ML20093G134
| ML20093G134 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1984 |
| From: | Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093G124 | List: |
| References | |
| 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8407230335 | |
| Download: ML20093G134 (5) | |
Text
-_
s 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA July 20,198h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h
Glenn O. Bright Y4 Dr. James H. Carpenter N 23 James L. Kelley, Chairman g
4// g
,/
In the Matter of CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT C0. et al.
)
S ar Harris Nuclear Power Plant, i
)
ASLBP No. 82-466-01
)
OL Wells Eddleman's Response re Preamble to (tevised Contention 9 The basic question is whether the revised contention on (EQ) environmental qualification of electrical equipment should admit new issues once the Applicants finally file their FSAR update on EQ.
Applicants are responsible for when that filing is made; they, not I, have caused the filing date to be inconvenient to the hearing schedule.
Applicants cite the Seabrook licensing Board's order ruling out similar language; but another board disagreed and allowed such language (WHOOPS 3, Dkt. No 50-508, Sept 27, 1983), stating (p.7)
Petitioner's proposed contention is predicated 'on the assertion that Applicant is required to comoly with 10 CPR 50.49 which provides for establishing a program for environmentally qualifying electric equipment imnortant to safety for nuclear power plaitta.
Subsection 50 49(a) places upon "(e)ach holder or each applicant for a license to operate a nuclent power plant" the requirement to establish a program for qualifying defined electrical equipment.
O My position here is the same: the burden is on the Applicants to establish S8 g0 their EQ program and to demonstrate that their electrical equipment is in fact qualified.
This Board stated (9/22/82 Order at 38) re EdJ1eman 9:
no 00 Applicants admit that they have not yet amended their FSAR to 7
show compliance with NUREG-0588... Applicants assert, however,
. 0$
that this will be done as a matter of course, and therefore m a.o suggest that the contention be dismissed."
1Filing date set per oral order of the Board in conference call
/
=2-This Board continued (Harris, 9/22/82 at 38)
We find this approach unpresuasive.
Applicants have admitted a deficiency in their PSA1(and do not reply that their equipment in fact meets the appropriate standards.
If and Wnen that deficiency is corrected, Applicants may move for partial summary disposition on this contention.
We therefore accept that portion of Eddleman 9 that alleges a deficiency in the PSAR.
(emphasis added)
I read this to mean that, even had Applicants fully remedied the deficiency in their FSAR that Eddleman 9 (as accepted) alleges, they would only be entitled to partial summary disposition (as to the issue of the FSAR itself, I think).
Applicants have not been able to even remedy the acknowledged deficiency in their own FSAR in time to meet the hearing schedule (a schedule based in considerable part on their own suggestions).
The language of the Harris Board (ibid at 38-39) states, "After Applicants amend their PSAR to reflect the qualification of their equinment, Mr. Eddleman can submit contentions of any specific inadequacies in qualification or non-compliance with the regulations based on that new material."
This langusge supports the inclusive preamble to Revised Eddleman 9.
It says the PSAR amendment should reflect the qualification of Harris equipment. And then it allows me to submit contentions concerning agg deficiencies in qualification or non-como11ance with the regulations (in EQ for Harris).
I have cooperated with Applicants in satting out specific progblems with certain systems on which they have provided me information. But they have not uroduced (and in some cases say they do not vet heve) information on certain other systems; nor have they filed the specifies of their EQ program itself.
In other words, I have done them a favor by supplying extra specifics before I was required to, based on their afavor of providing certain information.
But in so doing, I was no waiving the right that I
the Harris Board sei forth, to file on " specific inadequacies in qualification or non-compliance with the regulations" The WHOOPS 3 Board addressed the question of vagueness in a similarly l
worded contention (copy attached) directly (9-27-83 Order at 9)
Both Anplicant and Staff also object to this contention on grounds of specificity.
We see no vagueness here.
Petitioner asserts that the equipment may not withstand the environment to which it will be exposed and lists a series of reports criticizing the test program it is expected to undergo... Petitioner's mention of (a
' specific) requirement is only by way of example... and petitioner further alleges that the very lists cited by Applicant "do not provide complete information on his matter.
... We believe that adequate ground for further. inquiry has been established.
Warad=** The contention is admitted to litigation.
o
. Now, it is obvious that contentions based on the information the Applicants may file in amending their FSAR to show the qualification of their electrical equipment for Harris, must be specific themselves.
But no specifica can be described about a document that isn't avsilable yet.
This Board allowed such specifica to be filed as new contentions when the Applicants did their job of amending their FSAR.
All I am asking in leaving the preamble as I want it, is that other specifics can be alleged as new contentions when the Applicants make their filing in their FSAR.
That is what the Board has already granted, and I am simply asking that that be preserved.
Any new items would be considered contentions filed under the Board's 9/22/82 Order at 38-39.
Applicants have the burden of proogf and the burden of fixing their FSAR.
I should not be penalized because Applicants have failed so file far to gai amendments showing that Harris electrical equipment is properly environmentally qualified (or claiming to be such a showing).
TheStaff(SER,pp3-17-5fto51)hashelditemsopenonjustthe 4
qualification information.
Thus the Staff's position on the facts gives support to my position, not to the position the Staff has taken supporting Applicants on the preamble to this contention.
I hope the Staff's later filing (this date) will be more consistent.
In sum, the premable to Revised Eddleman Contention 9 simply preserves the Board's nosition of 9/22/82 on this issue: New contentions may be made when Anplicants amend their FSAR.
This position is supnorted by the WHOOPS 3 Board position cited ebove.
I should not be penalizsd for having cooperated with Applicants for their convenience.
Their own failure to get their FSAR amended was what caused the schedule difficulties that led to the talks from which Revised Eddleman 9 was s3Tithesized.
It should be left as it is.
7 tide j
Wells Eddleman
a j
CFSP 11 Petitioner contends that the Applicant has not shown that safety-relatea (electrical and mechanical) equipment and components are environ-
. mentally qualified to a degree that would provide adequate assurance that the requirements.of GDC 2 and 4 of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A are s'atisfied 7
Applicant has not demonstrated that the present testing methods used to meet applicable criteria are adequate. Dr. A. Clough, Sandia National Laboratories, has stated that "The present testing methods, underestimates the long-term effects of radiation exposure on poly;;.ers by not taking 'into account dose rete effects amd synergisms that display a
themselves only in longer test."
Industrial Research & hevelop sat, i
a l 1 I!l s
'l
J S
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of CAROLHA POWER k LIGHT Co. Et al. )
Docket 50-400 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Unit 1*
)
o.L.
CE]CIFICATEOF SERVICE hSh E*b b " h _s/Coneg sions I hereby certify that copies of n 23 p;~
and of Wells Eddleman's Response on Preamble to Revised Contention 9 c4 s HAVE been served this 20 day of July 1981, by deposit"inyj j
,{ a w..,
the US Wil, first-class postage prepaid, upon all parties whose names are listed below, except those whose nanes are arked with I
an asterisk, for whom service was acconplished by mnnn mai1 in honor of the 15th anniversary of tha fivat 1mnri4ng ne m monn-JudEes Ja-tes Kelley, Glenn Bright and Janas Carpenter (1 cgy each)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Judge Ha m Foreman US Nuclear Megulatory Commission Washin6 on DC 20555 9hf$nnesota 8*
t nv
""**E b bN George F. Trowbridge (attorney for Applicants)
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge ILuthanne G. Miller 1600 M St. NW ASLB Panel WashinEton, DC 20036 new=n v.nhinaton DC 25 5 5
[M f(M 8 ence W. perry P
Office of the Executive Legal Director N'"$4 Docke ts 50-400/hol 0.L.
O 5
C Washington DC 20555 W**hinst n DC 20740 Docketing and Service Section (3x)
D*" R'*/FLP d
CEA?E Attn Docke ts 50-hoo/h010.L.
Waleigh,f/07 waveross NC h760~6 Office of the Secretary
""* li"d* "* Littl' a
neton DC 20555 Governor's Waste Mgt. Bd.
John Munkle 513 Albemarle B1dg.
325 N. salisbun%11 St.
Rae@,
C2 Granville Rd Chapel Hill Nc 2751k hradley w. Jones Robert Gruber USNR0 Region II
'Travi s Payne Exec. Director 101 Marietta St.
l Edelstein & Payne Public Staff Atlanta GA 30303 Diox 12601 Box 991 Raleigh NC 27605 Ralel h NC 27602 S
Richard Wilson, M.D.
Certified by h
729 Hunter St.
Apex NC 27502 l
i
. ~.
.