 13/
NRC Staff in its June 22, 1982 "NRC Staff Response to Supplemental Statements of Contention by Petitioners to Intervene," originally stated that Wilson contention I(f.)
should be admitted.
During the Prehearing Conference, however, Mr. Wilson redefined his contention and NRC Staff responded they now see no issue in controversy.
(Tr. 112-13) _
i t
i Richard E.
Jones Samantha Francis Flynn j
CAROLINA POWER.&. LIGHT COMPANY I
P.O.
Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina j
(919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicants-
[
Dated:
August 13, 1982 t
t i
l i
1 4
h i-P 1
1 I
I
.e t
1 a
l 1
h
\\
I I
t i
F
.t i
i k...
~.
, - -