ML20087C242

Reply to Applicant & Staff on SER Contentions & Motion to Continue Deferral of Parts of Eddleman Contention 107. Contentions on SER & Contention 107 Should Be Admitted

ML20087C242
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	03/07/1984
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8403130001
Download: ML20087C242 (9)

Text

~

r-i k

BAych;[,198h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'NC NUCLEAR BEGULATOBY COMMISSION 84 MR 12 All:25

,n . -

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDD'66 M Glenn O. Bright "U Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman l

In the Ifatter of CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. )

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) ) ASLFP No. 82-h68-01

) OL Wells Eddleman's Reply to Apolicante and Staff on SER contentions and Motion to Cont'.nue Deferral of narts of Eddleman Contention 107 Applicants, on February 6, 198h, onporod the notion and admicsion of all contentions on the S59. Stnff asked ne for an e:rtension of tine for filing their resconsen; it was granted.

Nithout trying to correct all the nisimrensions o* the S?9 contentiens that Apolicants seen to be conveying, lot ne clarify a few of the more imnortant points. The TD! diesel content'ons rest on.NRC Staff's finding a widespread breakdown ir TJ7 duiesci qualit" and analysis that is anplicable to Harric. Content *.ons on the smaller issues Applicants point to could quite nossibly have beer filed earlier.

This epntention probably could rot have been, until the Staff issued TM Novak (NRC)s letter- to Clinton of ppP - dated 19-1 8 IproblemsapplytoHarris.

2, its statement ( received by ne 12-19-$ } . 3 that the TD gene =al Since then, the Staff has had a neet'nc I

• on the TDI diesels and scnt out a transcript. That transcrint reveals I '

-< widespread nroblems. As a result, the Staff requested more data n

I By oral order of Februar" 14,19Sh, Judge Kelley alloued filino g ef*)

of this response, within no nore than 10 days of ny receirt of the staff filing, preferably no more than 5 days tha=eaftew. I "eceived it ?/21 but illness, which Judge Kelley & T discussed (usaaubv w phone,

.a p, hrevented filing tp> vngl pm.

2 . .

concerning all tynet of diesels they make, including tha V-Pos which are at Harris. I have nislaid the ikE notice, but it is a recent one (Feb 1984 or thereabouts), and was sent to all boards for plants with TDI diesels. The record in the Shorehen case shows that the Applicants there are installing new diesels (I believe in a new building built to house the new diesels )

to get around trying to fix or disorove the TDI diesel oroblems there.

The Staff has stated that no plant with TDI diesels should be licensed. That should be enough basis to admit Eddle-nn 1978 right there, and I believe notice of that oosition was sent to all boards (including this one ) where TDI diesiex1s are involved with the plant seeking a license.

Staff cites (vs SEE contentions) an appeal board decision that the Staff's obligation to help Boards by telling then about generic safety issues "is not enforceable by a cart to the OI.

eroceeding". However, this decision oostdates the f!11ng of contention 107 by about a year. Contention 107 should not be judged under it.

Re contention 173, Staff alleges the information was available in the FSAR. But it aopears the Staff nade inquiries of its own, indicating sone inadequacy in Applicants ' analysis.

Staff alleges I haven't shown any useful ernertise on reliability.

I an reasonably familiar with reliab4.11ty testing methods, sta tist? cs, and with logical analysis of systens fo" reliability. This experience should be of use in establishing a sound record on this issue.

Staff says why should events like those in the contention be costulated? Why-- because they can thannen. If you have to consider earthquakes and tornadoes in plant design, it is logical to consider then as happening to the power alines where they cone into the plant, also. That 's just basic good sense.

3 Staff argues,re earthquake contentions 17h-77, that some of them (unspecified) have adequate basi.m and specificity, but they could have been filed earlier (Staff r esnonse at 13, 2-16-8h).

However, their argument is a votential catch-22. If I had raisdd such a contention based on the DSE9 as Staff suggests, they could have argued it was oremature or had insufficient basis because they were going to address tha issue in the SER (as thev state in tha DSER).

Thus the contention would have been deferred to the SER or I mirht have been advised to make a contention when the SEM was issued, had such an argument been accented. But now, not havinF made such a contention before, I'm attacked for not having made it, even though the bases of the contentions 17h-77 are in the SEP and ACPS s tatements of the Staff.

Staff appears to accent contentions 178 and 179. (p.16).

They do argue that I have demonstrated no expertise in design and construction of diesel generators. However, I do naxa know about industrial mathining, reliability testing, netallurgy, materials science, and systems (having studied all of these at the college level and done reliability testing nyself for some clients).

Also the Catawba board recognized a Duke Power Connany emnloyee as an exnert on diesel generators who had the "excevtise" of working on his own car (which, I am informed, was not a diesel). I have done some work on a car of mine which has a gasoline V-8 engine, c.g. adjusting the valves, replacing seals, adjustinn the engine and tuning it up), and while I don't think that's a lot of exnertise, it may be as good as the Duke witnessax', and does show that I know how engines work (mine still runs OK) mand have basic familiarxity with them.

Re contention 181, Staff alleges (p.17) that it should be rejected, though they don't challenge its tineliness nor deny its basis.

kl h-However, the failure of Auplicants to nrovide adequate infornation N !

to the Staff re control room design Is a problem, and thew $9 no guarantee that the Staff's SER supplement will solve it. TC n l l There is a contradiction between the Appeal Board rulings cited by Staff (that the SER is not litig~able) and the clear statement that 4

~s the SER is the basic safety documen* deonsidered in this proceedinF, 2 which I believe our Board has made. If the Staff files the SER and s C

it is a basic document, its defects or inadecuacies should be litiFabler o

just as defects in the DES or FES are litigable. If thev make a $

statenent, they should be prenared to defend it. He e, however, h

the Staff is naking a statement on faith that the control roon l eJ design will prove OK. That should be litigable, sir:c e CW L has f not yet provided the information requii'ed (though CP&I c1cins it } '

has conpleted its DC9D9. CP&L didn't follow standawd N9C control room design guidance in its review, either).

Anolicants, as usual, a near to attack the merits of 3

most of my SER contentions. On contentions 17h-177 they appear to @

concede basis and snecificity, and attack timeliness, sayinF 7 could g have fi E ured out these contentions earlier. I am baffled by th61r assertion (pe22-23, fn h) that T should have challenged the Staff's ha c,

position on Harris before they took a nosition (Staff said it would .

respond to USGS in the Harris SE9 They did and I challenged the f response). See argument above (ton of o.3) re the " cater-2x2" = thi s CP&L argument also entails.

Re contentions 178-179 (op2hff), the list or un P6-27 does not aupear to ine'lude any documents requirinF action by Har"is plant personnel. The failure nattexrn I refer to in the contentions is the s awide. one identified by N90 staff in its 12-1 letter, i.nd confirmed by later staff action and inquiries which were sent te nur Board. [

Fe contention 181, Staff rsvised the SE9 up til November 1983 I found this out via a FOIA,#8h-35 (see document list in lette" fron i N9C to Eddleman resconding to this FOIA,Feb 7, 108h (cony attached). 1 Yet the Staff did not OK CP&L's resconses of August and Sentenber in \

the SER. It's reasonable to infer something was wrong with the .,

because the Staff OK'd lots of othen stuff in the SER. Staff notes (p.1V-- A CP&L did not file a statenent, of how all DCD3' regs we.uld be net.

-[

'o

~,,

. UNITED $TATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ .l WASMNGTON. D. C. 20555

\..../ FEB 0 71984 Docket No. 50-400/401 Mr. Wells Eddleman Staff Scientist Box 2901 IN RESPONSE REFER Durham, NC 27705 TO F01A-84-35

Dear Mr 8.ddleman:

This is in partial response to your letter dated January 12, 1984, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, all extant drafts of sections or portions of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, along with documents showing dissenting opinions of the staff reviewers.

Appendix A is list of documents responsive to your request. These documents are being placed in the NRC Local Public Document Room (LPDR) located at the Wake County Public Library,104 Fayetteville 5treet, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601. In order to obtain access to these documents, please contact Mr. Roy Dicks at the LPDR on (919) 755-6092. .

Our search for additional documents relevant to your request is continuing.

You will be notified later of our determination.

Sincerely,-

s r-l J. N. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration

Enclosure:

Appendix A I: :. -,

-. ._ . - - - . , . . - . ~ - . - , , _ . . . - - . .. .-. .- . _ . . - .

q P' F0!A-84-35 . .

APPENDIX A

1. Memo 4-27-82, from Benaroya to Miraglia, " Request for Additional Information on Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2."

(4 pages)

2. Merno 5-17-82, from Benaroya to Miraglia, " Fire Protection Request for Information for Shearon Harris Units 1-4." (7 pages)

3. Memo 10-20-82, from Knight to Novak, " Draft Safety Evaluation Report -

Geology and Seismology - Shearon Harris, Units 1 and 2." (22 pages)

4. Memo 10-21-82, from Rubenstein to Novak, "Shearon Harris Draft Safety Evaluation Report." (70 pages)

5. Memo 10-28-82, from Benaroya to Knighton, "Shearon Harris Draft Safety Evaluation." (1 page)

6. Memo 11-4-82, from Rubenstein to Novak, " Draft Safety Evaluation Report for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant." (171 pages)

7. Memo 11-9-82, from Lear to Kerrigan thru Knight, " Draft Safety Evaluation Input and Requests for Additional Information - Geotechnical Engineering."

(40 pages)

8. Memo 11-17-82, from Johnston to Novak, " Draft Safety Evaluation for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (OL), Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-400/401." (21 pages)

9. Memo 12-3-82, from Lear to Knighton thru Knight, " Hydrologic Engineering Input to the Shearon Harris Draft SER." (25pages)

10. Memo 12-6-82, from Knight to Novak, " Draft Safety Evaluation Report."

(16pages)

11. Memo 12-21-82, from Knight to Lainas, " Revision 1 to Draft Safety Evaluation Report - Geology and Seismology - Shearon Harris, Units 1 and 2." (24 pages)

12. Memo 12-22-82, from Muller to Novak, "Shearon Harris Draft SER Input."

(9pages)

13. Memo 1-10-83, from Johnston to Novak, " Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report Input for Environmental Qualification of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Shearon Harris." (3 pages)

14. Memo 8-26-83, from Knight to Novak, " Safety Evaluation Report for Environmental Qualification of Equipment Import;nt to Safety for Shearon Harris Units 1 and 2." (5 pages) i w- - ,

r

.- ' Re: F01A-84-35 APPENDIX A

15. Memo 8-31-83, from Rubenstein to Novak, " Safety Evaluation Report -

Shearon Harris Units 1 and 2." (78pages) 16 Memo 9-1-83, from Rubenstein to Novak, "Shearon Harris Safety Evaluation Report." (69pages) 17.. Memo 9-2-63, from Lear to Knighton thru Knight, " Final Safety Evaluation Report - Geotechnical Engineering." (27pages) 18, Memo 9-8-83, from Knight to Novak, " Safety Evaluation Report - Geology and Seismology - Shearon Harris, Units 1 and 2." (45pages)

19. Report, 8-22-83, Shearon Harris SER (M) , " Auxiliary Systems."

(50 pages)

20. Memo 9-14-83, from Rubenstein to Novak, " Safety Evaluation Report for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Auxiliary Systems Branch." (243 pages)

21. Memo 9-14-83, from Johnston to Novak, " Hydrologic Engineering Irput to the Shearon Harris SER." (24 pages)

22. Memo 9-15-83, from Knight to Novak, " Safety Evaluation Report (Structural Engineering)." (16pages)

23. Memo 9-21-83, from Russell to Novak, "SER for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant - Plant Personnel Training." (21 pages)

24. Memo 10-4-83, from Kniel to Knighton, "SER Input - Shearon Harris Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2." (26 pages)

25. Memo 10-6-83, from Knight to Novak, "Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Unit #1." (4 pages)

26. Memo 10-6-83, from Johnston to Novak, " Safety Evaluation for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 & 2 (0L), Carolina Power & Light Company, Do:ket Nos. 50-400/401." (3 pages)

27. Memo 10-7-83, from Houston to Novak, "Shearon Harris 1 & 2 - Safety Evaluation Report (SER)." (49 pages)

28. Memo 10-11-83, from Johnston to Novak, "Shearon Harris SER Input."

(6pages) 4

29. Memo 10-28-83, from Rubenstein to Novak (Enclosure 3), "Shearon Harris SER Update - Docket Nos. 50-400/401." (50pages)

O

e 3 - Re: F01A-84-35 . .

APPENDIX A 30, Memo 10 2.-83, from Lear to Knighton, "Shearon Harris SER Input (Revisit,..J - Structural Engir.eering." (4 pages)

31. Memo 11-9-83, from Partlow to Youngblood, " Harris Draft SER Section 17."

(3 pages)

32. Memo 11-3-83, from Johnston to Novak, " Fire Protection Revised Safety Evaluation Report - Shearon Harris Units 1-4." (2 pages)

33. Memo 11-10-83, from Johnston to Novak, " Revised Hydrologic Engineering Input to the Shearon Harris SER." (15 pages)

34. Memo 11-14-83, from Lear to Knighton, "Shearon Harris SER Input (Revision) - Structural Engineering." (3 pages)

35. Memo 11-17-83, from Rubenstein to Novak (Enclosure 4), "Shearon Harris SER Update (Docket Nos. 50-400/401)." (89pages)

36. Memo 11-18-83, from Muller to Novak, "METB Input for Safety Evaluation Report for Shearon Harris, Unit Nos. 1 and 2." (275pages) 37, Memo 11-18-83, from Lear to Knighton thru Knight, " Update to Final Safety Evaluation Report - Geotechnical Engineering." (6 pages) 38, Memo 11-18-83, from Johnston to Novak, "Shearon Harris SER Input-Supplement." (2 pages)

39. Memo 11-23-83, from Srinivasan to Sheron, "PSB Review of Draft Safety Evaluation Report Response to Open Item 47 on Reactor Coolant System Vents for Shearon Harris Units 1 and 2 - Docket Nos. 50-400 and 50-401."

(2pages)

40. Memo (undated) from Matthews to Knighton, " Emergency Preparedness Input for Shearon Harris SER." (06 pges)

41. Memo 12-14-83, from Johnston to Novak, " Fire Protection Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report." (12 pages)

f- . .

. .o -

3 Box 2901 3)nrham NC 27705 12 January 1984 Joseph Felton FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Div. of Rules & Records ACT REQUEST USNBC Qff g _Q l Washington, DC 20555

Dear Joseph Felton,

g

'd / /4 ff-l ~ -

1 Under the Freedom of Infom ation Act, NC Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit organization, hereby requests copies of all extant drafts of sections or portions of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for tne Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, and any documents by or in the possession of Staff reviewers which show dissenting" opinions as .to any contents or concinaions of the Harris SER.

NC PIRQ ic a research and advocacy organization with over .3,000

)

members and publishes reports on various matters affecting the public interest, e.g. generic drugs, tenant rights, rape awareness, utility rates, toxic chemicals, and nuclear waste transportation.

NC PIRG is ful.Ly qualified to present information from this request to be used by the public, and therefore requests a waiver of fees since we do not have sufficient funds to pay for extensive copying wnich may be required, given that the drafts could exceed the 2 inch thick SER in extent. Please feel free to contact me' at 919-286-2275 (work) or 919-286-3076 (home) concerning this request.

u Wells Eddleman Staff Scientist g 9 0

,y__ _ _ _. _., , ,7-. _- _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _. - _ _ _ _ __ . , _ _ _ , - __ -..,_, _ __,__y.___,___.7. - ~ . _.--w-.-__