ML19323H712
| ML19323H712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1980 |
| From: | Bordenick B, Latham S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323H709 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006160087 | |
| Download: ML19323H712 (9) | |
Text
._
m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY 4WD LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
FIRST STIPULATION REGARDING CERTAIN CONTENTIONS OF THE SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION AND IN PART REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME I.
Technical and legal representatives of the Shoreham Opponents Coalition (SOC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff ("S ta f f" ) met in San Jose, California, on April 16 and 17 to discuss certain SOC contentions which were identified by the Board in its March 5th Order as in need of further particularization.1 As a result of this conference, SOC and Staf f stipulate that :
A.
The following SOC conten: ions have now been adequately particularized so as to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714, and are submitted to the Board for admission.in this proceeding:
2 (vii) ; 7 (a) (ii) ;
8; 10; 11; 12.
These particularized contentions are attached to this stipulation as Appendix A.
IAt page 24 of the Board's March.Sth Order, SOC was granted leave to particularize contentions 2 (vii) ; 6 (a) (i) ;
7 (a) (ii); 8; 10; 11; 12 (2nd part); and 19.
8006160.N 9
+*
B.
During their discussions of SOC's original con-tention 2 (vii), SOC and Staff agreed that the con-tention should be divided into two contentions which have been resubmitted as SOC contention 1 and SOC contention 2.
C.
Wi th r egard to SOC 's contention 6 (a) (i), final particularization of this contention, as it pertains to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Criteria 1-18, requires the listing of particular criteria as derived from a review of the investigation report prepared by Region 1 of the NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement (Investigation 50-322/
79-24, dated April 28, 1980, received by SOC on May 8, 1980).
The criteria developed by SOC's consultants have been finalized and have this date been submitted to Staff for its review and the parties are hopeful that an agreed upon contention f
can be submitted on or before August 6, 1980.
t.
With regard to original SOC contentions 10 and 11, the Staf f and SOC have agreed that these contentions should be combined into a single contention captioned,
" Environmental Qualification of Equipmen t" (see attached contention 10).
E.
Af ter lengthy discussion between the Staf f and SOC regarding SOC's original contention 19, the parties have been unable to agree at this time on the *-
particularization of that contention.
SOC and Staf f have agreed that another meeting to discuss this contention might lead to the formulation of a con-tention acceptable to both parties and such a meeting will be scheduled in the near future.
Both parties agree that formulation of this contention requires a thorough review of the FSAR by SOC, which document has recently been received by SOC 's consultants.
When that review has been completed, the parties will endeavor to particularize Contention 19 for submission to the Board.
F.
Although attorneys and technical representatives of the Applicant were invited to the San Jose conference on April 16th and 17th, the Applicant and its repre-sentatives declined to attend.
Nevertheless, the Staff and SOC have discussed their agreements on the above contentions and the executed stipulation has been submitted to the Applicant prior to its sub-mission to the Board in order to invite the Applicant to join in this stipulation either in whoic or in part.
II.
In view of the work remaining for Staf f and SOC to complete the.particularization of 6 (a) (i) and 19, the parties respectfully request an additional 60 days, through and including August 6, 1980, within which to -
attempt to arrive at a second stipulation regardin'g those contentions.
In the event, agreement cannot be reached by that date, the parties will, on or before Ubat date, submit their respective arguments on con-tentions on which agreement can not be reached.
III.
The parties to this stipulation request that the Board accept the agreement set f orth in Part I. above and to extend the time to complete particularization of Contentions 6 (a) (i) and 19 as requested in Part II.
Respectfully submitted, SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION A
'/
LS.
Steph[n B.
Latham, Esq.
NRC STAFF Hernard M.
Bordedick, Esq..
i
.-r~
.----.~W
Appendix A REVISED CONTENTION 2(vii)
SOC CONTENTION 1:
Intervenors contend that the emergency planning zones (EPZ)
~
set forth by the Commission in the NRC Policy Statement of October 23, 1979 (44 Fed. Reg. 61123) are inadtquate for the Shoreham nuclear plant in that:
a.
The 10-mile (radius) EPZ plume exposure pathway fails to provide adequate consideration of local conditions such as demography, meteorology, topo-graphy, land une characteristics, access routes, local jurisdictional boundaries and release time characteristics.
b.
The 50-mile (radius) EPZ ingestion pat hway f ails to provide adequate consideration of Jocal con-ditions such as demography, meteorology, topography, land characteristics, and time of year of release.
SOC CONTENTION 2:
Intervenors contend that the emergency planning requirements for the 50-mile (radius) ingestion pathway for the Shoreham facility, as set forth in the NRC Policy Statement of October 23, 1979 ( 4 4 Fed. Reg. 61123), are inadequate in tnat ~ they do not adequately address the ef fects of releases through the liquid p'athway.
4
't 6
~
i REVISED SOC CONTENTIOM-7 (a) (ii)
Generic Technical Issues - TMI-Related 1
a.
Intervenors contend that the Regulatory Staff has not adequately assessed and the Applicant has not adequately resolved, the generic r, resolved technical issues contained in the TMI Action Plan (NUREG-06 6 0 ), both singularly and cumulatively, applicable to a BWR of the Shorehar design, in reviewing the Shoreham operating license application, and as a result, the Regulatory Staff has not required the Sboreham structures, systems, and c,mponents to be backfitted as required by 10 CFR, 50.55(a), 10 CFR 50.57, and 10 CFR 50.109, with regard to:
1)
Failure to include certain technical issues raised by the accident at TMI in the TMI Action Plan (NUREG-9660);
j 2)
Failure to require the Applicant to resolve for the Shoreham nuclear plant certain items con-tained in the TMI Action Plan (NUREG-066 0 ) ;
3)
Failure to require the Applicant to implement in a timely fashion certain TMI Action Plan issues 4
for Shoreham; and 4)
Failure of the Applicant to adequately resolve certain TMI. Action Plan issues.
B 5
,,,a..
.e w--y a m
+
e~
--4
s 1
REVISED SOC CONTENTION E a
TMI-2 demonstrated the need to measure fuel cladding temperatures during accident conditions.
GDC 13 requires that:
" Instrumentation -shall be provided to monitor variables and systems over their anticipated i
ranges for normal opera tion, for anticipat ed operational occurrences, and for accident conditions as appropriate to assure adequate safety, -including those variables and syster.s that can affect the fission process, the integrity of the reactor core, the reactor coolant pressure boundary, and the containment i
and its associated systems.
Appropriatt cca-trols shall be provided to maintain these variables and systems within prescribed i
operating ranges."
J Intervenors contend that the Shoreham plant design dees i
not have instrumentation to permit measurement of fuel clad temperature as required by GDC 13.
l k
4 i
e 9
d.
e y
3
REVISED SOC CONTENTIONS 10 6 11
{
\\
t SOC CONTENTICN 10: -Environmental Qualification of Equipment Intervenors contend that the accident at TMI-2 demon-strates that certain structures, systems, and components which are currently classified as "non-safety related" may in fact have a significant ef fect on the sa f:'ty-grade equip-ment.
The TMI accident also demonstrated tN t the severity of the environment in which safety-grade equipne:.t must operate was underestimated and that equipment previously deemed to be environmentally qualified, failed.
Intervenors contend that the Regulatory Staf f has not required, and the Applicant has not implemented, an environmental qualification program for the Shoreham Nuclear Station as required by General Design Criteria 1, 2, 4, and 23 of Appendix A, Sections III and XI of Appendix b to 10 CFR, Pa rt 50, and Regulatory Guide 1.89 with regard to:
a)
The completeness of the Applicant's list of equipment to be qualified, as required by letter from Ross to LILCO dated February 21, 1980, and as defined in NUREG-0588, Dccember 1979.
b)
The adequacy of the Applicant's qualification program, including the assessment of thc effects of aging; and c)
The failure of the Staff to require safety-related equipment to be qualified in accordance l
with the requirements of IEEE 323-1974 and IEEE 344-1975.
i
~
\\
~.
REVISED SOC CONTENTION 12 The ongoing Mark II test progran, has recently determined j'
a need to install additional downcomer bracing at least two GE-BWR plants, LaSalle and Zimmer.
Additionally, further Mark II tests are underway and still to be analyzed by the Staf f.
Because of the potential inadequacy of this design feature, Intervenurs contend a
that the Shoreham primary containment system has not 1,
l been demonstrated to fulfill the requirements of 4
g 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix A, Criteria 4, 16 and 50.
i i
i i
4 4
J 1
V 4
I Y
t i
w-t ~ "
V
~~%
r