ML19274D809

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Applicant'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Suffolk County Contentions 17a(i)-(ii).W/affidavits & Qualifications of WE Kilker & F Boorboor
ML19274D809
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 02/05/1979
From: Whittemore F
HUNTON & WILLIAMS
To:
Shared Package
ML19274D797 List:
References
NUDOCS 7902260177
Download: ML19274D809 (15)


Text

2/5/79 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Be fore the Atomic Sa fety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docke t No. 50-322

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF SC CONTENTIONS 17a( i)-( ii)

1. Suf folk County (SC or County) contentions 17a( i)-

(ii) were accepted by the Board only for purposes of discovery because they were insufficiently particularized. See Board Order of March 8, 1978 at 4. These contentibns read as fol-lows:

17a. Intervenors contend that the Applicant and the Regulatory Staf f did not adequately review the site for Shoreham for comcliance with 10 CFR, Part 50, Acce nd ix II A, Criteri[on 2]Ill and 10 CFR, Part 100 with regard to:

i. Physical characteristics of the site including G-value selected for the Safe Shutdown Earth-quake and Operating Basis Earthquake.

ii. Determination of exclusion area, low popula-tion zone, and population center distance.

1/ The introducti- . SC contentions 17a( i)-( ii) reads

" Append ix A, Cr itx. ia I . " However, there is no such cri-terion in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A. It appears that the County meant to refer t: Appendix A, Criterion 2 ( de s ig n bases for protection against natur al phenomena) .

990z260n1

- . SC's Amended Petition to Intervene at 21 (Sept. 16, 1977).

2. Further understanding of the meaning of these contentions was provided in certain SC pleadings filed after its Amended Petition to Intervene. The main allegations in these contentions are that (a) the design ground acceleration (or "G") values are inadequate ( too low) and, if so, that (b) the low population zone (LPZ), exclusion area, aid population center distance are improperly determined. See, e.a., SC's Particularized Contentions at 17-2 to 17-3 (Nov. 30, 1978). To substantiate the first allegation, SC listed seven items on pages 14-15 of its November 10, 1977 Amended Contentions and Legal Arguments Submitted in Compliance with the Hearing Board's Request of October 11, 1977. SC admitted that the first four of its seven items were irrelevant when it reiterat-ed only the last three items on pages 17-18 of its Objections to Hearing Board's January 27, 1978 Memorandum and Order (Feb.

17, 1978). SC then reasserted that those three items support these contentions. SC's Particularized Contentions at 17-2 to 17-3.

3. SC contentions 17a( i)-(ii) , amplified as indicated in 9 2 above, raise no genuine issues of fact for the reasons set out in 99 4-6 below.
4. The common thread running through these contentions and the County's subsequent filings mentioned in c 2 above is the allegation that Shoreham's design ground acceleration

values for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and Operating Ba-sis Earthquake (CBS) are not conserva tive in view of some un-certainties regarding seismicity in the eastern United States.

Notwithstanding SC's allegation, Shoreham's design g round ac-coleration values are conservative and they comply with the ap-plicable NRC regulations. Af fidavit of Wayne E. Kilker at 'I 2.

Moreover, Shoreham's design ground acceleration values were re-viewed and approved at the construction permit stage. See Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Powe r Station) , LBP-73-13, 6 AEC 2 71, 2 76, a f f' d, ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831, 857 (1973).

5. Although SC alleged that the G-values for Shoreham are too low, none of the three items discussed in its Particu-larized Contentions, see 5 2 above, suggests using values high-er than those used in Shoreham's design.
a. The first of the three items is an NRC letter frcm B. Rusche to the ACFS, dated January 31, 1977. It reques-ted a clarification of a recommendation by consultants to the ACRS that:

in view of the uncertainties of knowledge concerning the sources of earthquakes in the Eastern United States, a minimum safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) of 0.29 acceleration should be utilized for new plants for which construction permit applications are sub-mitted in the future.

ACRS Report on North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (Jan. 17, 1977). This quotation indicates concern about plants designed with a SSE of less than 0.2g acceleration. Sh o r e ham is not one of those plants because its SSE value was set at 0.2g lonc

, before this recommendation was published.

b. The second item refers to an article in the April 23, 1973 issue of Science, entitled " Earthquakes, Faults, and Nuclear Power Plants in Southern New York-Northern New Jersey," by Yash P. E.ggarwal and Lynn R. Sykes. SC claims that this article reported new information concerning the seismicity of the New England, New York, and New Jersey coastal areas.

Actually, the article focused primarily on the Ramapo f ault, which at its closest approach is approximately 60 miles west-northwest of the Shoreham site. See FSAR Fig. 2.5.1-5. Most of the information reported in the article had been introduced by the authors in the NRC proceeding on Indian Point Units 1, 2 and 3. There the Appeal Board concluded that the Ramapo fault was not " capable," as defined in 10 CFR Part 10 0, Append ix A, S III(g). Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-436, 6 NRC 547, 624 (1977); see cenerally id. at 587-624. The new data obtained by Agcarwal and Sykes did not lead them to conclude that the Ramapo fault was capable. Thus, there is no basis for considering the Ramapo fault in the seismic analysis for Shoreham.

c. SC's third item refers to an NRC letter from K.

Kniel to the Applicant dated September 1, 1977, which the Coun-ty characterited as:

addressing the open items of seismic qualification of mecnanical equipment at Shoreham, electrical equip.nent, and load combinations, including effect on concrete containment structures.

, , SC's Particularized Contentions at 17-2 to 17-3; see SC's Ob-jections to Hearing Board's January 27, 1978 Memorandum and Order at 18 (Feb. 17, 1978). The County incorrectly perceives Mr. Kniel's letter as taking issue with Shoreham's design ground acceleration values. Actually, none of the items con-tained in Mr. Kniel's letter, which SC correctly summarized in the above quotation, pertains to the design ground acceleration values. Rather, these items concern the methods used to verify that certain structures and equipment will withstand seismic loads up to the design ground acceleration values.

6. Paragraphs 4-5 above demonstrate that Shoreham's design ground acceleration values are conservative and comply with the applicable regulations. SC has cited no evidence to refute these conclusions. Therefore, SC contention 17a(ii) raises no genuine issue of fact because there is no basis for its underlying assumption -- that Shoreham's design ground ac-celeration values are inadequate. See 4 2 above; SC's Particu-larized Contentions at 17-3. Moreover, Shoreham's LP2, exclu-sion area, and population center distance meet the applicable NRC regulations. See Lona Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nucle-ar Power Station), LBP-73-13, 6 A EC 2 71, 278, aff'd, ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831, 857 (1973); Af fidavit of Forochar Boorboor on 17(a)(ii).
7. For the above reasons, SC contentions 17a(i)-(ii) raise no genuine issues of f act. Accordingly, under 10 CFF S 2.749, they are ripe for summary disposition in f avor of the Applicant. We request that disposition.

Re spectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CCMPANY

/

F. Case Whittemore W. Taylor Reveley, III Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 5, 1979

SC 17a )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atcmic Saf ety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

LCNG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

AFFIDA7IT OF WAYNE E. KILKER Wayne E. Kilker , being duly sworn, states as follows:

1. I am Lead Geotechnical Engineer for the Shoreham Project. A statement of my professional qualifications is at-tached.
2. Shoreham's design ground acceleration values for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and Operating Basis Earth-quake (OBE) comply with all applicable NRC regulations for the following reasons:
a. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 2, all historically reported earthquakes in the Northeast were analyzed to determine the maximur. intensity ex-perienced at the Shoreham site due to any of these seismic events. The maximum intensity is estimated tc have been IV-V (MM). FS AR S 2. 5. 2.5.7. This corresponds, based rn Neumann's intensity-acceleratien relationship, to a ground atte.eration

of approximately 0. 02 -0 . 0 3 g . Id. at F ic . 2.5.2-5. This range is considerably less than Shoreham's Saf e Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) value of 0.2g, which corresponds to an intensity greater than VII (MM). Id. at S 2.5.2.9, Fig. 2.5.2-5.

b. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, the maximum intensity of potential earthquakes that might af-fect Shoreham was determined. This analysis was based on ex-tensive geologic and seismic scudies. The conclusion of these studies was that the maximum intensity of potential earthquakes at Shoreham is intensity VII (MM). Id. at 5 2.5.2.9; see gen-erally id . at SS 2.5.1 .3. This corresponds to a peak ground acceleration of 0.13g, based on the intensity-acceleration re-lationship mentioned in 1 2.a above. In order to ensure that Shoreham's design is conservative, a higher SSE value of 0.2g was chosen. Id. at S 2.5.2.9. In accordance sith 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, S V(a)(2), che CBE value was established as 0.lg, which is one-half of the SSE value. Id . at S 2.5.2.11.

/

Wayne E. Kilker Subsc r ibed and sworn',to be f ore me th is 0/ day of G m W , 1979.

/

/

8'  ?!

Notary fuolic

-s My commission expires: /uyxe., / f /.Se-

/

QUALIFICATIONS OF WACIE E. KILKER My name is Wayne E. Kilker. My business adress is Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 245 Su==er Street, Boston, Massachusetts. I am currently Lead Geotechnical Engi-neer on both the Shoreha= and Ja=esport proj ects . As such,

=y duties have included responsibility for all geotechnical related design and site activities.

I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engi-neering fro = the University of Minnesota in 1964. I worked as an Assistant Engineer for the Aritona Highway Department fro = 1965 to 1966 and served as an Engineering Laboratory Teacher in the Peace Corps fro = 1966 to 1968. In 1970 I received a Master of Science degree in Soil Mechanics frc=

Arizona State University. Then I was e= ployed by Twin Cities Testing & Engineering Laboratories as a Geotechical Engineer, There I gained experience in establishing geotechnical design criteria, performing site investigations, inspecting construc-tion operations, and testing engineering =aterials.

In 1974 I joined Scene & Webster Engineering Corpora-tion as an engineer in the Geotechnical Division and worked on several nuclear power plant projects. I assisted in plan-ning site investigations, prepared geotechnical sections of Safety Analysis Reports, made engineering calculations, and proposed construction specifications. I became Lead Geotechnical Engineer of the Shoreha= project in March of 1976. As such I have directed stability and licuefaction analyses on soil sub-

jected to seismic induced stresses and have been responsible for coordination and verification of the in-situ soil densi-fication program. In 1977 I also became Lead Geotechnical En-gineer for the Jamesport proj ect and have been responsible for preparation of geotechnical design criteria, construction speci-fications, and groundwater studies.

I as a licensed professional engineer in the State of Minnesota.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM'4ISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

AFFIDAVIT OF FOROOHAR bOORBOOR ON 17a (ii)

Forochar (Jeff) Boorboor, being duly sworn, states as follows:

1. I am Lead Radiation Protection Engineer in the Licensing Division of the Nuclear Engineering Department of Long Island Lighting Company. A statement of my professional qualifications is attached.
2. The criteria th'at govern the exclusion area, low population zone, and population center distance are set out in 10 CFR SS 100.3, 100.11. The exclusion area for the Shore-ham site is the area enclosed by a circle with a 1000-foot radius centered on the reactor vessel. This area is owned and controlled by LILCO, which gives it the authority to ex-clude or remove personnel and property as required by 10 CFR S 100. 3 (a) . FSAR S 2.1.2. The doses that would be received by a person standing at the exclusion area boundary for the two hours immediately following the maximum credible accident at Shoreham are well within the limits set out in 10 CFR

S 100.00 (a) (1) . See FSAR 15.1.34.5.2, Table 15.1.34-3.

3. The Shoreham low population zone is that area out-side the exclusion area but within a circle having a two-mile radius and centered on the reactor vessel. LILCO has studied this area in detail and concluded that there is a reasonable probability that appropriate protective measures can be taken on behalf of the residents in the event of a serious accident as required by 10 CFR S 100.3(b). See FSAR SS 2.1.3.4, 13.3.1.1.

The doses that would be received by an individual located on

.the outer circumference of the low population zone that could result from the maximum credible accident at Shoreham are well within the limits set out in 10 CFR S 100.ll(a) (2) . See FSAR 15.1.34.5.2, Table 15.1.34-3.

4. The population center distance is defined as the distance from the reactor to the nearest boundary of a densely populated center containing more than about 25,000 residents.

10 CPR S 100. 3 (c) . The nearest and most likely area to have 25,000 residents by the year 2020 is the unincorporated area known as Yaphank. This area is 8.8 miles SSW of the site.

That distance is more than 1-1/3 times the 2-mile radius of the Shoreham low population zone, as required by 10 CFR S lus.ll(a) (3) .

See FSAR at 2.1-14.

l' /

/.

Forochar Bocrboor ,

Subscribed and sworn to before me ,

this Jmj_ day of February, 1979. -

k1 w %rY2h Notary fu)lfc My commission expires: _

MMY JO TIFRILLlCN T4: tar / NL:.: S:2:e cf N w York tio. ;04002327 Qua.. :d a Nass.'u County C:mm.:s:en c.xpires Mar. 20, 19 84

QUALIFICATIONS OF FOR00HAR B00R300R My na e is Forochar (Jeff) 3corbcor. My business address is Lcng Island Lighting Company, 175 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York. I an the Cccpany's Lead Radia:icn Protection Engineer and report to the Manager of the Licensing Division in the Nuclear Engineering Department.

I received a Bachelor of Science degree in nuclear en-gineering and science from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1970, and a Master of Science degree in nuclear engineering and science from Rensselaer in 1971. I itave ce=pleted training courses in nuclear power plant design, and I have certificates of ccmpletion from the Co-op Program of Rensselaer, the Advance Reactor Division of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the Mass-achusetts Office of E=ergency Preparedness, as well as Harvard University's Radiarien Protection and E=ergency Planning Programs.

From 1971 to 1974, I was e= ployed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation as Lead Nuclear Engineer in the radia-tion protection group. I was with General A ccic Corpora:icn as a Senior Safety Analyst in the Safety and Reliabili y 3 ranch frca 1974 to 1975. Since 1975 I have been ecolcyed by :he Long Island Lighting Ccepany.

I an a licensed professional engineer and a member of the American Nuclear Society (including S:andard Cc==i::ee 13.1 en

" Radioactive Source Terms, Radicactive Effluenes, and Radia:icn

2 Monitors for Light Water Reactors"), the Health Physics Society, the Operating Recctor Health Physicists Group, and the EZI Health Physics Task Force.