ML20037D341
| ML20037D341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1981 |
| From: | Carter L Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8107100058 | |
| Download: ML20037D341 (20) | |
Text
-.
- p o>
fe DOCKEFED h
USNRo
-U
/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUU 8198l
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
'Othce ef the se Ary//
Dricting & Senice ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD eranch Before Administrative Judges:
4 to Louis J. Carter, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris SEWED Jyt g,g8I In the Matter of 3
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322 f'
3 R[I-I(U)'j s-(ShorehamNuclearPowerStation, Unit 1)
July 7, 1981 2
JUL 0 91981 w i 3
h "Toj 47= f/
fiEMORANDUM AND ORDER
\\'
K (RulingonShorehamOpponentsCoalition'sMotionk'/,s For Acceptance of Particularized Contention 19) ' Q 6 In response to a petition of Shoreham Opponents Coalition (SOC) filed January 24, 1980, this Board detemined by Order dated March ;,
198d/ that it was beyond its jurisdiction to suspend the construction permit for the plant. The Board also found that S0C had, with one exception, met the requirements for admission as an intervenor.
In the Marct Order the Board granted leave to S0C to further particularize Conter4 ion 19. A detailed discussion and our rulings on SOC's efforts to particularize are given later in this Order.
Initially we shall discuss the procedural issues raised in the various pleadings.
l 1/ " Order Ruling on Petition of Shoreham Opponents Coalition."
1
[6 Of
- 107100058 810707 DRADOCKOSOOOg (I
s
s
- Motion of SOC on Particularized Contention 19:
Procedural Problems On March 18, 1981, SOC filed a " Motion... for Acceptance of
' Particularized Contention 19" in an effort to comply with our March Order.
Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO or Applicant) filed its l
answer to SOC's motion on April 2, 1981, and the NRC Staff filed its answer on April 7,1981. Then, on April 28, 1981, S0C filed a
" Response" to the answers filed by Applicant and Staff.
Staff in its
"... Opposition to S0C Request for Leave to File Response...",
dated April 30, 1981, urged the Board to reject 50C's " Response."
Applicant made no further filing.2/
SOC requests leave of the Board, pursuant to 10 CFR E 2.730(c),
to submit its " Response" based on what it asserts are "certain mis-characterizations and other improper arguments contained in the LILC0 and Staff answers [to its motion to particular1ze Contention 19]...."
Staff argues that permission should not be granted because, if the Board grants SOC's request, Staff and Applicant would seek leave to respond; this could set up a " ping pong" effect whereby S0C might seek to reply to the " response to the reply," and so on.
We believe Staff is in error -- though it may have been misled l
because S0C named its pleading a " motion."
If it were, in fact, a motion, our practice would normally permit an answer only, and 2/ Discovery has been continuing. The parties have
- various other filings but none are directly relevant to the matter dis-cussed herein.
)
. parties who do not first seck leave to file a reply are expressly denied the right to do so under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.730(c). Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Janic Plant, Unit 2), ALA~
i9, 7 NRC 470, 471 (1978); see also Public Service Company of Oklahoma Associates Electric Cooperative (Black Fox Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-776-36, 4 NRC 435, 441(1976). We believe, however, that the heart of this controversy was clearly illuminated by the Appeal Board in Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek heclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-565, 10 NRC 521 (1979). There the Appeal Board, in reviewing a similar pro-blem relating to contentions, said in pertinent part:
We believe that a contention, like a complaint in federal court, it intended to reflect what a party intends to prove on the merits but not an argument as to why his pleading should be entertained over his opponent's as yet unstated objections. Thus, when a defendent moves to dismiss a complaint... a plaintiff is -- and must be -- allowed the opportunity to respond to the motion.
In this respect, rep trdless of how it is denominated [_E.g., as a ' response' or
' answer' to the contention] a suggestion by the appli-cant and staff that a particular contention is in-admissible... is akin to a motion to dismiss.
... [I]f the applicant and staff are content to allow a contention to be accepted for litigation while denying its substance, no response is required and no ruling is necessary until the merits are brought up. A motion to dismiss, on the other hand, like a challenge to a con-tention, is followed -- after the other side is heard --
by a ruling on whether the matter will proceed.
In-I sofar as contentions are concerned, the intervenors must be heard in response because they cannot be re-quired to have anticipated in the contentions them-selves the possible arguments their opponents might raise as grounds for dismissing them.
In this respect l
too, contentions are like referral court complaints....
I Before any suggestion that a contention should not be entertained can be acted upon favorably, the proponent of l
the contention must be given some chance to be heard in response. (emphasis added; one footnote in brackets, the l
others omitted) l l
f
. In view of the aforesaid it is, we believe, appropriate to 1
restate the posture of this case using the correct appellations of the documents filed. On March 18, 1931, SOC filed its amended petition to intervene (the " Motion... for Acceptance of Particularized Con-l tention 19"). On April 2 and 7,1981, Applicant and Staff, respectively, filed motions to dismiss in part.
(Applicant's Response and Staff's Answer). On April 28,1981, S0C filed its answer to the motions of Applicant and Staff.
l We hold therefore (1) that SOC's answer entitled " Response of S0C to Answers of NRC Staff and LILC0 to SOC's..ation for Acceptance of Contention 19" is accepted as properly filed, and(2)thatnofurther reply by Applicant or Staff is permitted since SOC's " Response" raises no new legal matters.
We turn now to the substance of SOC's amended contention.
Motion of 50C to Amend Contention 19:
Consideration and Rulings In our order of March 5, 1980, we stated with regard to the applicability of regulatory guides:
1 i
"We believe, however, that it would be appropriate for the Board to consider whether the standards or goals of recent Regulatory Guides have been met.
S0C must, however, specify which recent Regulatory Guides it believes have not been met, and why it be-lieves they should be met."
(page 22, emphasis added) l Applicants, Staff, and S0C apparently have reached an impasse and are unable to agree on a definition of "recent."
i l
l l
l I
l l
l
. The word "recent" was not intended by the Board to set a fixed date, but to mean the latest revision or most recent changes of those
' guides which SOC seeks to introduce. Thus, when we instructed S0C to tell why the recent Guides should be met, we expected a discussion of precisely what the latest Guides require that earlier ones did not and why such changes are necessary for operation of the Shoreham plant.
That discussion has not been provided.
For most of the named Guides SOC has simply alleged, as the reason why the latest G~ 'de must be met, that failure to do so means failure to meet the Regulation which the Guide was intended to implement. Such a statement affords neither a basis for, nor an explanation of the intervenor's reasoning.
SOC's position is further weakened by the fact that Staff (the engineering group that developed these Guides) does not consider compliance with the Guides essential and so states in the standard statement which prefaces each Guide.E y The statement usually reads.as follows:
" Regulatory Guides are issued to describe and make available to the public methods acceptable to the NRC staff of implementing l
specific parts of the Commission's regulations, to delineate i
. techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, or to provide guidance to applicants.
Regulatory Guides are not substitutes for regulations, and com-pliance with them is not required. Methods and solutions different from those set out in the guides will be acceptable if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the Commission."
l l
l 1
L
. The hour is late. S0C has had ample opportunity to state and restate its position.
Its allegations are not a substitute for specific technical bases. With consultants of industry-wide reputation, S0C should have provided more substantial arguments and particularization.
We have, therefore, proceeded to analyze the individual parts of Contention 19, using as our criterion for late admissibility the fol-lowing test: Has S0C stated how the recent Regulatory Guide it advocates differs from the older Guide to which Shoreham is purported to conform and why that difference is needed at Shoreham to meet NRC Regulations? That is, S0C must (1) specify the partblar features of the Guide at issue and (2) show the nexus of those features to safety at Shoreham.
The requirement of greater specificity is necessary to provide a i
fair opportunity for other parties to learn precisely what the issues are, what proof, evidence or testimony is required to meet the issues, i
and what the Intervenor intends to adduce for its allegations. M the Matter of Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 771 et seq. (1977). The parties are invited to review the teaching of the Appeal Board in that opinion.
With regard to newly issued guides, the Board above stated, "To bring l
newly issued regulatory guides into play, it would have to be shown, ed., that the means adopted by the applicant (as reflected in the application) for satisfying a regulatory requirement are either not l
l efficacious or significantly less satisfactory than those recommended in the guide." M.at773.
l
, In the " motion" under consideration S0C submitted the following:
REVISED S0C CONTENTION 19
- 19. Application of Regulatory Guides A major contributing factor in the TMI-2 accident has been that the old operating plants have not been re-quired by the NRC Staff (Staff) to be in compliance with current regulatory practices (i.e., Regulatory Guides, Branch Technical Positions, and Standard Review Plans). The TMI-2 accident has also demonstrated that the current regulatory practices, practices similar to those being applied by the Staff in their safety evaluation of the Shoreham Nuclear Station, were in a number of cases (i.e., hydrogen generation, radiation shielding, source terms, and single failure criterion for example) not suitably conservative,to properly protect the health and safety of the public J Intervenors contend that the Regulatory Staff has not re-quired that the Applicant incorporate measures to assure that the Shoreham Nuclear Station conforms with the stand-ards or goals of safety criteria contained in recent NRC Regulatory Guides and as a result, the Regulatory Staff has not required that Shoreham structures, systems, and components be backfitted as required by 10 CFR 50.55a, 10 CFR 50.57, and 10 CFR 50.109 with regard to:
[see below]
- / A number of Regulatory Guides are related to the TMI issues and, the parties agree, might be more ap-propriately considered as part of SOC's TMI con-tention.
SOC reserves the right to particularize a j
contention addressing the following Regulatory Guides as part of that TMI contention:
1.7, 1.26, 1.29, l
1.52, 1.53, 1.98, 1.109-1.113.
i i
1
_g_
In addition to the foregoing there were numerous subparts. The Board's specific determinations on sub-parts of the particularized Contention 19 follow the statement of each:
A.
(Reg. Guide 1.2) The Applicant's general descrip-tion of the pressure vessel fails to specifically describe how the Shoreham pressure vessel will behave in a non brittle manner under loss-of-coolant conditions and therefore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 31.
The Intervenors have not stated what the required features of the specific Guide are nor how those features contribute to safety.
The sub-part is rejected.
B.
(Reg. Guide 1.6) The Applicant's design fails to provide adequate independence between redundant power as required by GDC 17 in that automatic transfer of power sources is provided for critical a-c valves in the RHR system (LPCI) and the reactor recirculation loops.
S0C has identified that feature of the latest Reg. Guide to which it believes Shoreham should conform. We will allow this sub-part as a matter in contention with the understanding that S0C will show at the evidentiary hearing why it is necessary to safety.
Hereafter this subpart shall be designated as Contention 19(a).
C.
(Reg. Guide 1.7) The Applicant's proposed post-d accident hydrogen control managerr:nt is wadequate in that the Applicant complies witn the neasures described in Rev. O, rather than Rev. 2, of the Guide and therefore does not comply with 10 CFR 50.44.
This subpart duplicates, in large measure, Contention 12, which is still to be particularized by S0C. The subpart is rejected for that reason.
. =
. D.
Inadequacies in personnel qualification and training were noted by various reviewers of the TMI-2 accident. ANSI Std. 3.1-1978, the successor to ANSI 18.1-1971, is undergoing ex-tensive revision in an effort to provide upgraded requirements for personnel qualification and training.
The Applicant complies with the 1971 version of the Guide (Rev. 0) and the ANSI Standard, rather than the measures described in the February,1979 and September, 1980 proposed Rev. 2 to the Guide.
A mere statement of a need for revision in training is not sufficiently particular so as to permit the Board to evaluate the factual issues involved. This subpart is rejected.
E.
(Reg. Guide 1.9) The Applicant fails to describe the degree of compliance to Rev. 2 of the Guide ad-dressing the selection, design, and qualification of diesel-generator units used as standby (onsite) electric power systems with regard to those requirements of IEEE Std. 387-1977, "IEEE Standard Criteria for Diesel-Generator Units Applied as Standby Power Supplies";
IEEE Std. 308-1974, "IEEE Standard Criteria for Class IE Power Systems"; IEEE Std. 323-1974, "IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class IE Equipment"; and IEEE Std. 344-1975, " Recommended Practices for Seismic Qus?ification of Class IE Equipment" included in the regulatory position of the guide.
Rather, the Applicant commits to the diesel generator requirements described in Rev. O of the Guide dated March, 1971.
Since neither Applicant nor the Staff object, this subpart is accepted. Hereafter this subpart shall be designated Contention 19(b,).
F.
(Reg. Guide 1.11) The instrument lines penetrating the primary reactor containment comply with Rev. O of the Guide. The Applicant has failed to address supple-mental guidance for backfitting considerations presented in Rev.1 of this Guide dated February,1972.
This subpart is rejected because it fails to raise an issue of fact and lacks the requisite specificity and nexus.
I i
.., _. _.. ~.. _ _.. _. -... _..
.__.,.,,,,,,._...._,..__,-,._.,_,..,.____,..._.._m
. G.
(Reg. Guide 1.13) The spent fuel storage design basis has not been updated by the Applicant to comply with the regulatory position of Rev.1 of the Guide dated December, 1975 and therefore does not comply with Appendix A, G9C 61 with regard to dropping of heavy loads, tornado missiles, and single failure-proof cranes.
We will admit this subpart to the extent that it alleges deft-ciencies in the fuel pool design with respect to providing protecticn against single failures in the crane, dropping of heavy loads and tornado missiles. Hereafter it shall be designated Contention 19(c).
H.
(Reg. Guide 1.23) The Applicant has failed to up-grade the meteorological measurement program to comply with the regulatory position of Draft Guide 1.23 dated September,1980, and therefore does not comply with 10 CFR 100.10(c)(2), 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2), Appendix I, and Appendix E in order to adequatelv measure and docu-ment basic meteorological data and to estimate potential radiation doses to the public.
This Reg. Guide, in draft form, is open for comment and under consideration by the Commission. Consequently it is not relevant at this time. This subpart is denied' without prejudice to SOC submitting a new contention with respect to meteorological monitoring if Reg.
Guide 1.23 is promulgated prior to the close of this record.
l I.
(Reg. Guide 1.26 and 1.29) The Applicant's general list of quality group classifications for safety-related components in FSAR Table 3.2.1-1 does r.ot fully comply with the classifications contained in Rev. 3 of the Guide 1.26 dated February IS76 for safety-related com-j ponents containing water, steam, or radioactive materials and therefore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 1, and 10 CFR 50.55a. The seismic design classifications, also generally listed by the Applicant in FSAR Table 3.2.1-1, do not comply with Rev. 3 of the Guide dated September 1978 and therefore do not comply with Appendix A, GDC 2 and 10 CFR 100, Appendix A, with regard to con-trol room habitability and radioactive waste systems.
~.
4
~v,
,,-,,-.,-..y n,
-..-,..--n..
. This subpart lacks specificity and nexus and is rejected.
J.
(Reg. Guide 1.31) The control of ferrite content in stainless steel weld metal by the Applicant complies with Rev. 1 of the Guide rather than Rev. 3 of the Guide dated April,1978 with regard to verification of delta ferrite content of filler mNterials and to examina-tion for ferrite content by a magnetic measuring instru-ment and therefore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 1 and 14.
This subpart appears to cite the specific features, viz., the control of ferrite content in weld metal and the verification of delta ferrite content of filler materials, in sufficient detail to allow the parties to address themselves to it. S0C will be expected at the hearing to show the exact relevance to safety.
This subpart is allowed and will be designated hereafter as Contention 19(d).
K.
(Reg. Guide 1.32) The Applicant's criteria for safety-related electric power systems is based on IEEE Std. 308-1971 (Rev. O of Guide) rather than IEEE Std. 308-1974 (Rev. 2 of Guide dated February 1977) and there-fore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 17 and 18, with regard to the off-site network, availability of off-site power, and battery charger supply requirements.
This subpart is rejected as lacking in specificity and nexus.
L.
(Reg. Guide 1.44) The Applicant's control of the use of sensitized stainless steel does not fully comply withtheregulatorypositionoftheReg.Guideand,phere-fore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 1 and 4._
- / SOC reserves the right to reparticularize this con-tention based on the new NRC position describeu in NUREG-0313 (Rev. 1).
. This contention lacks specificity and nexuc. The Board does not grant the right to S0C to reparticularize this contention. What Inter-
- venor refers to as the new NRC position described in NUREG-0313 (Rev. 1) has been available since July 1980 and Intervenor has had sufficient time to complete this contention. We see no grounds to allow further time.
M.
(Reg. Guide 1.48) The design limits and load com-binations utilized by the Applicant for seismic category I fluid system components has not been analyzed and documented in accordance with Rev. O of the Guide dated May.1973 and therefore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 2.
This subpart lacks specificity and nexus and hence is rejected.
N.
(Reg. Guide 1.52) The Applicant's proposed post-accident atmosphere clean-up complies only partially with Rev. O of the Guide (Reactor Building Standby Ventilation System and Control Room Air Conditioning filter trains are not removable as single units) rather than Rev. 2 of the Guide which was issued in 1978 prior to the TMI-2 accident and therefore the Applicant has failed to satisfy the habitability requirements of Appendix A, GDC 41, 42, 43, and 61.
This subpart notes a specific lack in Rev. O of the Guide and indicates it would affect control-room habitability.
It is accepted for litigation.
Hereafter it will be designated Contention 19(e).
O.
(Reg. Guide 1.56) The criteria for maintenance of water purity in the reactor coolant by the Applicant is in accordance with Rev. O rather than Rev. 1 of the Guide and therefore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 13,14,15 and 31 in that the Applicant has failed to document the following measures:
1.
Describe how resin transfers will be monitored in the reactor water cleanup system.
. 2.
Table 5.2.3-2 of the FSAR specifies the conductivity and chloride concentration limits for the reactor water to be 2 umho/cm and 0.1 ppm, respectively, during reactor operation up to 10 percent of rated power. Table 1 of Reg. Guide 1.56, Rev. 1, specifies the same limits, but for power operation at steaming rate less than one percent of rated steam flow. The Applicant should verify that steaming rates will be less than one percent of the rated steam flow at power levels up to 10 percent of the rated power.
3.
Describe and summarize the procedures for determining the pH, chloride concentrations, and conductivity in the reactor vessel water (regulatory position C.6 of Reg. Guide 1.56, Rev. 1).
4.
The FSAR does not indicate that chemical analysis for suspended impurities will be performed in accordance with regulatory position c.1 of Reg.
Guide 1.56, Rev. 1.
The Applicant should verify that such analyses are to be performed and state the sampling and analysis frequency and established limits and the basis for such limits.
5.
Describe the water chemistry control program to assure maintaining the condensate conductivity within the limits of Table 2 of Reg. Guide 1.56, Rev.1 Include conductivity meter alarm set points and the corrective actions to be taken when the limits of Table 2 are exceeded.
While this subpart does not establish a clear nexus to safety, it points up the specific differences between earlier guides and the version 50C recommends. We will accept it with the proviso that S0C is expected to show at the hearing the effect on safety resulting from the Guide's alleged deficiencies.
Hereafter this subpart will be designated Contention 19(f).
I
. P.
(Reo. Guide 1.60and1.61) The design response spectra for the seismic design of Shoreham [are] not
~
based on the standards in the Reg. Guide and, thus, the spectra [have] not been demonstrated to be ap-propriately conservative and therefore [do] not comply with A.opendix A, GDC 2, and 10 CFR, Part 100, Appendix A.
In addition, the Applicant did not utilize the Reg. Guide 1.61 value of damping (4%) for the OBE analysis of Category I reinforced concrete structures, but rather utilized a higher value of damping (5%).
This subpart specifically criticizes non-conservative seismic design spectra and damping factors. The nexus to safety at Shoreham is self-evident.
It is accepted and will be designated Contention 19_(g.).
Q.
(Reg. Guide 1.63) Shoreham has installed General Electric containment slectrical penetrations which utilize epoxy as a pressure sealant and as an in-sulator. The GE-furnished epoxy has r ocked and peeled due to aging and has reverted due te moisture absorption and therefore does not comply with Rev. O of the Guide.
In addition, the electrical penetrations at Shorehara have been qualified to Rev. O of the Guide dated November, 1973 rather than the current revision (Rev. 2 dated July, 1978) of the Guide.
This subpart specifically mentions use of a pressure sealant which has deteriorated because it did not comply with Rev. O of the Guide.
It is accepted and will be designated Contention 19(h).
R.
(Reg. Guide 1.68) The preoperational and initial startup test program described by the Applicant in Section 14 of the FSAR fails to document and describe I
how the Shoreham plant's initial test program will meet j
the measures described in Rev. 2 of the Guide dated August,1978, particularly with regard to assuring compliance with the principal design criteria con-tained in Appendix A to 10 CFR, Part 50.
Rather, the Shoreham program is based on the recommendations in l
Rev. O of the Guide published in November,1973. The Applicant also fails to document in the FSAR the l
-,e 4--
we-.-.
e-
--.,,e--n--.g.,
-,-.n-n._,.,..,_,,.,+-g
4
. specific measures being implemented at Shoreham to meet the requirements of Reg. Guide 1.68.1 dated January 1977 for testing of feedwater and condensate systems and to meet the requirements of Reg. Guide 1.68.2 dated July 1978 for testing of remote shutdown capability.
This subpart lacks specificity and nexus.
It is rejected.
S.
(Reg. Guide 1.75) The design of the Shoreham electrical system fail [s] to comply with the regula-tory position of Reg. Guide 1.75 for physical independence of electrical systems and therefore does not comply with 10 CFR, 50.55a, and Appendix A, GDC 3. 17, and 21. To minimize the potential for physical systems interactions, the electrical systems at Shoreham should be designed in complete compliance with the measures in Rev. 2 of the Guide dated September, 1978.
SOC has not specified what features of the latest revision of Reg. Guide 1.75 are needed. The subpart is rejected.
T.
(Reg. Guide 1.78 and 1.95) Main control room habi-tability measures during a hazardous chemical release have not been demonstrated by the Applicant in accordance with these Guides and therefore does not comply with Apepndix A, GDC 4 and 19, in that the Applicant has not adequately documented the basis for the conclusion that there are no significant quantities of chemicals within five miles of the site.
This subpart is not a model of specificity.
It does, however, state that the control room may be made uninhabitable because of the release of dangerous chemicals. We will admit it, confining it to the question of whether compliarce with the latest Reg. Guide is necessary to forestall such a hazard. The subpart will be designated hereafter as Contention 19(i).
4
. U.
(Reg. Guide 1.80) The preoperational testing of instrument air systems as required by Appendix A, GDC 2, and Appendix B, Criterion XI has not been demonstra-tad as prescribed in this Guide.
This subpart lacks specificity and nexus and is rejected.
V.
(Reg. Guide 1.89) The Applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate qualification of Class IE elec-trical equipment as described in this Guide, as speci-fied in IEEE Std. 323-1974, and therefore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 1, 2, and 4, and Appendix B, Criterion III, with regard to detericrating effects of component aging, accuracy of instrument setpoints,*/
test documentation requirements, and tolerance margins.
'~*/ S0C reserves the right to reparticularize this con-tention based on the Applicant's response to the new NRC position described in NUREG-0588.
This subpart covers too broad an area to be admissible. As to the " reservation" S0C expresses in its footnote, specific issues arising out of any recently issued Staff document may, of course, be considered for admission subject to the five factors of 10 CFR 5 2.714(a)(1).
W.
(Reg. Guide 1.92 and 1.122) The Applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that the methods utilized by the Applicant for combining modes and spatial components in seismic response analysis pre-sented in Section 3.7 of the FSAR are suitably con-servative in all cases when compared with the methods described in Rev. 1 of Reg. Guide 1.92 issued in February 1976, and therefore does not comply with Appendix A to Part 50, GDC 2, and Paragraph (a)(1) of Section VI of Appendix A to Part 100. Further, the floor design response spectra developed by the l
Applicant has not been documented for compliance with paragraph B.3 of Reg. Guide 1.122, Rev.1 dated February 1978.
l
. This subpart lacks specificity and nexus.
It is rejected.
X.
(Reg. Guide 1.96) The design of the main steam isolation valve leakage control system has not been adequately demonstrated by the Applicant to be in accordance with the measures described in Rev.1 of this Guide dated June, 1976, and therefore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 54 with regard to the acceptability of the alternative control or limita-tion methods proposed by the Applic&nt and to the adequacy of the leakage control system interlocks.
This subpart lacks specificity and nexus.
It is rejected.
Y.
(Reg. Guide 1.100) The Applicant has failed to commit to conducting a seismic qualification program for Class IE electrical equipment as prescribed by Rev. O and Rev. 1 of this Guide and therefore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 2 and Appendix B, Criterion III, with particular regard to the testing program, including multi-axis multi-frequency testing and the effects of aging prior to testing.
This subpart specifically mentions deficiencies in the seismic testing of Class IE equipment.
It is accepted and will be designated Contention'19(j).
Z.
(Reg. Guides 1.109 through 1.113) The Applicant has not demonstrated that the dose and release measures prescribed in these five Guides (Reg. Guide 109, Rev. 1; Reg. Guide 110, Rev. 0; Reg. Guide 111, Rev.1; Reg. Guide 112, Rev. 0; Reg. Guide 113, Rev. 1) have been utilized in the Staff's radiation effects analysis and therefore does not comply with Appendix I to 10 CFR, Part 50.
This subpart lacks specificity and nexus.
It is rejected.
AA.
(Reg. Guide 1.115) The turbine orientation with respect to safety-related structures is unfavorable in the Shoreham design and thus results in additional probability of a turbine missile accident endangering public health and safety. The Applicant's design for protection ag: inst low-trajectory turbine missiles, as described in Section 10.2.3 of the FSAR, is not in conformance with the latest procedures outlined in Rev.1 of this Guide dated July, 1977 and therefore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 4.
.._-,.,__--__,.-_,._,..__r_,,.4..
__o
,s-,
. This subpart specifically mentions turbine oriantation and its effect on probability of a low-trajectory turbine missile accident.
It is accepted and will be designated Contention 19(k).
BB.
(Reg. Guide 1.116) The Applicant has not documented the extent to which the construction Q.A. program complies with the measures described in this Guide (ANSI Std. N45.2.
8-1975 and 1978) concerning installation, inspection, and testing of mechanical equipment and systems, and therefore does not comply with 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix B.
This subpart lacks specificity and nexus.
It is rejected.
CC.
(Reg. Guide 1.118) The Applicant and Staff have not adequately documented the extent to which the periodic testing of electric power and protection systems complies with Rev. 2 of this Guide dated June, 1978 and therefore does not comply with Appondix A, GDC 18 and 21.
This subpart lacks specificity and nexus.
It is rejected.
DD.
(Reg. Guides 1.124 and 1.130) The Applicant has failed to document in Sections 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9 of the FSAR that the design limits and loading combinations for Class I linear type component supports comply adequately with the regulatory position of Rev.1 of Reg. Guide 1.124 dated January,1978 and therefore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 2.
Similarly, the Applicant has also failed to document how the service limits and loading combinations for Class 1 plate-and-shell type component supports comply with the Subsection NF requirements as prescribed in Reg. Guide 1.130.
This subpart lacks specificity and nexus.
It is rejected.
EE.
(Reg. Guide 1.125) The Staff has failed to document the extent to which physical models for design of hydraulic j
structures and systems, such as the intake structure and diffusers, described in Rev. 1 of this Guide dated October, 1978 were assessed for Shoreham.
Thie subpart lacks specificity and nexus.
It is rejected.
4
. FF.
(Reg. Guide 1.126) The Applicant and Staff have failed to document the extent to which the General Electric model and related statistical methods for analysis of fuel densification complies with the measures presented in Rev. 1 of this Guide and there-fore does not comply with Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.
This subpart is vague and overly terse. We have, however, examined the guide which it references, and we are led to observe:
1.
The guide supplies late models for approximating fuel densification, the models being considerably more sophisticated than those previously used.
2.
Use of the simple models might lead a designer to believe that 10 CFR App. K would be met throughout the reactor's life when in fact it might not be.
3.
The Staff apparently views the guide as virtually universally applicable (Cf. Section D of the Guide).
We will therefore admit this subpart and accept evidence on whether Shoreham meets the guide or has proposed equally effective measures for assuring that fuel densification does not, in the course of opera-tion, put the Shoreham reactor into a condition where its ECCS system no longer meets App. K.
The subpart hereafter will be designated Contention 19(1).
GG.
(Reg. Guides 1.128 and 1.129) The Applicant and Staff have failed to document the extent to which the lead storage batteries comply with the current require-ments presented in Rev. I to the two Guides.
- Further, in Table 8.1.7-1 and Section 8.3.2.1.2 of the FSAR, the Applicant commits to meet the requirements of IEEE Std. 450-1972 rather than the requirements of the 1975 version of the standard prescribed by the two guides and there-fore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 1 and 2.
This subpart lacks specificity and nexus.
It is rejected.
a
- 2'J -
HH.
(Reg. Guide 1.139) The Applicant and Staff have failed to document the degree of compliance with the guidance for residual heat removal systems contained in the May, 1978 version of the draft Guide and therefore does not comply with Appendix A, GDC 19 and 34, with particular regard to the equipment to be utilized and qualified to bring the plant to a cold shutdown con-dition and to the testing of safety relief valves.
This subpart lacks specificity and nexus.
It is rejected.
II.
(Reg. Guides 1.140,1.141,1.143,1.145) The Staff has failed to adequately document and confirm the degree to which the NRC review utilized the criteria contained in these four Guides (Reg. Guide 1.140, October, 1979; Reg. Guide 1.141, April,1978; Reg. Guide 1.143, October, 1979; and Reg. Guide 1.145, August,1979).
This subpart lacks specificity and nexus.
It is rejected.
JJ.
(Reg. Guide 1.144) The Applicant has failed to document the extent to which the auditing of the QA program during construction conforms to the measures stated in Rev. 1 of the Guide dated September, 1980, and therefore does not comply with Criterion XVIII of Appendix B to 10 CFR, Part 50.
This subpart lacks specificity and nexus.
It is rejecte d.
ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 7th day of July 1981 ORDERED i
That SOC's particularized Contention 19, including the subparts renumbered herein as Contention 19(a) through 19(1) is accepted for liti-gation. All other subparts proposed in 50C's particularization are rejected.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD m a+s Lodis J. Carfter, Chairman ADMINISTRATlVE JUDGE 1
i