ML20028F620

Answer to Applicant Response to Motion Re Dcrdr Info & Proposed New Contentions.Dcrdr Not Specific Enough to Formulate Contentions in Number of Areas

ML20028F620
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	01/26/1983
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20028F621	List: ML20028F620 ML20028F627
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8302020321
Download: ML20028F620 (6)

Text

._ _ _ _ _ __ _

00; METED

' u mRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION #""""U 8 fN- All :00

a. ht i/,

m, ..t au & SEWla BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD **

Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter Ja:nes L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of J Dockets 50 400 OL CAB 0 LINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. ) 50 401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 ani 2) J

)

Wells Eddlenan 's answer'to Anulicants ' ,

Response to Motion concerning DCRDR Infornation And Pronosed New Contentions With regard to the notion, Apnlicant s admit (footnote 1, n.2 I

of 1-25 "resbonse") that the DCRDR is the only information available to intervenors or NSC staff on this-natter. The niain fact is that the DCRDR is not specific enough to formulate contentions on in any

, number of areas, e.g. the HERS for the lighting and visual alams.

t If CP&L's argument is accepted, then I.am to be exue'eted to formulate l

specific contentions at as to how CP&L fails to meet NDC reouirenents without being able to see what CP&L has done to meet those requirenents in any of the areas addressed in ny notion of Januarp8. This is absurd. Where the sketchy DCRDR (of only 114 pages) and its anpendices E sunply enough data to fornulate contentions, I have done so.

@@ The"information CP&L possesses, which they state (footnote n.2 ibid) g ,

i is not available to NRC or intervenors, is listed descrintively in i ' N5 gg DCRDR Appendix A, but certainly not with enough snecificity to fornu-1 ate contentions with basis.

~

l They are nere descriutions. CP&L's whole argunent -on this notion is sonhistry and if accepted will allow then c to prevent contentions being fomulated, by not filing infomation.

t

1-26-83 Gnnwar, page 2

• With respect to the contentions, Auplicants apnarently seek to have their cake and eat it too in at least 3 distinct ways.

First, they attenut a catch-22 trap in calling the contentions premature, knowing the Board requires then to be filed within 30 days of receipt of key documents by intervenors. I sinnly assert in 1323,132 C and 132 D that Anplicants have not done certain things they are required to do. Annlicants admit this is true (last 2 lines of page 3 of their Resnonse of 1-2k$). These contentions are based on new information and the new requirenents of NUREG-0737, "evision 1,

.y as Applicants realize (p.3). I an under no obligation to give thermore time to trytomeetarequirementbeforefilingacontentionwithik the time allowed for filing contentions.

Second, such contentions according to the Appeal Board must be based on wholly new information. That surely annlies to NUREG-the first il gdr 0737 Rev. 1 and the DCRDR, mai!himem of which xister at the original time to file contentions, and the second of which just became available.

l Then the Applicants say, don't adnit the contentions because their basis is new and we haven't had time to act on it. Again the key fact is that Applicants have not co7nlied with these requirenents, i

Thus, the conattentions 132B,c,andD are admissible now.

Applicants also say I haven't proved they won't comply with these requirenents. That goes to the merits of the contentions. I don't have to prove anything. All I have to do is show with veasonab_,le specificity and basis that a contention is admissible. And f ailure to have complied with applicable NRC rules and requirements is exactly such a basis.

Finally, Apolicants seen to object to ny citing snecific basis for my contentions, sqring I an acting as an NRC reviewer. This idea is irrelevant and self-contradictory, f r an intervenor must review

4 . .

1 83 answer page 3 the available documents concerning a plant to formulate contentfors thereona. Applicants admit (footnobe, p.2) that their "DCRDR" is the only available info in this area on what Auplicants are doing to meet NRC requirements.

Anplicants admit (p.h lines 20-22) that the basis of 132B is correct. Applicants claim that the qualifications of Essex Corp.

personnel are known to CP&L and the NRC (p.5) but not that such information is available, now or previously, to intervenors or to me.

That being so, how can I be expected to specifically critique the (unknown) cualifications of said reviewers? It would have been easy enough to nut their resumes and a desertntion of how their qualificate ions are anpronriate for doing a DCRD9 into the DC9DR. CP&L didn't.

Nor has CP&L shown that the review was conducted accord *rg to accepted human engineering principles, although presumably if the Essex team is qualified to do so, it could have explained how and nut that in the DCRDR too. CPaL8s failure to provide information is sinnly no excuse for them to a-roid their burden of nroof. If they had adeaucte info on the matters of Contention 1320, they could have nut it in. They didn't, and that's basis enough for alleging they didn't com,17 with the specific requirement of NUREG-0737 9ev. I section 5.1(b)(1).

Applicants admit (1st parggranh, n.6) that 132c II is correct as to factual basis and specificity. The snecific concerns of this contention are well detailed, and "indenendence" of them from whatever is simply not a requirement for contentions.

132D is sinnly correct based on the info in the "DCPDR" wh4 ch is all the Anplicante had nroduced for intervenors. Again, if Mr. O'Neill's argument on the nerits ("once the design for Harris unit 1 is comrleted and anproved by the NFC") makes sense, it car only be on the basis of s

1-26-83 ensw;r pago 4 - -

things yet to be done and infornation not available to inte"vnors.

Applicants have no right to expect intervenors to be clairvoyant, and it would certainly have been easy enough to state that Unit 2 would have the same design as that in which night be approved for Unit 1, in the DCRDR, if that were the case. The contentinn is based on the DCRDR, which never mentions Unit 2. (I think this may be further evidence that Unit 2 isn't really going to be built.)

With respect to Contentions lh2 through 1hh, the reason they weren't filed earlier is stated senarate fron the rest of the contentions: They are based on NUREG-0737 Rev. 1 requirements which just became available 12-17-82. The cover le tter of that document states that anong the itens affected by its revisf onc  ?.~e III.A.2.2 Meteorological Data, III.A.1.2 Ungrade Eme"Sencv Sunno-t Facilities. If further states (Introduct' on, p.2) that although i t does not alter oreviously issued guidance which remains in effect, "This docunent does attennt to place that guidance in eersuective by identifying the elements that the NRC staff believes to be essentif1 to upgrade energency resnonse catabilities."

With respect to Contention 142, Section 6.1 of Nu9EG 0737 Rev.1 nrovides that CP&L's nrogram nuet orovide reliable indicatien of variables including wind direction, wind speed and atmosnheric stability. This is exactly the deficiency I allege, since CP&L has only one site in the midst of this region of variable atnoscheric condictions. Such conditions are highly variable within 10 miles of SENPP, as anyone who watches the weathe" radar on travels through the area knows.

Also, A7plicants allege that FDU airoort data are not representative of the plant area, but section 6.1(b) rec.uires such information to be available via communication with the Nat4.cnal Weather Service. The above (all) are stated to be "ree.uivenents" taat supersede NU9EG-0737.

J

1-26 D3 answ;r, paga 5 Re Contention 143, N'C review of all these interrelated $ tens is clearly required. E.g. see Section 7.2N50 "will perforn a pre-inplementation review of the Technical Guide 15res." While sec t'en 6 allows imolenentation without NDC review, the interrelationships must be considered. This isn't done until the NPC audit.

Particularly relevant is section B.h.2 (p.23) of NUREG-0737 Rev.1, which states "The conce,tual design for energency resnonse fa&ilit'e s (TSC, OSC and EOF) have been s ubnitted to N70 for "eview. In nany cases, the lack of detail in these subnittals has mrecluded an U'C decis.'on of accentabilitv. Some designs have been disann"oved bedause they clearly did not nant the intent of the =egulat'ons. "'C decs not intend to anorove each design nrior to innlenentat'or, but vathen has nrovided in this docunent thone recuirements which rhould be s a t'.s fie d . (ennhasis added).

The introductior (p.2) states that these reau' *enent s "a re ,

therefore, to be accorded the status o= an" roved 'IUSEG-0737 itens as set forth in the Connissions 's Statement of oo licy" 45 T? 97236.

Thus, 143 car be renhrased to state that thc designs and ccratructier of the CP&L Har"is TSC, OSC and EOF have not been demonet-atad to i con"17 with the require ents of FU'E3-0737, Rev.1. The basis is l

admitted, they '.re not designed or built. It is dif'icult to guces just where Anrlicants will not or ~ny not co~nly with these guide 7 'nes when they haven't inplenented then yet; I filed these lh?-lbb cer tentinns knowing they n9y be deferred, but that I should f'le the when the basis information becane available. But fr,- the "

DC7D'" 't is aasy to Euess that they will fail (or nay fall) to use human e actorad, functicn oriented energency onerating nrocedures and veanalyre

transients (7.1 a and b, p.15); the lack of tested commundcatinrs linas is basis for nonconnliance with 8.1 "8"; the unbu'lt TFC hx fails

^-

1.26.83 rasnanca pago 6 - .

8.2.1 b,c,d,e, and f; its lack of tested connunications lines violates 8.2.1 g and 8.3 1 c; the unbuilt EOF does not nrov3de k

for the requirements of 8.h.1 b, c, d, and e; its untested, unbuilt communications violate 8 4.1 f and g; not having the informat!cn required in 8.h.1 (h): CP&L's erroneous Blueprints of the Brunswick torus and the ness they caused in prefab structures for use inside it provides sone basis for CP&L's not providing accurate up to date records and procedures at the EOF. Finally, note that 8.h.1 i provides for staffing ner Table 2 (Contention 14h) as a recuirement unless exceptions are justified to NRC staff, which has not been done. The Table 1 reouirements (contention 1h3) are clearly not met where the facilities do not exist.

I think the above provides plenty of clarity; the reason this amount of detail didn't go into the original contentions was sinnly that I had other pressing business and deadlines between the DCRD9 and its filing deadline, and specified as clearly as tine nevnitted.

i Moreover, use of the above info will not broaden the issues beyond Eddleman 132 and deferred energency planning contentions; will not l delay the proceeding at thic point since these contentions have not i

! been ruled on. No other v.arties have taken up these issues with contentions, so there are no other neane to nrotect my interect on this point. And it is clear that these are innortant requirenents, vital to protecting the nublic health and safety, that cortentions 142 through 14h address, so hearing then will clearly heln to develop a sound record. Therefore I resnectfully request that the above information, if necessary to the admissibility of content'.nns filed January 10th 1983, be used on the basis of my showing re the late-filin6 requirenents above, and that each of those contenti.ons as filed (perhaps renumbering 132C II as 132A) be admit d WW.

-