ML20091D697

Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue on Eddleman Contention 45.Related Correspondence

ML20091D697
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	05/25/1984
From:	Sean Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20091D695	List: ML20091D691 ML20091D697 ML20091D714 ML20091D719 ML20091D726 ML20091D733 ML20091D741 ML20091D749
References
OL, NUDOCS 8405310441
Download: ML20091D697 (3)

Text

.

c. { ELATED CCaRESi'ONDQ C0CMETEP U$hhc UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN Wll A10:15 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS810N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE 148D(0 BOARDJ vv In the Matter of )

)

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' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD ON EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 45 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.749(a), Applicants state, in support of their Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 45, that there is no genuine issue to be heard with respect to the following material facts:

1. Eddleman Contention 45 states that SHNPP design cannot comply with the results of the Plant Water Hammer Experience Report, PWR S.G. (steam generator).

feedwater, ECCS & Main Steam System water hammer events evaluation (heluding systems effect) and potential resolutions now being prepared by NRC, and the CR and NUREG reports on the waterhammer question. See Applicants' Motion for Codification ,

of Admitted Contentions, dated December 17, 1982, Appendix A,.' approved in Memorandum and Order (Addressing Applicants' Motion for Codification), dated January 17,1983. -

2. The NRC Staff has concluded that water hammer in nuclear power plants is not as signifloant a safety issue as was once thought. Evaluation of Water Hammer Occurrence in Nuclear Power Plants, Technical Findings Relevant to Unresolved Safety lasue A-1, NUREG-0927, Revision 1, March 1984 at 1-4.

7_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ - - _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _

3. The NRC has found that of the reported ine! dents of water hammer in nuclear plants in the United States, none of the events placed a plant in a faulted or emergency condition and none resulted in a radioactive release. & at 1-5.

4. Water hammers continue to occur but at low frequency. Id. at 1-5.  !

5. It is not ' feasible to totally eliminate water hammer because of conditions  !

I' inherent in the design and operation of nuclear plant systems. & at 1-5.

6. The incidence of water hammer in nuclear plants has declined considerably in [

recent years due to the implementati.,n of various design and operational modifications.

& at 1-6.

i

7. Holling water reactors (BWR's) have a higher incidence of water hammer events than PWR's. & at 1-6.

8. The frequency and severity of water hammers can be significantly reduced through proper design features. & at 1-6. ,

9. The NRC Staff has not recommended that design modifications relative to i water hammer be required for existing nuclear plants or plants under construction. See Regulatory Analyses of US! A-1," Water llammer", NUREG-0993, Revision 1, March 1984 at 4.

i

10. The steam generators used in the Shearon Harris plant are the Westinghouse Model D-4 preheat type. Carlson affidvalt at 115.

11. The Shearon Harris steam generators have been designed to minimize the potential and consequences of water hammer in the steam generators. See Carlson affidavit at 1 1 17, 23, 24, 29, 39, 31, 32. i

12. The Harris plant main feedwater system, the auxiliary feedwater system and -

the feedwater bypass system have been designed to minimise the potential and

! consequences of water hammer in those systems. See, Carlson affidavit at 1 34, 35, 36,  ;

38-45; Shah affidavit at 113,14,18 and 17.

13. The Harris plant ECCS system has been designed to minimize the potential

. o 1

and consequer.ces of water hammer in that system. Carloson affidavit at 146_511 Shah  ;

affadavit at 118.

14. The llarris plant main steam system has been designed to minimize the potential and consequences water hammer in that system. Shah affidavit at 119 and 10.

15. Applicants'initialTest Program for the liarris plant is adequate to ensure that the ECCS, main steam, feedwater systems and their components will perform in accordance with their design bases, including those relevant to water hammer and to detect any design deficiencies that might exist. Sco affidavit of C.S. Illnnant.

16. Applicants will verify that the ECCS, main steam, feedwater systems have been constructed in accordance with design documents. Affidavit of floland M. Parsons and affidavit of David C. McCarthy.

17. Appilcants will operato the llarris plant in accordance with the Westinghouso split feedwater delivery criteria specified in the affidavit of Itobert W. Carlson unless those criteria are modified by futuro vendor recommendation. Affidavit of Joseph M.

1 Collins.

Ilespectfully submitted, V se a$b eL. un 4Xiitantha F. Flynn v Associato General Counsol Carolina Power & !lght Company Post Offico llox 1551 Italolgh, North Carolina 27602 (010) 830-7707 Thomas A. Ilaxter John li. O'Nolli, Jr.

Sil AW, l'r! TM AN, POTr8 & Tit 0WilitIDUE 1800 M Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20030 (202) 822-1000 Counsel for Applicants Dated: Mny 25,1984