ML20100B107
| ML20100B107 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1984 |
| From: | Sean Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#484-400 OL, NUDOCS 8412040193 | |
| Download: ML20100B107 (33) | |
Text
,a -
}'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ((y"JD . -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING Bd'ARTM -3 TJi .o; r my' In the Matter of ) P 7, ??{Q
) _
CAROLINA POWER & LIGilT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ) ';
' ~
(Shearon HErris Nuclear Power Plant) ""*"~4 4. ..
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO JOINT INTERVENORS' MOTION TO REOPEN RECORD ON JOINT CONTENTION I I. Introduction On November 13, 1984, during the hearings on safety contentions in the above captioned proceeding, counsel for Joint Intervenors (Conservation Council of North Carolina, Wells Eddleman, Kudzu Alliance and CHANGE) served upon this Board and the parties present a Motion to Reopen Record on Joint Contention I.I Joint Contention I challenges the capability of Applicants to manage the safe operation of the Harris plant based upon the performance of Applicant Carolina Power & Light Company's (CP&L) other operating nuclear plants.2 l C
I The hearing on Joint Contention I was conducted from September 5 through y September 14, 1984. The record of that hearing was closed at the conclusion of the d proceeding on September 14,1984. Tr. 3939.
}
2 Joint Contention I as admitted by the Board alleges:
The Applicants have not demonstrated the adequacy of their managing, engineering, operating and maintenance personnel to 8412040193 841130 DRADOCK05000g
By their motion, Joint Intervenors seek to reopen the management capability record to admit (1) the affidavit, and possibly testimony, of a Mr. Chan Van Vo and (2) certain lists of documents, which lists were provided to the Joint Intervenors as : ' .;
appendices to two NRC responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by Mr. Eddleman.
For the reasons set forth below, Applicants submit that Joint Intervenors have failed to justify the reopening of the management capability record under applicable standards and that the motion should, therefore, be denied. With respect to the Van Vo affidavit, and any possible testimony by him, Joint Intervanors must satisfy the stringent criteria for reopening a record in a licensing proceeding which have been articulated by the Appeal Board. With respect to the FOIA material, however, the Board established a different, less stringent standard. Tr. 3990. In order to facilitate the Board's evaluation of these two different classes of material under the respective appropriate standards, Applicants will address each separately.
II. The Affidavit and Possible Testimony of Chan Van Vo.
A. Background of the Van Vo Affidavit The circumstances surrounding the emergence of the Van Vo affidavit in this proceeding as well before other government agencies have been described recently in Applicants' Response to Late-Filed Contentions of Wells Eddleman and Conservation Council of North Carolina based on the Affidavit of Mr. Chan Van Vo (Applicants' Response to Late-Filed Contentions) at 3-5 dated November 13, 1984. Applicants refer the Board to that summary of the background of the Van Vo affidavit.
safely operate, maintain and manage the Shearon Ilarris 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 inadequate staff is likely to be reproduced at Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant and result in health and safety problems.
For purposes of the motion to reopen the management capability record, however, Applicants emphasize that certain of the allegations contained in the Van Vo affidavit were articulated by Mr. Van Vo as early as August 29,1984 when he filed his complaint with the Department of Labor.3 This, of course, preceded the commencement of the -
management capability hearing.
B. Governing Standards
! A proponent of a motion to reopen a record in an NRC licensing proceeding has a heavy burden. Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit 1),
f ALAB-462, 7 N.R.C. 320 - 338 (1978). The proponent must demonstrate that (1) the motion is timely; (2) that the material sought to be introduced addresses significant safety or environmental issues; and (3) that a different result might have been reached had the material been considered initially. Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Unit 1) ALAB-750,18 N.R.C.1205,1207 (1983). T!.e Appeal Board stated in Dinblo Canyon that the proponent must demonstrate that significant new evidence of a safety question exists, and that the proffered evidence might materially affect the outcome of the proceeding. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-728,17 N.R.C. 777, 800, 66 (1983). In Public Service Comnany of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-573,10 N.R.C. 775 (1979), a motion 3 See, the complaint of Mr. Van Vo to the Department of Labor dated August 28, 1984, which is attached as Exhibit D to Applicants' Response to Late-Filed Contentions.
Applicants have confirmed that the complaint was received by the Depaltment of Labor in Washington, D.C. on' August 29,1984.
Mr. Van Vo has been receiving advice from the Government Accountebility Project (GAP) at least since July 31,1984. See the complaint of Chan Van Vo to the Department of Labor at 3, Exhibit D to Applicants' Response to Late-Filed Contentions. Mr. Van Vo
. has been represented by John Guild, an attorney and representative of GAP, at least since the initiation of the proceeding in the Department of Labor. Mr. Guild was present in the hearing room intermittently throughout the course of the management hearing and, indeed, on several occasions sat at counsel table to assist counsel for the Joint Intervenors in his cross-examination of Applicants' witnesses. See Tr. 2600.
--_ , - -_, _ , .. . _ . , - . .. ,- , - ...,-..- _ . ~ . ~ ~ . - ~ , .
to reopen the record was filed, as here, prior to the issuance of the Board's decision. The Appeal Board held that a licensing board need not reopen a record if the issues sought to be presented are not of " major significance". Black Fox, supra at 804. In view of the
,. Black Fox ruling, it is clear that Joint Intervenors' unsupported assertion that their 1
burden for justifying the reopening of the record is less now than it may be at some future time is incorrect. Finally, as stated by the Commission in Diablo Canyon, to be successful, the movant must provide more than " bare allegations or simple submission of new contentions." Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power t
Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5,13 N.R.C. 361, 363 (1981).
The Joint Intervenors have failed to satisfy these standards with respect to the affidavit and possible testimony of Mr. Van Vo.
. As noted above, Applicants recently submitted a lengthy pleading supported by many exhibits in response to late contentions proposed by Mr. Eddleman and CCNC based f
upon the Van Vo affidavit. Although the standards for determining admissibility of late-filed contentions are different from those which apply to motions to reopen a record, there are substantial similarities in the kinds of factual and legal considerations the Board would make l'1 both instances. In their Response to Late-Filed Contentions, for example, Applicants have addressed factors which render the late-filed contentions untimely. Applicants also have presented substantial documentary evidence as well as the results of independent investigation that demonstrate the unreliability of the Van Vo affidavit, and the lack of significance of Mr. Van Vo's allegations with respect to the safe operation of the Harris plant. All of those facts are equally relevant to the Board's consideration of the motion to reopen the management record. In order to avoid repetition, therefore, Applicants hereby incorporate by reference Applicants' Response to Late-Filed Contentions, and Applicants request that the Board consider this Response in conjunction with that pleading.
i
~ -~ _m - - , - , e. .
v-.,.., ,--er ...-mep--e,.mn ,p.- .p, , - - v., -n- .,-r.e-,.,., -m ---. ,,.. - .,-mw.. , , - , & m ., ,,-,-c--vr,- . . - - - ~ - -
-S-1.
The Van Vo material does not present significant safety issues relevant to the management contention which, if considered, might change capability the outcome of the proceeding.
As noted above, the Commission has stated that a party seeking to reopen a recor must support its motion with more than mere allegations. Diablo Canyon, supra at 363.
Of course, it is obvious that the information sought to be introduced must be s relevant to the contention at issue to merit its consideration.
In this case, Joint Intervenors are seeking to reopen the record to introduce n more than the unsupported allegations of a single former CP&L employee who terminated employment at the Harris plant nine months ago. Moreover, the two independent investigations of allegations by Mr. Van Vo which have thus far been completed have demonstrated that his allegations are unsupportable. These investigations, those conducted by the Department of Labor and by Mr. Parks C independent consultant to Applicants are discussed more fully in Applicants' Resnonse Lats.-Filed Contentions at 3-5 and 14-17. Mr. Cobb's report also reveals that, in some instances, the information contained in the Van Vo affidavit is simply wrong. Thus, th Van Vo affidavit cannot be viewed as a reliable document.
The most recent affidavit of Mr. Van Vo submitted on November 25, 1984 dernonstrates that Mr. Van Vo does not possess sufficient knowledge and information of the Harris plant and its systems to reliably comment upon them. As the affidavit of Mr.
Richard E. Lumsden which has been filed as Exhibit I to this Response demonstra contrary to Mr. Van Vo's assertion, the feedwater system in the Harris turbine building has been classified as a non-nuclear safety, non-seismic system since the FSAR was submitted to the NRC in 1980.
Given the demonstrated unreliability of Mr. Van Vo's allegations, there is no way t reasonably conclude that his October 6,1984 affidavit presents meaningful evidence of safety issues at the Harris plant that would affect this Board's conclusions as to Applicants' capability to manage the safe operation of the Harris plant.
-6 -
Furthermore, the allegations in Mr. Van Vo's affidavit relate to isolated instances related to cor:struction or quality assurance at the Harris plant. As such, Applicants submit that they are, at most, marginally relevant to Joint Contention I which challenges Applicants' ability to manage the safe operation of the Harris plant in view of the performance at CP&L's other operating nuclear plants.4 During the management capability hearing, this very issue of the relevance of construction related matters to the issue of CP&L's competence to manage the safe operation of the Harris plant was addressed. This Board ruled that evidence of isolated incidents of construction or quality problems at Harris, as opposed to "significant breakdowns of QA systems", was not relevant to the management contention. Tr. 2844. The Board stated that it would evaluate the relevance of proffered construction related evidence on a case by case basis using a more stringent threshold than the Board would use in determining the relevance of operating activity at CP&L's other reactors. See Tr. 2845.
Applicants believe that the allegations of Mr. Van Vo, even if accepted as true, relate only to discrete instances of construction or QA defects at the Harris plant and are not relevant to the issue of CP&L's management capability. There is absolutely nothing in the Van Vo affidavit to warrant an inference of any widespread or programmatic deficiencies in CP&L's construction or quality assurance programs.
Under these circumstances, Applicants submit that even were the record still open, Mr. Van Vo's allegations would not be admissable under the Board's more stringent standard of admissibility for construction-related evidence. Certainly, such allegations cannot be deemed to have a sufficiently significant bearing on the issue of management competence at this juncture when the record has been closed.
'4 The issue of CP&L's ability to construct the Harris plant is not at issue in this i proceeding. That issue was decided in CP&L's favor at the construction permit phase.
l
Moreover, because of the virtual irrelevance of these allegations to Joint Contention 1, even if they had been considered by the Board during the hearing, it is extremely unlikely that the Board's determination of the fundamental issue of CP&L's competence to safely operate the Harris plant would be different. This is particulary so in view of the fact that Applicants and I&E have long been aware of the issues and that i
Applicants resolved them to I&E's satisfaction.
The statements by Mr. Van Vo that he had spoken with Mr. Utley and Mr. McDuffie about safety concerns, while relevant to the management capability contention, do not constitute the kind of significant evidence which would warrant the reopening of the record.
Again, these statements are nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations. To the extent that they are accepted at face value, however, they do not necessarily centradict the testimony of Mr. Utley and Mr. McDuffie.
Mr. Van Vo's statements substantiate, for example, the testimony of both witnesses that they are accessible to CP&L employees. Tr. 2700; 3066-3068. It is important to recognize that the findings of Mr. Cobb about Mr. Van Vo's meeting with Mr. Utley are entirely consistent with Mr.
Utley's testimony at the hearing that while employees have come to him with " concerns these " concerns" have really been in the nature of personnel problems. See supra at 5.
The Cobb report contains the following finding:
While Mr. Van Vo alleges that he previously had brought safety concerns to management's attention (Van Vo affidavit at 1 1,24),
rather his interviews with senior management were directed to his proposals for reorganizing the Harris project with Mr. Van Vo
! in a more prominent position of responsibility." Applicants' Respons at 5-10.g to Late-Filed Contentions at 16, citing the Cobb report l
l l
S i In this regard, see Exhibit I to Applicants' Response to Late-Filed Contentions l
which is Mr. Van Vo's plan for reorganizing the Harris nuclear project which Mr. Van Vo
' brought to discuss during his meeting with Mr. McDuffie.
- .__ __ _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ __ _ - __ _ ~ , .
-8 -
t At most, Mr. Van Vo's statements indicate a perception of what occurred at his meetings I with Mr. Utley and Mr. McDuffie which differs from theirs.
Applicants submit, therefore, that for all of the above reasons, Joint Intervenors have not met their burden of demonstrating that the management capability record should be reopened'to receive the Van Vo affidavit and any testimony based thereon. The motion has not been timely filed in that sufficient information was known by, or available to, Joint Intervenors to enable them to raise these matters at an earlier time.
The averments in the Van Vo affidavit constitute nothing more than mere unsupported allegations, many of which have been demonstrated to be inaccurate, unsupportable or moot. Moreover, the allegations are largely irrelevant to the issue of Applicants' capability to operate safely the Harris plant. The Van Vo affidavit, therefore, cannot be deemed to be the kind of significant new evidence which might affect the Board's ultimate conclusion about Applicants' management competence. Applicants submit, therefore, that the motion to reopen the management capability record to receive the Van Vo affidavit or testimony by Mr. Van Vo should be denied.
- 2. The motion is untimely In their motion, Joint Intervenors essentially divide the Van Vo material into two parts: (a) statements to the effect that Van Vo had gone to E. E. Utley, Executive Vice President, Power Supply, Enginnering & Construction, and M. A. McDuffie, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation Group, with safety concerns; and (b) allegations regarding construction and quality assurance at the IIarris plant.
Intervenors assert in their motion that Mr. Van Vo's statements that he had gone to Mr. Utley and Mr. McDuffie with safety concerns contradict the testimony of those gentlemen who were witnesses in the management capability hearing. Applicants submit that the motion is untimely with respect to those statements. During oral argument on this motion which was conducted on November 15, 1984, Mr. Runkle, counsel for Joint
. . - . - _ =-
Intervenors, acknowledged that at the time of the management capability hearin knew that Mr. Van Vo was filing a suit with the Department of Labor alleging harassm and intimidation based upon safety concerns he had raised. Tr. 7295. - In fact, Mr. V Vo's complaint was filed with the Department of Labor in Washington, D.C. on A 1984, a week before the management capability hearing began. That complaint conta the allegation that Mr. Van Vo had complained to CP&L's senior management about suc matters.
On September 6,1984, the second day of the management capability hearing, Mr.
Runkle, with Mr. Guild at his side, extensively cross-examined the panel of witnesses consisting of Mr. Utley, Mr. McDuffie, Mr. H. A. Banks, Manager - Quality Assuranc and Dr. T. S. Elleman, Vice President - Corporate Nuclear Safety, about the way in which t
CP&L's management deals with claims of harassment and the raising of safety and quality concerns by CP&L employees. Tr. 2694-2726 Similar cross-examination was conducted on September 7 and 8,1984. Tr. 3004-06; 3064-69. Each member of the witness panel was asked whether he was personally aware of any incidents of harassment of CP&L employees and each answered that he was not.
t- Tr. 2725-26. These witnesses were also asked whether any CP&L employee had ever come to them_ with quality -
concerns. Mr. Banks answered in the affirmative. Tr. 2697-2700. Mr. Utley and Mr.
McDuffle answered in the negative. Tr. 2700, 3065-68. The following exchange, for example, occurred between counsel and Mr. Utley.
Q.
Mr. Utley,- do you ever have a worker bring a. QA/QC concern to your attention outside the normal chain of reporting?
s A.
(Witness Utley) I don't off-hand recall a direct report on QA/QC in the context in which you aksed the question.
There is nothing about our policy and practice that would prevent it. It encourages they so feelit is necessary. people _to make these reports if t
Q. Have you ever had any other line worker, craft workers that are not part of QA/QC bring any kind of quality concerns?
ya er ci- r- v---7 re-,3 w-g-Tv--,g- -w- - g -w %.-gue- - - , y v e --- w- =e v weeww w+ --ny-W= eyv% , ---we- gw,..-- w 4-*=c**- w e -- w w e = ww,=
A. Not in the quality area, that I recall. I have had numerous -
reports from craft people about problems but normally they are human relations problems not related to quality.
Q. This would be personnel type problems?
A. Yes.
Tr.2700.
Applicants submit that given Mr. Runkle's acknowledged awareness at the time of the management capability hearing of Mr. Van Vo and at least the general nature of his allegations, Joint Intervenors had an obligation to raise the Van Vo allegations while the management capability hearing was underway in order that those matters could be considered in an orderly fashion without disruption of the litigation process. This could have been done, for example, through cross-examination of Messrs. Utley, Banks, McDuffie, and Elleman, thereby giving those witnesses an opportunity to testify expressly as to their knowledge of Mr. Van Vo and as to any meetings they might have had with him.6 As the proponents of this motion to reopen, the Joint Intervenors have the burden of presenting information sufficient to enable the Board to determine that the motion has been timely filed. See Calloway, supra at 1208-1209. Joint Intervenors have failed to provide such information.
In arguing the timeliness of the motion, Joint Intervenors merely state that they -
did not possess a copy of the Van Vo affidavit prior to October 24, 1984. Of course, l
counsel for Intervenors has acknowledged that he was aware of the substance of Van Vo's l
!- allegations in early September,1984. Tr. 7295. Joint Intervenors have not explained why 6 Indeed, Applicants' counsel urged counsel for Intervenors to provide an example, if
! he could, of an employee who had claimed to have been harassed at a CP&L nuclear l.
facility in order that the witnesses might testify as to specific allegations rather than hypotheticals. Tr. 2720.
l l
L.
1 they did not present the information that they did possess to the Coard while the management capability hearing was being conducted and the record of that hearing was still open.
Next, Joint Intervenors assert that the motion is timely because until Mr. Van Vo and CP&L settled Mr. Van Vo's Department of Labor claims a few days prior to the filing of their motion, they did not know whether Mr. Van Vo would be willing or able to participate further in this proceeding. Motion to Reopen Record at 3. This assertion is contradicted by the assurances of Mr. Eddleman three weeks earlier that Mr. Van Vo was willing and available to appear as a witness before this Board in November,1984. Tr.
5317; 5578.
Finally, Joint Intervenors assert that to reopen the record at this juncture will not delay the proceeding because "it is unlikely there will be much need for any discovery before Mr. Van Vo can testify"; and that "[i]n most respects regarding the management contention, [Mr. Van Vo's] testimony will be in the nature of rebuttal testimony." Motion at .
These statements overlook, of course, the very substantial likelihood that Applicants would wish to engage in discovery prior to the Board's receiving testimony from Mr. Van Vo and, further, would wish to recall several of their management capability witnesses, and perhaps to call additional witnesses, in order that this Board might have the benefit of their testimony regarding Mr. Van Vo and his allegations.
Thus, there is a very real prospect for substantial delay of this proceeding.
Joint Intervenors have failed under these circumstances to meet their burden of demonstratirig that their motion is timely with respect to Mr. Van Vc's assertions about CP&L management's attention to his safety concerns.
With respect to Mr. Van Vo's allegations about construction and quality problems at the Harris plant, the motion is also untimely. Joint Intervenors have not identified which allegations in Mr. Van Vo's affidavit are the subject of the motion to reopen the record.
Applicants believe it is fair to assume thct they are those which are the asserted basis of
l the~ late-filed conter.tions which Mr. Eddleman and CCNC filed on October 25,1984 and October 30,1984, respectively. This comports with Mr. Runkle's own observations during oral argument on November 15,1984.
The new contentions arising from [Mr. Van Vo's] affidavit go to safety concerns, construction, the QA, the documentation destruction. And I think those are the safety concerns that are encompassed by the new filed contentions. Tr. 7293.
The motion is untimely, first, because having had knowledge of Mr. Van Vo and his
- assertions of concerns about safety at the Harris plant as early as September, Joint Intervenors had an obligation to make that information available to the Board at that time. As in the case of late filed contentions, Intervenors must have an obligation to ferret out information which is available to them.
More important, however, as has been discussed in Applicants' Response to Late-Filed Contentions at 17-19, with two exceptions each of the issues raised by Mr.
Eddleman and CCNC as late-filed contentions were the subjects of NRC I&E inspection reports issued as much as one year ago.7 Moreover, the concerns addressed in those
! inspection reports have since been resolved to the satisfaction of I&E. Applicants' l 7The issues which are not the subject of prior I&E inspection reports are the subject of Eddleman 41G concerning employee harassment and CCNC-WB2 concerning the steam generator feed water pump 1A-NNS. As discussed above, Joint Intervenors had actual knowledge of Mr. Van Vo's claims of harassment as early as September,1984 while the management hearing was being conducted. As to the issue of the steam generator feedwater pump 1A-NNC, Applicants and the NRC Staff have provided the .
Board with documentary evidence that this pump and the suction and discharge lines thereto are non-nuclear safety equipment and non-seismic category equipment which perform no safety function. See Applicants' Response to Late-Filed Contention at 29-30; NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Contentions Proffered by Wells Eddleman and
- CCNC Based upon an October 6,1984 Affidavit of Chan Van Vo, dated November 18, 1984 at 8 and the Affidavit of Normal H. Wagner attached thereto.
By letter dated November 25, 1984, CCNC submitted to the Board and parties another affidavit of Mr. Van Vo in which he asserts that in 1982 Applicants reclassified the .feedwater system in the Harris turbine building from a seismic to non-seismic category. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is the affidavit of Mr. Richard E. Lumsden, Manager - Qcality Assurance Services for CP&L which demonstrates that Van Vo's assertion is false. The feedwater system in the turbine building has been designated as I non-nuclear safety and non-seismic since the FSAR was submitted to the NRC in 1980.
i 4
4 1
+, ~ s - e ,-c -rw- - w- a r w ----. g nnw- ,,,--n--m-- n---w ---,ne--,-, vw~,,,e--e m a w -- n m, -e -- mn ---~-,-,,.----a- e- m
Response to Late-Filed Contentions at 18. Thus, these issues could have been raised by Joint Intervenors long ago on the basis of publically available documents and without reliance upon the Van Vo affidavit. Thus, the motion is not timely with respect to the so called safety concerns raised by Mr. Van Vo in his affidavit.
III. The FOIA Material A. Background and Governing Standards At the close of the management capability hearing, Mr. Runkle advised the Board and other parties that Mr. Eddleman had submitted requests to the NRC under the Freedom of Information Act for background documents underlying the various Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) reports that NRC had issued to date with respect to CP&L's nuclear plants. See Tr. 3939-3941. Mr. Runkle requested that the
[ record remain open to receive whatever documents NRC might provide in response to those requests. Tr. 3939; 3944. Applicants and staff objected to that request and took -
i the position that the record should be closed with the recognition that Joint Intervenors could move to reopen the record for admission of any material which they might receive t
in response to the FOIA requests. Tr. 3941-3943. . The Board ultimately held that the record would be closed at the conclusion of the hearing with the understanding that the
~
Joint Intervenors had the right to move to reopen the record when NRC had respcnded to Mr. Eddleman's requests. Tr. 3989-3990. The Board went on to rule that for purposes of a motion to reopen the record to receive SALP related material released in response to
! the FOIA requests, the Intervenors would have a lesser burden to satisfy that than which is generally applicable The Board held:
The admission of these documents or their exclusion would- r simply depend on the criteria normally applicable to proffered evidence, whether its relevant, whether it is probative, whether there is some other basis for excluding it, in the same way that we have ruled on other exhibits that were offered during the
- course of the hearing. Tr. 3090.
,,,n- ,,-.s-.-, ,,-,,.,.,,-m- , , , , , - . , , - . - , , , , . ,-- ,,,,,,.g,,,---,--.,,, ,y,---ennnam., , , , , . . . , a-pwe,,,pp.- -,..,-mem.,.,-
- 14 .-
By letter dated September 14, 1984, the NRC responded in part to the FOIA requests by transmitting, as Appendix A, a list of documents which were being made available in the Public Document Room.8By letter dated October 19, 1984, the NRC completed its response to the FOIA requests. Appendix A to that letter listed all other documents responsive to the requests which NRC deemed appropriate to release.
Appendix B to the letter was a list of documents which the NRC had determined should be withheld as predecisionalinformation.9 On October 25, 1984, during the hearings on safety contentions, counsel for Applicants moved that any motion to reopen the management capability record for admission of SALP related materials released under FOIA be filed on November 5,1984.
Mr. Runkle agreed to this date as " reasonable" and the Board adopted that date. Tr.
5720-5723.
While the discussions of the parties during this exchange centered on the documents identified in the lists set forth in three appendices, it should be obvious that the lists themselves are also materials which had been provided in response to the FOIA requests.
The Joint Intervenors motion to reopen the management record to admit the three lists was served on November 13,1984.
Applicants submit that the motion should be denied on the ground that it is untimely and further, because Joint Intervenors have not met even the relaxed standards for reopening the record to receive this material which was established by the Board.
8 A copy of a letter to Mr. Eddleman from J. M. Felton, Director, Division of Rules and Records, NRC Office of Administration dated September 14, 1983 and Appendix A thereto are attached to this Response as Exhibit 2.
9 A copy of a letter to Mr. Eddleman from Felton dated October 19,1984 and Appendices A and B thereto are attached to this Response as Exhibit 3.
i
- 1. The three appendices are not probative of the point for which they are offered.
Joint Intervenors request that the three appendices be admitted not to impeach the substance of the SALP report issued on August 21, 1984 and its findings but merely for the. limited purpose of contradicting statements by Staff counsel, Charles Barth, and Staff witness, Paul Bemis, that the documents identified on the ' lists had been destroyed. Motion at 5,6. Joint Intervenors do not provide transcript references to any such statements by either Mr. Barth or Mr. Bemis.
Applicants have searched the transcript and to the best of their knowledge, neither Mr. Barth nor Mr. Bemis made any statement which would be contradicted by the lists.
Mr. Bemis testified that notes and drafts of SALP reports are normally destroyed after SALP reports have been finalized. Tr. 3655. He did not state that any documents had in fact been destroyed. Beyond that, however, it is worth recognizing that on all three lists all of the referenced documents that are in the nature of notes, memoranda, and drafts, with one exception, are related to the SALP report which was issued most recently on August - 24,1984. One can reasonably infer that these documents had not been destroyed simply because the SALP report had been finalized only a short time before the FOIA requests were made. The fact that the lists identify only one draft document related to an earlier SALP report supports the statement that such drafts are normally destroyed.
Second, so far as Applicants' search of the record reveals, Mr. Barth made no i
statement about such documents being destroyed. To the contrary, Mr. Barth stated that he did not know whether such documents exist or not. Tr. 3945; 3946.
- . Thus, these lists do not contradict statements by either Mr. Barth or Mr. Bemis and do not serve, therefore, even the limited purpose for which they are offered. They are neither relevant nor probative. Intervenors have failed, therefore, to meet the Board's standard for the reopening of the record to receive such material.
For all of these reasons set forth above, therefore, Applicants submit that the motion to reopen the record for submission of the FOIA material be denied.
- 2. The motion is untimely Although Joint Intervenors filed their motion to reopen the record to receive the three appendices a week late, they have provided no justification for doing so. In view of Mr. Runkle's characterization of November 5 as a reasonable deadline and in light of the uncomplicated nature of the motion with respect to this material, Applicants submit that the motion should be rejected as untimely.
This 30th day of November,1984.
Respectfully submitted,
_wf
'Samantha Francis Flynn
//
Associate General Counsel Carouna Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Attorneys for Applicants:
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones, Esq.
Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-6517
l t,
I vp Exhibit 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA mq p, .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ustg BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD UtC ~3 N1:01 bbb Y b 8[g l $ g -
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) SRANCH AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) ) .
AFFIDAVIT RICHARD E. LUMSDEN County of Wake )
) ss.
State of North Carolina )
Richard E. Lumsden, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says as follows:
- 1. My name is Richard E. Lumsden. My busine:,s address is 411 Fayetteville Street, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. I am employed by Carolina Power
& Light- Company as Manager, Quality Assurance Services. A statement of. my professional experience and qualifications is attached hereto as Exhibit A.- I recently headed an investigation, pursuant to the Company's Quality Check Program, into certain l- ~
l.
allegations set forth in an Affidavit of Chan Van Vo dated October 6,1984. As a result
{ of that investigation, we determined that Mr. Van Vo had not identified any new safety l
h concern.
- 2. The purpose of this Affidavit is to address a second affidavit of Mr. Chan Van Vo attached to a letter from John Runkle to the Harris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated November 25,1984 (" Van Vo Affidavit").
- 3. In Paragraph 2 of the Van Vo Affidavit, it is alleged that "the Feed Water
! system, its piping, pipesupports, valves and pumps, were classified by ~the i
{
- a, Architects / Engineers, Ebasco Services, Inc., by CP&L, and by their contractors as ' Safety Class 4/ Seismic Class I,' an acknowledgement of its nuclear safety significance." It is further specifically alleged that "[t]his classification applied to the Feed Water system in the Harris Turbine Building." Mr. Van Vo is mistaken. The Steam Generator Feedwater System is not a safety system or a safety-related system. Indeed, " Safety Class 4" denotes a nonnuclear safety system.
- 4. The Feedwater piping and pump, located in the Turbine Building, are nonseismic. This was first indicated in the Harris Plant Preliminary Safety Analysis Report at Figure 10.2-3. The Feedwater line is, however, classified as " Seismic Category 1" up to and including the Reactor Auxiliary Building wall, not because the system has any safety significar.ce but because the Feedwater piping is located in the vicinity of safety-related equipment in the Reactor Auxiliary Building. Therefore, that portion of the feedwater line is classified as seismic only because its failure could affect systems which do have a safety function. See Harris Plant Final Safety Analysis Report, Figure 10.1.0-3 (Feedwater System Flow Diagram).
- 5. Mr. Van Vo may have been confused because Ebasco originally performed its design analysis for the entire Feedwater System as a Seismic Category I system. It is true that Southwest Fabricators and Bergen-Paterson identified the Feedwater lines on their fabrication drawings as seismic Category I based on the original Ebasco design analysis. The change to " reclassify" the feedwater line drawings was made to reflect the actual seismic designation in the turbine building for the reasons discussed in paragraph 4 above. Exhibits 1-5 to the Van Vo Affidavit do not demonstrate that Feedwater lines were " declassified" because of construction problems but rather that certain drawings were " reclassified" during the design process to reflect the actual designation of the Feedwater lines in the turbine building.
- 6. Mr. Van Vo's allegation in paragraph 6 of his Affidavit that CP&L attempted to solve " problems of shoddy work at the Harris Plant through such declassification of quality requirements: has no basis in fact.
o This 30 day of November,1984.
RICHARD E. LUMSDEN Sworn to anA subscribed before me this&Nday November,1984.
~
n >:l> a b-60tary Public deISW.,ission expires ll li-H8 g
[ [ \kON \
5 i
=
o** s j
k FU30% a c.!
N ,.. . */*, a e C
<ian :00 io I
i
, 1 at i EXHIBIT A Richard E. Lumsden
.' l. Manager - Quality Assurance Services
-I. Date of Birth A. October 10, 1929 II. Education and Training A. .
B. S. Degree in Marine Engineering from U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland III. Experience A. U. S. Navy ,
- 1. June 1952 - July 1982
- a. Retiring as Captain after completing 30 years of service in various assignments in-the naval nuclear program including' administrative and technical responsibility in the areas of operation, maintenance, modification, QA and training.
.:; B. Carolina Power & Light Company
- 1. July 1982 to present
- a. July 1982 - Employed as a Principal Engineer - Nuclear Operations - Technical Support in the Assistant to the Vice President Section of the Nuclear Operations Depart-ment. Located in the General Office,
- b. September 1983 - Promoted to Manager - Quality Assurance Services in the Quality Assurance Services Section of-the Corporate Quality Assurance Department. Located in the General Office.
IV. Professional Societies A. American Nuclear Society B. American Society for Quality Ccatrol i
.~'
3 -
EXHIBIT 2 September 14, 1984 DrXETEa N
Mr. Wells Eddleman Staff Scientist NC Public Interest Research Group '84 pc0 -3 m a P.O. Box 2901 IN RESPONSE REFER ,
Durham, NC 27705 TO F01A-84-6,52
'nf
- Cr Ecuu,
- y
Dear Mr. Eddleman:
" N J' ! **" -
This is in partial response to your letter dated August 3,1984, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedern of Iriformation Act (FOI A),
all records related to the Systematic Assessment of Lic.efsee Performance. ~
(SALP) reports prepared since 1979, or now under preparation 7'fbF*the' '
following nuclear plants:
H. B. Robinson f2 (Docket 50-261)
Brunswick 1 and 2 (Dockets 50-324/325)
Shearon Harris (Occkets 50-400, 401, 402, and 403)
The documents listed on Appendix A are responsive to your nquest.
Documents one, two, three and 23 through 36 have previously been placed in the NRC Public Document Roan (PDR). Access to these records may be acquired by referencing the accession number listed by each document.
The remaining 35 documents are being placed in the PDR in FOIA file folder 84-652.
The search and mytew of additional documents related to your mquest are continuing. You will be notified at the corpletion of the search and review. .
! Sincerely, '
J. M. Felton, Dimetor Division of Rules and Records Office of Adminic' ration
Enclosure:
Appendix A ,
9
,mm -* * *
- s.
m- -
APPENDIX A
- 1. SAtP Report 50-324/80-40, 50-325/80 43, 50-261/80-31, 50-400/80-24, 50-401/80-22, 50-402/80-22 and 50-403/80 PDR Accession #E.102170224
~
- 2. SALP Report 50-325/82-15, 50-324/82-15, 50-261/82-17, 50-400/82-14 and 50-401/82 PDR Accession #82100103'*s
- 3. SALP Report 50-325/83-09, 50-324/83-09, 50-261/83-07, 50-400/83-10 and 50-401/83 PDR Accession #8306290537 .
- 4. Letter from James P. O'Reilly to E. E. Utley dated 9/15/82 - 4 pages .
- 5. Letter from L. W. Eury to Janes P. O'Reilly dated 6/9/82 - 2 pages
- 6. Letter from R. C. Lewis to J. A. Jones dated 6/10/82 - 1 page 7 Letter from E. E. Utley to James P. O'Reilly dated 7/26/82 w/ attachments -
49 pages
- 8. Letter from Janes P. O'Reilly to E. E. Utley dated 6/14/83 w/ enclosures - 24 pages
- 9. Memorandum from Jares P. O'Reilly to Chairman, SALP Review Group, dated 1/15/81 w/ enclosures - 4 pages
- 10. SALP Meeting handout, 5/29/82 - 14 pages
- 11. SALP Meeting Slides, 5/10/83 - 46 pages
- 12. Memorandum fror. M. V. Sinkule tc R. C. Lewis, J. A. Olshinski and i J. P. Stchr dated 2/8/83 - 3 pages
- 13. Memorandum from James P. O'Reilly to J. R. Denton, Carlyle Michelson and J. G. Davis dated 2/9/83 - 1 page 14 Notice of Significant Meeting dated 4/20/83 - 2 pages
- 15. Notice of Significant Meeting dated 3/24/83 - 2 pages
- 16. Notice of Significant Meeting dated 3/25/83 - 2 pages
- 17. Letter from E. E. Utley to P. R. Bemis dated 4/13/83 - 1 page
- 18. Memorandum fron G. P.. Jenkins to M. V. Sinkule dated 8/5/82 - 3 pages
- 19. Notice of Significant Meeting dated 7/7/83 - 2 pages G
ee
t
- APPENDIX A (CON 11NUED)
- 20. Menora ndur- f ron M. Y. Sinkule to R. C. Lewis , .1 A. 01shinsli and J. P. Stohr dated 5/4/64 w/ copy of Inspection keprrt Number Log Book -
22 pages -
- 21. Regional Office Instruction No. 1411, Rev. 4, dated 2/1/84
- 22. Listing of CPL Inspection Report Nunbers for Independent Measurerents Section.
- 28. EA P3-S' dated 11/15/83 - PDR Accession #8312230792 29, inspection Report 50-261/82 PDR Accession #8208160377
- 30. Inspection Report 50-261/83 PDP Accession #8307140080
- 31. Inspectior. Report 50-324, 325/83 PDR Accession #8304110828
- 32. Inspectior. Pcport 50-324, 325/83 PDR Accession #8311070132
- 33. Inspection Repcrt 50-324, 325/84 PDR Accessior. #8404060093
- 34. Notice of Violation dated 12/3/82 - PDR Accession #8307140317
- 35. Notice of Violatior, dated 7/13/82 - PDR Accession #8309090552
- 36. Letter to CPLL containing the SALP Report for Brunswick, Robinson and Harris - PDR Accession #8306290524, dtd. June 14, 1963
- 37. SALP Evaluation For Core Performance Branch Input For SSER Plant: Shearon Harris Units I and 2 (1 page)
- 38. Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Board Report Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 (64 pages)
- 39. Meno from W. Russell to Gus Lainas dated April 4, 1984 re: SALP Input For Shearon Harris Unit -1 w/ enclosure (5 pages)
- 40. tiemo from M. Srinivasan to George Knighton dated April 11, 1984 re: Input to SALP Report for Shearon Harris - I w/ enclosure PSB/DSI SALP Input sheet (2 pages)
.\
~ '
.. . RE: F01A-84-652 APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
- 41. Memo from B. Liaw to G. Knighton dated May 29,1984 re: Input To SALP Report For Shearon Harris Unit 1
- 42. Meno from G. Knighton dated May 21, 1984 re: Input to SALP Report for Shearon Harris-l w/ enclosure Evaluation Matrix (2 pages)
- 43. Memo from Faust Rose to George Knighton dated May 24, 1984 re: Input to SALP Report for Shearon Harris Unit I w/ enclosure (2 pages)
- 44. Memo from L. Hulman to G. Knighton dated May 24, 1954 re: AEB Input to SALP Report for Shearon Harris-1 w/ enclosure Accident Evaluation sheet (3 pages)
- 45. Memo from W. Butler to G. ,Knighton dated May 29, 1954 re: CSE Input to SALP Report for Shearon Harris 1 w/ enclosure (2 pages)
- 46. Memo froc. F. Congel to G. Knighton dated May 29, 1984 re: SALP Input For Shearon Harris-1 w/ attachment Evaluation Matrix (3 pages)
- 47. Memo from Olan D. Parr to George Knighton, dated May 29, 1984 re: SALP Report Fore Shearon Harris w/ enclosure (2 pages)
- 48. Memo from Ronald Ballard to G. Knighton dated May 29,1984 re: Input to SALP Raport for Shearon Harris-1 w/ attachment Evaluation Matrix (2 pages)
- 49. Memo from Brian Sheron to G. Knighton dated June 4, 1984, re: Input to SALP Report For Shearon Harris 1 w/ enclosure Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (2 page's)
- 50. Memo from William Gammill to G. Knighton dated June 6,1984 re: Meteorology Input to Shearon Harris, Unit No. 2, SALP w/ enclosure Evaluation Matrix (2 pages)
, 51. Memo from William Regan to G. Knighton dated June 12, 1984 re: Input to SALP Report For Shearon Harris-1 w/ attachment Evaluation Matrix (2 pages)
- 52. Memo from B. Buckley to Darrell Eisenhut dated June 25, 1984 re: NRR SALP Input For Shearon Harris w/ enclosure Assessment (4 pages) eme
- - - . - ~ , .
^
. EXHIEIT 3
- 'o UNITE D STATES
[' .
','; E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 L
o., a f
007 1 9 1984 f um:
Mr. Wells Eddleman . , ,
Staff Scientist u DEC -3 m :01 NC Public Interest Research Group P.O. Box 2901 IN RESPONSE SEFER;.e g .
Durham, NC 27705 TO F01A-84dS2Di.vh M. j*. '
5 w.m
Dear Mr. Eddleman:
j This is in further response to your letter dated August 3,1984, in which you l requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA), 'all ' records related to the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (sal'P) reports' prepared since 1979, or now under preparation, for the following nuclear plants:
H. B. Robinson #2 (Docket 50-261)
Brunswick 1 and 2 (Dockets 50-324/325)
Shearon Harris (Cockets 50-400, 401, 402, and 403)
The documents listed on enclosed Appendices A and B are responsive to your request; Appendix A documents are being released in their entirety and are being placed at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) in file folder FOIA 84-652.
Appendix B documents are being withheld in their entirety. These documents consist of predecisional information compiled by the NRC staff as part of the development of the recently issued (August 21,1984) SALP report by Carolina Power and Light Company for the period February 1983 to April 1984. The working papers and drafts represent preliminary and proposed selections of information to be evaluated in development of the SALP report, and the evalua-tions, opinions, and recommendations of the staff resulting from its assessment of the information. Release of the facts in the drafts and working papers would reveal a deliberative process in which the selection of facts is important.
Also, the documents contain no reasonably segregable factual portions not already in the public domain.
l Release of these documents would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange l of ideas and other information essential to the deliberative process involved l
in developing SALP Reports. The documents reflect the predecisional process and, therefore, are exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to Exemption (5) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5) of the Commission's regulations.
, Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the NRC's regulations, it has been determined that the informetion withheld is exempt from production or disclosure and
( that its product M or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The l persons responsible for this denial are the undersigned and l Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator, Region II.
l l
l
o.
r This denial may be appealed to the NRC's Executive Director for Operations within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. As prov.ded in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an
" Appeal from an Initial F0IA Decision."
This completes NRC's action on your request.
Sinc rely, J. M. elton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated cc: John Runkle, Esquire
,, y - , - - . - - , . - _ - , . , . - - . .
y . , - - en,. ,,,,.-- --g. ,,m.w n
Re: F01A-84-652 APPENDIX A
- 1. 1/1/82 - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II, Systematic 1/31/83 Assessment of Licensee Performance Board Report ',arolina Power and Light Company (68 pages)
-4 2. 1/11/84 Agenda - Performance Overview - Brunswick Nuclear Project (19pages)
- 3. 8/21/84 Letter to E. E. Utley from Richard C. Lewis re: Report Nos.
50-261/84-24, 50-324/84-16, 50-325/84-16, and 50-400/84-18 w/ enclosed SALP Board Assessment for Carolina Power and Light Company (73 pages) l e
1
F01A 84-652 APPENDIX B
- 1. Draft version of CPL SALP report for February 1983 through April 1984 (P. Stohr)
- 2. Draft version of CPL SALP report for February 1983 through April 1984 (01shinski)
- 3. Assorted graphs and listing used as background data - 31 pages (01shinski)
- 4. Draft version of CPL SALP report for February 1983 through April 1984 (Jenkins)
- 5. Draft version of CPL FALP report for February 1983 through April 1984 (not identified) ,
- 6. Draft coments to SALP report undated - 7 pages (Jenkins)
- 7. Draft coments to SALP report undated - 1 page (Montgomery) -
- 8. Notes on allegations for CPL SALP undated - 14 pages
- 9. Robinson LER worksheet and cover sheet - 3 pages; Brunswick 1 LER worksheet and cover sheet - 8 pages
- 10. CPL SALP Board Meeting package - 21 pages
- 11. Draft version of CPL SALP report for December 1983 through April 1984 (MacArthur)
- 12. Brunswick 2 LER worksheet and cover sheet - 6 pages
- 13. Draft version of CPL SALP report for February 1983 through April 84 (Price)
- 14. Draft version of CPL SALP report for February 1983 through April 1984 (not identified [2])
- 15. Draft version of CPL SALP report for February 1983 through April 1984 (not identified [3])
- 16. Notes on SALP report from J. A. 01shinski to D. Price dated 8/1/84 - 6 pages
- 17. Coments on SALP report from J. A. 01shinski to M. Sinkule dated 8/1/84 -
3 pages
- 18. Rewrite of EPS for Brunswick SALP from M. Sinkule to R. Lewis, J. 01shinski, P. Stohr and D. Verrelli dated 7/30/84 - 3 pages .
2 l
6 pages
- 19. CPL SALP report coments from P. Stohr to D. Price dated 8/1/84
3 pages
- 22. Coments on EPS portion of SALP report from J. A. 01shinski to M. Sinkule dated 7/27/84 - 3 pages
- 23. Note from M. Sinkule to SALP Board Members dated 7/27/84
- 24. Undated charts - 3 pages
- 25. Coments 40m R. Prevatte to P. Bemis dated 7/30/84 - 3 pages
- 26. Draft report pages from D. Price to D. Verre111 dated 8/1 - 6 pages
- 27. Draft SALP report w/coments unidentified !4
- 28. Draft SALP report w/ comments unidentified #5
- 29. SALP report coments from A. Herdt to D. Verre111 dated 5/29/84 - 1 page
- 30. SALP report comments from S. P. Weise to B. Cline /P. Bemis dated 5/29/84 -
2 pages
- 31. SALP report comments from S. P. Weise to D. McGuire/P. Bemis dated 5/29/84 -
2 pages
- 32. Draft SALP report w/coments from D. McGuire to A. Hardin dated August
- 33. Notes, undated - 1 page 34 Draft SALP report w/coments from J. Jape to A. Hardin dated 8/6/84
- 35. Draft SALP report w/ comments from D. Verre111 to A. Hardin, undated
- 36. Draft SALP report w/coments from G. Jenkins to A. Hardin dated 8/7 l 37. Draft SALP report w/coments dated 8/8/84 (Price)
- 38. Draft SALP report w/coments undated, not identified #6
- 39. Draft SALP report w/ comments dated 8/3, Price to 01shinski
- 40. Draft SALP report w/coments dated 8/7/84, Stohr to Price
- 41. Draft SALP report w/coments dated 7/30/84, Hardin -
i
- - , . - - . - , - __ , . , . . . . . . . . , - . . , _ . - , . , , . . _ . . o
3
- 42. Memorandum for M. Sinkule from Clode Requa dated 6/7/84 - 7 pages 6/25/84 - 6 pages
- 43. Memorandum for D. Eisenhut from B. C. Buckley dated
- 44. Draf t SALP report dated 6/26, not identified #7
- 45. Draft SALP report dated 7/27/84 (Hardin)
- 46. Draft SALP report dated 6/26, not identified #8
- 47. Handwritten notes for CPL sites unsigned and undated - 5 pages
- 48. Handwritten notes dated 5/8/84, unsigned - 4 pages
- 49. Draft pages from SALP report, undated - 13 pages t
- 50. Draf t comments dated 7/13/84 - 3 pages ..
- 51. Draft SALP report w/ comments, undated (Price)
- 52. Draft SALP report w/conments dated 7/11/84 (.lape}
53.
Draft SALP report w/conments undated (not identified #8); draft SALP re w/ comments (McGuire) 6/27/84 - 6 pages
- 54. Memorandum from M. Grotenhuis to R. Lewis dated
- 55. Twenty-three draft pages from SALP report
- 56. Twenty-eight draft pages from SALP report
- 57. Thirty-eight draft pages from SALP report 5/23/84 - 3 pages
- 58. Memorandum from K. V. Seyfrit to R. C. Lewis dated 5/29/84 - 3 pages
- 59. Memorandum from K. V. Seyfrit to R. C. Lewis dated 6/12/84 - 1 page
- 60. Memorandum from A. F. Gibson to M. V. Sinkule dated
- 61. Fifteen pages handwritten draft unsigned, undated
- 62. Fifty-three handwritten draft pages unsigned, undated
- 63. Forty-five handwritten draft pages unsigned, undated
- 64. Thirty-two handwritten draft pages unsigned, undated
-- --m. - ..-c g .
., y ,, ,.-.3., _.,y - . . - , -- y w..v,,, , _ .--._ , , - - - -
F t w * " " " " - '
4
- 65. Draft copy of SALP report 50-324/84-16, 50-261/84-24, 50-325/84-16, 50-400/84-18
- 66. Handwritten note undated / unsigned - 1 page
- 67. Partial extract from SALP report, undated - 5 pages
- 68. Extract from SALP Report, undated - 3 pages
- 69. Memo from Karl V. Seyfrit to R. C. Lewis, dated 5/29/84 - 3 pages
- 70. Extract from SALP report undated / unsigned - 1 page
- 71. Handwritten note on Robinson - 1 page
- 72. Section 5 of SALP report,12 of 21 - 1 page
- 73. Facsimile to M. Sinkule from Grotenhuis dated 6/4/84 - 2 pages
- 14. Extract from SALP report undated - 5 pages
- 75. Handwritten notes undated / unsigned - 2 pages
- 76. Memo from M. Sinkule to R. Lewis, J. Olshinski and P. .Stohr. dated 5/4/84 with attached .conrnents - 3 pages
- 77. Extract from SALP report undated - 9 pages
- 78. Extract-from SALP report, Section 2 - 1 page
. 79. Handwritten draft for Robinson unsigned / undated - 2 pages 83.- Handwritten notes for Operator Licensing-Harris unsigned / undated - 3 pages
- 81. Extract from SALP for Harris unsigned / undated - 10 pages
- 82. Handwritten -note unsigned / undated - 1 page
- j. 83. Handwritten note unsigned / undated - 2 pages
- 84. Draft copy of portion of 1982/83 SALP for Brunswick with consnents - 29 pages l
l
~
F t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response to Joint Intervenors' Motion to Reopen Record on Joint Contention I" were served this 30th day of November,1984 by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.
~ boui.
/' Samantha Francis Flynn[/
Associate General Counsel Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Dated: November 30,1984
I.
SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire 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 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Dr. Richard D. Wilson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 729 Hunter Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apex, North Carolina 27502 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Wells Eddleman Dr. James H. Carpenter 718-A Iredell Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Durham, North Carolina 27705 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Thomas A. Baxter, Esquire John H. O'Neill, Jr., Esquire Charles A. Barth, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Myron Karman, Esquire 1800 M Street, NW Office of Executive Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20036 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Bradley W. Jones, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Section Region B Office of the Secretary 101 Marietta Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Washington, D. C. 20555 Robert P. Gruber Mr. Daniel F. Read, President Executive Director Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Public Staff Group Effort North Carolina Utilities Commission Post Office Box 2151 Post Office Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Dr. Linda Little Governor's Waste Management Board 513 Albemarle Building 325 Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Mr. Steven Crockett, Esquire
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 John D. Ruakle, Esquire Conservation Council of North Carolina 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 s