ML20077S442
| ML20077S442 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1983 |
| From: | Sean Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309220087 | |
| Download: ML20077S442 (5) | |
Text
..
,i
%g CORR %
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.gKgTED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSDB)BM Mi :20 In the Matter of
)
f[0hMET NG jf[
S
}
BRANCH CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
Docket Nos. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
50-401 OL
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units.1 & 2)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO INTERVENOR WELLS EDDLEMAN'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RE APPLICANTS' RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES ON CONTENTION 45 By a " Motion to Compel Discovery re Eddleman 45" dated September 8,1983, Intervenor Wells Eddleman has requested this Board to compel Applicants to provide additional responses to certain of his Interrogatories on Contention 45.
Applicants respectfully submit this brief response. Applicants' response is due this September 19, 1983.
1.
Applicants' objection which precedes their response to Interrogatory 45-1(a) expresses their view that prior plant and system design phases are irrelevant to Contention 45.
Applicants wish to explain, however, that they have answered Interrogatory 45-1(a) to the fullest extent possible. That Interrogatory did not expressly request information related to " original" plant design.
Applicants prefaced their response to Interrogatory 45-1(a) with the objection as a precaution against a possible impileit reference to prior design phases. Interrogatory 45-1(c) did refer expressly to
" original" design, and Applicants did respond to that interrogatory while reiterating the objection. Mr. Eddleman has not sought to compel a further response to Interrogatory 45-1(c).
- 2. Contention 45 as adn.itted by the Board is directed towards the adequacy of the design of three specific systems, M., feedwater, ECCS and Main Steam System, to 8309220087 830919
{DRADOCK 05000400 PDR
withstand possible water hammer events. The Board admitted Contention 45 in the following words:
Accordingly, the portion of Eddleman 45 that alleges a safety problem because the feedwater, ECCS, main steam system, and their components are not properly designed, constructed and tested against water hammer is accepted.
Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Conference),
September 22,1982 at 50-51 (emphasis in original). Applicants have understood the reference to " testing in the Board's Order as denoting pre-operational testing.
Contention 45 has been codified in the following manner:
SHNPP design cannot comply with the results of the Plant Water Hammer Experience Report, PWR S.G.
feedwater, ECCS & Main Steam System water hammer events evaluation (including systems effect) and potential resolutions now being prepared by NRC, and the CR and NUREG reports on the water hammer question.
See Memorandum and Order (Addressing Applicants' Motion for Codification), January ~
17,1983 at 4; Applicants' Motion for Codification of Admitted Contentions, December 17,1982 at 17.
The fact that Applicants have furnished the NRC statf with information concerning operational controls cannot have the effect of enlarging the scope of the contention beyond that which has been admitted for litigation in this proceeding.
Finally, Applicants believe it necessary to respond to Mr. Eddleman's suggestion that Applicants have somehow conceded the relevance of operational controls to this contention by virtue of their interrogatory 45-6(a) to Mr. Eddleman served on January 1, 1983 which relates to Section 10.4.9.4 of the FSAR. Applicants' counsel, S. F. Flynn, has acknowledged to Mr. Eddleman that Interrogatory 45-6(a) was inartfully drawn and that to the extent that it can be viewed as referring to more than pre-operating testing (which is discussed in Section 10.4.9.4) it was inappropriate. Mr. Eddleman also refers to Applicants' reference in their Interrogatories to him to their response to Staff Question 440.49 as evidence of Applicants' recognition of the relevance of opera ional controls to.
.. =.
i th'is Contention. Each of Applicants' Interrogatories to Mr. Eddleman based on the response to Question 440.49, however, related solely to design of ECCS piping.
Based upon the foregoing, Applicants respectfully request that Mr. Eddleman's motion be denied.
This the /f day of L b,1983.
/
w
< ~
~
4afnantha Francis Flynn
()
Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Attorneys for Applicants:
Thomas A. Baxter John H. O'Neill, Jr.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-6517 1 -
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U{'$M E
NC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 19AlWP 21 m 20 In the Matter of
)
[CMfifNO E v1b['
C F
)
BRANCH CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL
)
POWER AGENCY
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-400 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Pcwer Plant,
)
50-401 OL Units 1 & 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Answer to Intervenor Wells Eddleman's Motion to Compel Discovery re Applicants' Responses to Interrogatories on Contention 45" were served this 19th day of September,1983 by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.
60 2
x n
. a-
/' Samantha Francis Flynn /
Associate General Counsel Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Dated: September 19,1983
~---
p.
-3
.,,9
=
SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of North Carolina U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 307 Granville Road Washington, D. C. 20555 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright M. Travis Payne, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Edelstein and Payne U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 12643 Washington, D. C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Richard D. Wilson Atomic Safety and Lic' nsing Board 729 Hunter Street e
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apex, North Carolina 27502 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Wells Eddleman Charles A. Barth, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street Myron Karman, Esquire Durham, North Carolina 27705 7
Office of Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas A. Baxter, Esquire Washington, D. C. 20555 John H. O'Neill, Jr.,Isquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Docketing and Service Section 1800 M Street, N.W.
Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C. 20036 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Phyllis Lotchin 108 Bridle Run Mr. Daniel F. Read, President Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort Bradley W. Jonas, Esquire Post Office Box 524 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Region II 101 Marietta Street Dr. Linda Little Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Governor's Waste Management Board 513 Albemarle Building Robert P. Gruber 325 Salisbury Street Executive Director Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Public Staff North Carolina Utilities Commission Ruthanne G. Miller, Esquire Post Office Box 991 Atomic Safety and Licensing Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Board Penel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 i
-. ----