ML20077N401

Response to W Eddleman 830831 five-factor Test Re Eddleman Contentions on Site Emergency Plan & Detailed Control Room Design Review.Filing Untimely.Contention 142 Does Not Refer to NUREG-0737,Suppl 1.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20077N401
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	09/09/1983
From:	Oneill J CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309130078
Download: ML20077N401 (8)

Text

'

4 g

k V .

September 9, 1983 (gED

/ #3 ne 12 mi:09 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIhf7fNG 5 Ik[*

-- BRANCH 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) )

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO "5 FACTORS RE EDDLEMAN CONTENTIONS ON SITE EMERGENCY PLAN AND DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW (DCRDR)"

Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal. Power Agency hereby briefly respond to Intervenor Wells Eddleman's-pleading of August 31, 1983, denominated: "5 factors re Eddleman Contentions on Site i

EMERGENCY PLAN and Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) "

'(" August 31 Pleading") .

In Mr. Eddleman's January 8, 1983 pleading - " Wells

[

Eddleman's Motion Concerning DCRDR Information" (which proposed certain new contentions on Applicants Detailed Control Room

-Design Review (DCRDR)) , Mr. Eddleman also proposed three " emergency planning contentions" which he claimed were " based on NUREG-0737, Rev. 1 of 12-17-82." These three proposed contentions relate to meteorological monitoring (Contention 142), emergency response facilities -(Contention 143) and emergency and security personnel C30913OO78 830909 PDR ADOCK 05000400 .

?

c ,

I 1 .

~

+ .

levels (Contention .'144 ) . Applicants opposed these three; -

new contentions, ihter' alia, because they were untimely.

See " Applicants' Response to Intervenor Wells Eddl' aman's ,

Motion Concerning DCRDR Information and Proposed New Conten-tions," dated January 25, 1983, at 7-10. Subsequently, Mr. Eddleman purported to address the five lateness factors for Contention 143 only. See " Wells Eddleman's Response to m

1983 Updated DCRDR Including Revised and New Contentions,"

dated July 2, 1983, at 8. -Applicants noted Mr. Eddleman's failure to address the untimeliness of Contentions'142 and 144 in their pleading of July 29, 1983$and1 committed.to address tir. Eddleman's s arguments regarding timeliness of Contentions 142, 143'and"144 after l Mr. Eddleman's August 31, 1983 filing on t,he five lateness factors.

See " Applicants' Response to Proposed Cententions on the Detailed

-Control Room Design-Review (DCRDR) Proffered by Intervenor Wells Eddleman," dated July 29, 1983,<at 21..

In arguing good cause for,his untimely filing, Mr. Eddleman has done no more than state " Contentions 142-144" inclusive depend

• on NUREG-0737 Rev. 1 and cite it." August 31 Pleading at 4. With-respect to contention 143, Mr. Eddleman argues it is timely "because failure to comply with the requirements of NUREG-0737 Rev.'1'could not possibly be alleged before the' document existed." July 2, 1983 pleading, supra, at 8.

~

In fact, Contention 142;does not refer to Supplement 1 to N,UREG-0737 and, on its face,'is'not"depende t on it.

1. r e

d .

- - _i _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  ?-f_ _ __, __

m- - -.1--- - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - -

s While Contentions 143 and 144 refer to Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 -- in asserting Applicants fail to comply with certain requirements -- the issues raised in those contentions are certainly not " wholly dependent upon the content of (that) particular document."-1/The staffing levels, which Mr. Eddleman alleges in Contention 144 Applicants fail to meet, were originally promulgated in NUREG-0654 in January 1980. While it is much more difficult to determine precisely what Mr. Eddleman is alleging in Contention 143 (since the requirements he asserts Applicants fail to meet are set forth on 17 pages), in general these requirements were also previously published. In any event, Mr. Eddleman has not even attempted to show that the issues raised in contentions 142, 143 and 144 are " wholly dependent upon the content of" Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737. Given the considerable information published on emergency response facilities prior to publication of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, Mr. Eddleman certainly has not demonstrated diligence in uncovering and applying "all publicly available information to the prompt formulation of contentions."-2/ Accordingly, he has failed to 1/ Duke Power Co., et al., (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-687, 16 N.R.C. 460, 469 (1982) , vacated in part CLI-83-19, 17 N.R.C. (June 30, 1983). The abovo quoted text is the first prong of a three part test which the Commission held " con-stitutes a reasonable and useful test of the good cause factor as applied to late-filed contentions based solely on information con-tained in institutionally unavailable licensing-related documents."

CLI-83-19, supra, slip op. at 9. While it is not clear that Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 is a " licensing-related document" as contemplated by the Commission in CLI-83-19, nonetheless applying the ALAB-687 three-part test to Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 in the context of Contentions 142, 143 and 144 demonstrates the utter failure of Mr. Eddleman to meet the

" good cause" test for late-filed contentions.

2/ CLI-83-19, supra, at 11.

I show good cause for the late-filed contentions and thus had no justification for his untimeliness.

For this reason alone, and for the reasons set forth

'in. Applicants' January 25, 1983 Response, Contentions 142, 143 and 144 must be rejected.

In a cryptic note found:on the bottom of page 2 of his August 31 Pleading, Mr. Eddleman states: "Applicante still have not complied with NUREG-0737 Rev. l since they don't show how in detail the SPDS will be integrated into the DCRDR." This apparently is a reply of sorts to Applicants' Response to Contentions 132B and 132F. Applicants' July 29 Response, supra, at.7-8, 17-20. Applicants have committed to install a Safety Parameter Display System ("SPDS") that meets regulatory require-ments. Id. at 7-8. Mr. Eddleman has not pointed to any requirement that Applicants show in detail how the SPDS will be integrated into the DCRDR. He has not provided any basis for a concern that Applicants will not meet all regulatory requirements in the installation of the SPDS. Certainly, the NRC Staff will have ample opportunity to ensure that the SPDS system is properly installed in reviewing the SPDS sa'fety analysis which is to be submitted by Applicants in September 1983. Id.

Recently the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in Duke Power HCo., et al., (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) , Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Applicant and Staff Motions for Summary Disposi-tion of Contentions 16 and 19 and on Palmetto Motion for Sanctions) i

, f&

~ -

5-M

< (September 6, .1983) , slip op. at 10, had occasion to address the argument often raised by Mr. Eddleman that a commitment by the Applicants to implement detailed NRC regulatory' requirements Lis not enough. The Board in Catawba ruled:. ,

Although the implementation of the specific requirements is not yet complete, the Applicant has committed to accomplish this implementation beforel receiving an' operating license. Such commitments about-future performances'are

,e'

' appropriate for many. requirements in the operating license context, so long as there is a reasonable

- assurance that they will be met.

Mr. Eddleman's only argument'is'that since'the SPDS has not yet physically been received on site, Applicants cannot s'how that it will be properly installed and integrated-into the control room design. Mr.'Eddleman must show more -- that there is some basis for hisonaked allegation that Applicants will not meet regulatory requirements. This he.has not done with respect to the S?SS con-Etention and, for that matter, with1 respect to all contentions relating to Applicants' DCRDR.

hes ctful y su mitted,

~

?-

s Th as A. Baxter, P.C.f

\ Joh H._ O'Neill, Jr. I r \Sha , Pittman, Potts & trowbridge

}90 M' Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1090 and Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn Carolina. Power & Light Company P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicants Dated: September 9, 1983

k UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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) )

i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' -Response to "5' Factors re Eddleman Contentions on Site Emergency Plan and Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCI R)" were served this 19th day 'of . September,1983 by ' deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.

i he

~ ,

[' John t . O'Neill, Jr.

Dated: September 9, 1983 I N) -

.-- -.-~p

..-e.., ,ry.r *- r- rmvr'we M*4- e-w T-, '-v' -T- - - - '

P-T 'f* - 'V' M W e"-*v -

y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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) )

SERVICE' LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Carolina Washington, D.C. 20555 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514' Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board M. Travis Payne, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Edelstein and Payne Washington, D.C. 20555- Post Office Box 12607 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Richard D. Wilson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 729 Hunter Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Apex, North Carolina 27502

. Charles A. Barth, Esquire (4) Mr. Wells Eddleman Myron Karman, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street Office of the Executive Legal Director Durham, North Carolina 27705 l

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard E. Jones, Esquire i

Vice President and Senior Counsel Docketing and Service Section (3) Carolina Power & Light Company L

! Office of the Secretary Post Office Box 1551 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Phyllis Lotchin Mr. Daniel F. Read, President 108 Bridle Run CHANGE /ELP Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 5707 Waycross Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Dr. Linda Little Governor's Waste Management Ikard 513 Albemarle Building 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

.- . , ,.-.-,-n , - - - . . . . , , , - , , - , , , , . , - . , , ,-,,,,-n.--- -. .--.,-__..---n. ,,..--r------~.,w , , . - _

s' ' ,' S;rvica Lict

- Peg 3 Two

' Bradley W. Jones, Esquire

/ U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission

/ Region II 101 Marrietta Street

.,-- Atlanta, Georgia 30303

- Ruthanne G. Miller, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff - NCUC Post Office Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 p#

t 9

- . - , - , , - - - - - - - - ---,--,n- e , - - , - -r , , , - - ,. , - . - - . ,e-