ML20041D315
| ML20041D315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1982 |
| From: | Brown H KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041D317 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8203050202 | |
| Download: ML20041D315 (32) | |
Text
s i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DC' METED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O 'I BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
)
9 cm
/
s 4
SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO d)
LICENSINGBOARDMEMORANDUMANDOR DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1982 I/ /
go37?'
if$2 9'
041$ 33 r,
/
CE r L) ~
a David J. Gilmartin Suffolk County Attorney Patricia A.
Dempsey Assistant Suffolk County Attorney SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAW Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Herbert H. Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
8th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 452-7000 Attorneys for suffolk County March 1, 1982 t)So3 r
/ /
8203050202 820301 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
PDR J
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION.
1 I.
Suffolk County 7tesponse to LILCO/ Staff Objections to Contentions 6-7, 12-13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 29-30 5
A.
SC Contention 6:
Classification of Structures, Systems, and Components Important to Safety 5
B.
SC Contention 7:
Systems Interaction 8
C.
SC Contention 12:
Quality Assurance /
Quality Control -- Design and Construction 11 D.
SC Contention 13:
QA/QC - Operations 14 E.
SC Contention 16:
Anticipated Transients Without Scram 15 F.
SC Contention 18:
Human Factors -- Equipment 16 G.
SC Contention 20:
Human Factors -- Simulator Training.
17 H.
SC Contention 22:
SRV Test Program 20 I.
SC Contention 29:
IREP Analysis 21 J.
SC Contention 30:
Documentation of Deviations 21 II.
Suffolk County Reply to LILCO/ Staff Listing of Agreed-Upon Contentions 24 III.
Suffolk County Status Report on Reserved Issues 26 IV.
Suffolk County Response to SOC Contentions la, Ib and 2 28 v.
Suffolk County Participation On Additional Issues Under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.715 (c) 30
o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
I
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1982 INTRODUCTION On February 8, 1982, this Board issued its " Memorandum and Order Approving Stipulations, Deferring Rulings on Summary Judgment Pending Further Particularization, Scheduling a Con-ference of Parties and Setting An Estimated Schedule for the Filing of Testimony" (hereafter, the " February 8 Order").
Pur-suant to the February 8 Order and to discussions with the Nuclear
~
s Regulatory Commission Staff
(" Staff") and Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO"), Suffolk County on February 15, 1982, submitted 31 consolidated and revised Contentions and listed five additional.
subject areas as to which Contentions would be submitted by March 1, 1982.-1/
On February 18, 19 82, LILCO and the Staf f submitted three filings:
-1/
See Letter from Patricia A.
Dempsey, Assistant Suffolk County Attorney, to Judge Lawrence Brenner, February 15, 1982, with 31 Contentions attached thereto.
~
f
. (1)
The joint LILCO/ Staff " Consolidated Statement of Contentions;"
(2)
LILCO's Response to Proposed County Contentions 1 to 31; and (3)
Staff's Response to Proposed County Contentions 1-31.
These LILCO and Staf f filings set forth the following positions.
First, the Staff and LILCO agree that 21 of Suffolk County's Contentions are litigable.
These 21 Contentions are Nos. 1-5, 8-11, 14-15, 17, 19, 21, 23-28 and 31.
Second, LILCO and the Staff contend that five of Suffolk County's Contentions (Nos. 6-7, 20, 29-30) are not litigable.
Third, LILCO and the Staff object to the language of five other Contentions.(Nos. 12-13, 16, 18, and 22) and suggest revisians to such language.
The County's instant pleading addresses the following subjects:
First, pursuant to the February 8 Order (p. 4), the County replies in Section I to the objections of LILCO and the Staff to Suffolk County Contentions 6-7, 12-13, 16, 18, 20, 22 and 29-30.
The County demonstrates that all such Contentions are litigable.
Revisions are made to the language of several Con-tentions in order to satisfy the specific concerns expressed by LILCO and the Staff in their February 18 filings.
h s
r-
-3*
Second, in Section II the County replies to the LILCO/
Staff listing of the 21 County Contentions as to which no objections have been made.
See February 8 Order,
- p. 4.
Technical corrections are made to the language of several of these agreed-upon Contentions.
Third, in Section III the County sets forth its posi-tion on additional contentions in the five subject areas listeck on page 2 of Ms. Dempsey's February 15 letter to Judge Brenner.
The County has determined to offer a Contention regarding electrical cable pene-trations and has determined not to offer new contentions in the other areas, with the exception that the County and LILCO have not yet been able to confer regarding a possible security contention.
The County accordingly reserves the right to submit a security contention in the future.
Fourth, in Section IV the County sets forth views on SOC Contentions la, lb and 2, which address the 10 and 50-mile plume exposure and injestion pathway emergency planning zones ("EPZ's") nominally specified in 10 C.F.R.
2/
S 50.47(c) (2)T The County requests the Board to defer action on SOC Contentions la, lb and 2 until the County completes'the Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Plan and the requirements and underlying bases for emergency
-2/
In its February 8 Order, this Board directed SOC to further p W cularize j
SOC Contentions la, Ib and 2 by February 18, 1982. See February 8 Order, pp. 2-3.
SCC subnitted its " Response of Shoreham opoonents Coalition (SOC) to Board Order Dated February 8, 1982." 'Ihe other parties, in accordance l
with the February 8 Order (p. 3), have been given the opportunity to sub-mit replies at this tLme.
l
=..
preparedness and response in Suffolk County are fully ehcidated.
Fifth, in Section V the County sets forth additional issues on which the County intends to participate as
- an Interested County in this proceeding under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.715(c).
i 4
. I.
Suffolk County Response to LILCO/ Staff Objections to Contentions 6-7, 12-13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 29-30 A.
SC Contention 6:
Classification of Structures, Systems, and Components Important to Safety In Contention 6, Suffolk County contends that LILCO has failed to classify systematically the structures, systems and components at Shoreham which are "important to safety," thereby 3/
violating 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A.
The, County further contends that LILCO has violated regulatory requirements by failing to apply 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B quality assurance procedures to all structures, systems, and components which are important to safety.
LILCO and the Staff object to this Contention, alleging that it is barred by the Commission's TMI Policy Statement.-4/
There are several reasons why this LILCO/ Staff objection should be rejected.
First, LILCO and the Staff have fundamentally misconstrued Contention 6.
While the TMI accident certainly highlighted the need for quality assurance procedures and proper classification of items important to safety, the litigability of Contention 6 does not rest on NUREG-0660, MUREG-0737, or on the Commission's i
I
-3/
The terms "important to safety," " safety-related," and " safety grade," when used by the County, have the meaning specified in Harold Denton's November 20, 1981 Memorandum, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
As noted by Mr. Denton, "important to
. safety" constitutes a larger classification, with " safety-i related" and " safety grade" being subparts of it.
4/
NRC Staff's Response to Proposed County Contentions 1-31,
~
at 2; LILCO's Response to Proposed County Contentions 1 to 31, at 3 and Attachment A, at-6-7.
e
. l Policy Statement.
Rather, completely apart from the TMI accident, the County alleges in Contention 6 that LILCO has failed to comply with specific regulatory requirements in Appendix A to Part 50, particularly General Design Criterion ("GDC") No, l.-S/ Such an allegation that LILCO has failed to comply with duly promulgated regulatory requirements is clearly not barred by the TMI Policy S ta teme nt.-6/
Indeed, in construing the Policy Statement, the Commission itself stated emphatically:
Parties are generally free to raise issues of compliance with NRC regulations This holds true for TMI-related issues, and nothing in the Revised Policy Statement affects this.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 362, CCH Nuc. Reg. Rptr. 1 30,581 (1981).
Accordingly, Contention 6 clearly is not barred from litigation in this proceeding.
Further, Contention 6 alleges that LILCO has violated GDC 1 because LILCO has applied 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B Quality Assurance / Quality Controls ("QA/QC") only to those structures,
-5/
This Contention is directly related to the County's original Contention 4 (a) (i) concerning treatment of non-safety grade equipment in evaluation of postulated steamline break acci-dents.
Thus, this safety concern of the County clearly pre-dates the TMI accident and the NUREG documents promulgated af ter that accident.
-6/
The County submits that Contention 6 would be proper even if the Commission's Policy Statement were deemed controlling.
The County does not address the matter further, however, since-the County's Contention rests on alleged regulatory l
violations,~a matter outside the Policy Statement.
r
l systems and components which LILCO has classified as " safety-related."
Under GDC 1, a QA/QC program must be implemented for the broader class of structures, systems and components classified 7/
~
as "important to safety."
Thus, GDC 1 states:
Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed, fabricated, erected, and tested to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be per-formed.
A quality assurance program shall be established and implemented in order to provide adequate assurance that these structures, systems, and components will satisfactorily perform their safety functions.
(emphasis supplied).
Thus, at Shoreham there are systems, structures, and components which are important to safety, but which were not designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable Part 50, Appendix B requirements.
This situation violates the NRC's regulations and
~
constitutes a significant safety concern which the County seeks to litigate in Concention 6.
The TMI Policy Statement provides no ban on and, indeed, is irrelevant to the legal basis for the Contention.
Finally, Contention 6 is litigable because Suffolk County contends that LILCO has not carried out the systematic analysis necessary to permit proper classification of all eq ipment which is "important to safety," thus violating 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A,
-7/
"Important to safety" is defined in 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A, Introduction as: " Structures, systems, and components that provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public."
. GDC 1.
Without a systematic classification procedure, LILCO has no technical basis with which to demonstrate that the current list of equipment "important to safety" at Shoreham is complete and accurate.
Accordingly, at this time LILCO cannot demonstrate that it meets regulatory requirements.-8/
B.
SC Contention 7:
Systems Interaction Contention 7 asserts that LILCO violates specified GDC (Nos.
2, 4, 13, 22, 23, 24 and 29) and 10 C.F.R. 50.46 because LILCO has failed systematically to investigate accident sequences and exacerbating conditions that may result from interaction between non-safety systems, such as control systems, and safety systems.
Since LILCO has not undertaken.the required investiga-
~
tion and implemented necessary corrective actions, there can be failures of non-safety systems that preclude or impede safety systems from performing their intended functions.
-8/
The County submits that currently available probabilistic risk assessment techniques, or other systematic accident analyses involving the use of emergency procedures, provile a basis to assure that structures, systems and components important to safety are: (a) identified as such; and (b) designed, fabricated, erected and tested to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be performed.
Because GDC 1 requires that. standards be supplemented and modified to assure the appropriate quality classification, such new and available techniques in supple-menting currently used design methods should be used.
- Indeed, the usefulness of such techniques is acknowledged even in the Shoreham FSAR, Section 15A.1 (Revision 17-Sept. 1979).
LILCO and the Staff object to this Contention as being 9/
precluded by the Commission's TMI Policy Statement.'
- Again, however, LILCO and the Staff have fundamentally misconstrued the County's Contention.
The County contends that specific NRC regulations, completely apart from the TMI accident and the NUREG documents published thereafter, are violated by LILCO's failure to analyze and eliminate adverse interactions between safety and non-safety systems.
The Commission itself has stated that a contention, such as Contention 7, which alleges violation of an NRC regulatory requirement clearly is not barred by the TMI Policy Statement.
See Pacific Gas & Electric Co.,
- supra, CLI-81-5.
There is recent evidence of serious possible interactions in BWR systems such as that at Shoreham.
In Enclosure K to the NRC's Weekly Information Report (week ending './22/82), the Staff notes a safety concern involving adverse interactions for BWR vessel instrumentation.
The study included the review of a number of operating reactor events involving BWR vessel level instrumentation.
The review has shown several cases where interactions between olant control systems and protection systems are evident.
Our evaluation of these cases has raised the safety concern of a single random failure in the vessel level instrumentation system causing a control system action that could (1) result in a station condition requiring protective action and, at the same time, (2) prevent proper action of some I
9/
NRC Staff's Response to Proposed County Contentions 1-31, at 2; LILCO's Response to Proposed County Contentions 1 to 31, at 3 and Attachment A, at 4-5.
.. of the protection system channels designed to protect against such a condition, leaving the remaining protection system channels to provide the protective function.
A further single active failure in the remaining channels could then prevent the required protective actions.
10/
This adverse interaction, in itself, constitutes a litigable factual question which will necessarily need to be addressed in the context of Contention 7.
Further, the need for LILCO to perform a systems interaction analysis is highlighted by the very terms of the NRC's regulations.
In the Introduction to Part 50, Appendix A, licensees are directed to consider "the possibility of systematic, non-random, concurrent failures of redundant elements in the design of protection systems and reactivity control systems."
See also GDC 29.
Such con-current failures involve precisely the kinds of interaction problems alleged by Suffolk County to be ignored by LILCO in violation of regulatory requirements.
Given recent evidence of adverse inter-actions involving BWR water level indication, LILCO cannot be deemed to comply with Appendix A if it has not systematically analyzed these interactions.
Finally, the Shoreham facility presents circumstances which make a careful systems interaction analysis essential before safety findings can be made.
The Shoreham plant was designed in the late 1960's and the early 1970's before the present NRC QA/QC
--10/
Other problems with BWR level instrumentation systems are identified in Board Notification 82-08, " Errors in BWR Water Level Indica, tion," dated February 9, 1982.
.. programs were instituted and fully developed.
Similarly, the plant was constructed before present regulatory and design prac-tices were instituted to provide physical separation of safety and non-safety systems and to protect against potential problems of systems interaction.
Lastly, the design of the Shoreham facility utilizes the first Mark II containment design and thus has not had the benefit of U.S. operating experience, shakedown testing, or systematic review for interactions.
C.
SC Contention 12:
Quality Assurance / Quality Control -- Design and Construction Contention 12 alleges that LILCO's QA/QC program for design and construction does not satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B.
The Contention sets forth 18 areas of alleged noncompliance and states that LILCO has not adequately demonstrated that it has satisfied the QA/QC regulations in the:e areas.
LILCO and the Staff object to this Contention basic-ally on the ground that it is not adequately particularized.--11/
The Board should reject that argument.
LILCO's objection to Contention 12 was made by LILCO earlier in this proceeding and was rejected by this Board.
- Indeed, Contention 12 is virtually identical to Contention 5, which was originally submitted to the Board in 1977.
In its March 10, 1978
~~11/
LILCO's Response to Proposed County Contentions 1 to 31, at 4-6; NRC Staff's Response to Proposed County. Contentions 1-31, at 2.
+
.. Order, the Licensing Board stated:
"Suffolk's Contention 5 is explicit in identifying those areas in which Suffolk contends the QA program does not meet the Regulations. "
Order Relative to County of Suffolk's Discovery of Applicant, March 10, 1978,
- p. 3 (emphasis supplied).
The Board'c ruling is the law of this case.
LILCO and the Staff cannot now claim that the same Con-tention -- different only in that it is now even more specific in defining QA deficiencies -- is now not explicit.
Further, there already is evidence of serious breakdowns in LILCO's QA/QC program.
Thus, the NRC Staff has documented many QA/QC breakdowns at Shoreham.
- See, e.g.,
I&E Inspection Reports 50-322/79-05, 80-03, 80-06, 80-08, 80-14, and 81-02.
Indeed, in the Staff's most recent Inspection Report, 50-322/81-22, dated January 14, 1982, the Staff has documented further recent breakdowns in QA/QC at Shoreham involving Appendix B criteria III and V.
Clearly, there is already a reasonable basis upon which to find a serious pattern of QA/QC breakdowns at Shoreham.
The significance of these already documented QA/QC breakdowns is underscored by the fact that the Staff has never conducted a thoroughgoing and systematic examination of the Shoreham QA/QC program.
See Contention 14.
LILCO also complains that litigation of Contention 12 "would exceed the capabilities of the present process. "--12/ LILCO's 12/
LILCO's Response to Proposed County Contentions-1 to 31, p.
4.
. complaint is but a red herring.
NRC regulations contemplate and, indeed, provide an orderly method for discovery on these matters, which would certainly lead to narrowing and focusing of the issues for trial, as well as to a complete and meaningful evidentiary record.
This process has not proceeded far to date, because the County and LILCO have been engaged for many months in pursuit of a settlement of these concerns, thus causing discovery to be relegated to an inactive status.
Now, however, the County plans to proceed expeditiously with detailed discovery on QA/QC.
As the results of this discovery are reviewed, the County of course will be willing to meet informally with the other parties to ensure that the ensuing litigation is focused.
Finally, LILCO suggests that Centention 12 is much to do about nothing.
Thus, LILCO states:
(A]ny attempt to engage all of these allega-tions would surely involve much unproductive inquiry because there is scant likelihood that all -- if indeed any -- of Shoreham's design and construction QA effort has been so inade-quate as to merit remedial action by this Board. 13/
LILCO's conclusory statement is mere naked speculation.14/-Indeed, there is already evidence that the QA/QC requirements of Part 50, 1
13/
LILCO's Response to Proposed County Contentions 1 to 31, p.
4.
)
-~14/
The recent disclosure by NRC Chairman Palladino of serious quality assurance breakdowns with broad repercussions affecting design and construction activities at the Marble Hill, Midland, Zimmer, South Texas, and Diablo Canyon sites demonstrates tilat serious QA/QC problems cannot be dismissed casually.
The series of I&E reports concerning Shoreham QA/QC raises particular serious concerns about LILCO's compliance with Part 50, Appendix B.
. Appendix B have not been satisfied at Shoreham, resulting in no
. confidence that the plant complies with regulatory requirements.
Given the foregoing breakdowns, it is imperative that LILCO and the NRC Staff demonstrate that the QA/QC program for the design and installation of structures, systems, and components important to safety was conducted in accordance with Part 50, Appendix B and Appendix A, GDC 1.
D.
SC Contention 13:
QA/QC - Operations Contention 13 challenges the adequacy of LILCO's QA program for operations.
LILCO and the Staff object to this Contention only because the County has not listed those Regulatory Guides which the County conte'nds are " applicable" in subpart (aI of this 15/
Contention.--
The County hereby remedies that objection by list-ing in Exhibit 2 hereto those Regulatory Guides that the County deems " applicable."-16/
15/
See LILCO's Response to Proposed County Contentions 1-31, at 6-7.
16/
The focus of Contention 13 is of course on compliance with the NRC's regulation, namely Part 50, Appendix B, not~on the Staff's Regulatory Guides.
LILCO must be found to be in compliance with Appendix B, and the County contends that LILCO is not.
The refe ence in Contention 13 to Regulatory Guides is illustrative to emphasize that the generality of LILCO's QA program prevt 7 an outside independent reviewer or, indeed, the Staff frc making judgments under 'even the language of the Staff's Regulatory Guides.
I
. l E.
SC' Contention l':
Anticipated Transients 6
l Without Scram l
Contention 16 alleges noncompliance by LILCO with GDC 20 regarding' correction of the ATWS problem.
The Staff and LILCO have objected to this Contention on the basis.that ATWS is an unresolved generic safety issue which is unlitigable in present 17/
form.--
The Perry decision, a case essentially identical to the instant one, constitutes direct authority that ATWS can be liti-gated in an adjudicatory proceeding such as the instant one.
See Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Licensing Board Memorandum & Order, Jan-uary,6, 1982.
(A copy of the Perrv decision is attached as Exhibit 3).
LILCO seeks to avoid the precedential effect of the Perry decision, suggesting that the Perry Board ignored other allegedly relevant precedent.
However, the Perry Board carefully considered relevant law and the same basic ATWS issue as presented in this proceeding and emphatically rejected the Applicant's arguments that ATWS could not be litigated.
Accordingly, the County urges this Board to follow Perry-and accept Contention 16. 18/
l
--17/
LILCO's-Response to Proposed County Contentions 1 to 31, pp. 7-8; NRC Staff's Response to Proposed County Contentions 1-31, pp.
2-4..
18/
A member of the Shoreham Board was also on the Licensing Boards in both Perry and Rancho Seco.
Thus, it seems most unlikely-that the Perry Board was unaware of - the Rancho Seco ALAB de-cision.
The clear inference is :that the Perry Board found legitimate-factual need to-litigate the ATWS issue.
The same factual need exists in Shoreham.
. Second, under GDC 20, correction of the ATWS problem is a l
current regulatory requirement.
GDC 20 provides:
Protection system functions.
The protection system shall be designed (1) to initiate automatically the operation of appropriate systems including the reactivity control systems, to assure that specified acceptable fuel design limits are not exceeded as a result of anticipated operational occurrences and (2) to sense accident conditions and to initiate the operation of systems and com-ponents important to safety.
At Shoreham, the standby liquid control system ("SLCS"), which can be called upon to bring the plant to safe shutdown in the event of a failure to scram, is deficient.
It is not automatically initiated; it is not totally redundant; and it does not meet the single failure criterion.
Alleged deficiencies in the SLCS were l
precisely the focus of the Contention in Perry which that Board accepted.
F.
SC Contention 18:
Human Factors -- Equipment i
Contention 18 challenges LILCO's ccatrol room design when measured against specified GDC.
LILCO and the Staff raise two 19/
objections to this Contention.~~ First, they contend that Con-tention 18 is redundant with Contention 28 (a) (ii).
To accommodate i
u this concern, the County hereby deletes Contention 28 (a) (ii) and a
19/
LILCO's Response to Proposed County Contentions 1 to 31, at
~~
8-9; NRC Staff's Response'to Proposed County Contentions l-31, at 2.
. restates Contention 18 (d) as follows:
The sequence of annunciator trips and events appears on the computer printer which is the only means available to communicate this information to the operator in the event of a major accident or transient.
However, the events computer is slow, not classified as safety-related, and not directly integrated with response procedures.
The non-redundant, low reliability plant computer has been shown to become overloaded by major accidents and to be incapable of supplying timely information on accident sequences.
The computer printout is not readily visible and is poorly located for use by the operators under accident condi-tiors.
Accordingly, a reliable and timely res,_onse to all plant failures cannot be guaranteed.
Second, in subpart (e) to Contention 18, LILCO and the Staff object to use of the words, "For example" prior to a listing of human factor deficiencies.
The County believes the "for example" is appropriate in this instance, thus avoiding a much longer list of issues already set forth in Appendix C to SER Supp. 1.
Since LILCO and the Staff already have that list, there appears to be no reason to further lengthen this Contention.
G.
SC Contention 20:
Human Factors -- Simulator Training Ir. Contention 20, the Councy asserts that training of Shoreham operators will be inadequate unless a Shoreham-specific simulator
, i l
is available for operator training.
LILCO and the Staff object to this Contention on the basis that the regulations do not require
-20/
a plant-specific simulator for Shoreham. -
This objection to the Contention misses the point.
The regulations do require ade-quate training for Shoreham personnel, an essential element of 21/
which (in the County's view) includes simulator training.
Such training, however, will not be adequate without a plant-specific simulator since the simulator at the Dresden plant, which LILCO intends to use, is very different from the Shoreham control room.
The County submits that the Dresden simulator is not adequate for LILCO's purposes.
That simulator is a Mark-I system whereas Shoreham is a Mark-II system.
Due to the significant dissimilarity of these systems, operator response times and dynamic character-istics will be different for the two systems.
In addition, the Dresden simulator control room is significant-ly different from Shoreham in emergency control systems and in the 20/.LILCO's Response to Proposed County Contentions 1 to 31, at 10; NRC Staff's Response to Proposed County Contentions l-31, at 2.
21/
The purpose of nuclear reactor training simulators is to
~~
provide a realistic facility in which to train reactor oper-ators.
The advantage of a simulator over a real control room is that it can provide the operator with exposure to unusual events which might otherwise take an entire career to experience or which might endanger a facility and the public.
To provide such training, however, the simulator must essentially dupli-cate the plant the trainees will actually operate.
. location of important balance of plant equipment.--22/ Further, superimposed on the NRC operator requirements are those of utility operating practice and the protection of equipment and maintenance of service.
These differences can create negative associations and require the operator to unlearn techniques developed during simulator training if the simulator does not closely match the operator's plant.
The uniqueness of the Shoreham control room requires an operator to be personally familiar with the Shoreham design itself.
It is important, therefore, that the dynamic characteristics that will provide the operator with appropriate skills and confidence be simulated.
In sum, therefore, the County contends that 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 55 are not met because Shoreham's operator simulator t<ain-ing will be done at the G.E.
training simulator, and thus will not provide Shoreham's operators with a thorough knowledge of the Shoreham reactor control system, instrumentation and operating procedures under normal, abnormal, and emergency conditions.
In addition, the adequacy of training of replacement operators and maintenance personnel will be assured only by experience with Shoreham specific controls.
For these reasons, this Contention is litigable to ensure that adequate training for Shoreham's operators is provided in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 55.
--22/
The differences between control rooms can lead to different operator responses to accident scenarios.
Thus, it has been pointed out that operators from a plant without a simulator and trained on a simulator of a different, but related plant, could experience difficulties in responding to an accident at their own plant because most plants differ in control system equipment and control parameters.
As a result, a given acci-dent scenario could have different consequences in different (cont'd on next page)
H.
SC Contention 22:
SRV Test Program Contention 22 concerns whether the safety / relief valves at Shoreham meet Part 50, Appendix A and B, requirements.
LILCO and the Staff complain of redundancy between Contention 22 and Contention 28 (a) (v).--23/
I To accommodate this concern, the County hereby deletes Contention 28 (a) (v) and restates Contention 22 as follows:
Suffolk County contends that LILCO has not adequately demonstrated that the safety / relief valves to be used at Shoreham meet the require-ments of 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A, GDC 14 and 30 and 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, Sections III and XI, in that the functionability of the valves, as installed, has not been established by the generic test program results.
Specifi-cally, NUREG-0737, item II.D.1, performance testing of BWR relief and safety valves, requires that BWR SRV valves be tested-to demonstrate that the valves will open and reclose under the expected flow conditions.
It additionally requires that ATWS testing be considered.
LILCO has not yet provided a detailed plant-specific evaluation of the Shoreham safety and relief valves, piping, and supports in accordance with the NUREG-0737 requirements.
Additionally, no commitment has been made on ATWS testing.
Therefore, it has not been demonstrated at this time that the specific requirements have been met.
22/
(Cont'd) plants.
Shotkin, Louis M., "NRC/RSR Perspectives on Up-grading Training Simulators for Use in Accident Simulation,"
Simulation Methods for Nuclear Power Systems, EPRI WS-EI-212 (May 19 81).
--23/
See-LILCO's Response to County's Proposed Contentions 1 to 31, p. 10.
I
. 1 I.
SC Contention 29:
IREP Analysis The County alleges-in Contention 29 that a reliability analy-sis must be performed of specified key systems at Shoreham in order to comply with GDC 10, 13, 21, 22, 35, and 37.
LILCO and the Staff object to Contention 29 as barred by the TMI Policy State-ment.--24/However, as in the case of Contentions 6 and 7,
- supra, the County's Contention, while also related to the TMI accident, is directly premised upon an allegation that LILCO does not comply with requirements of the NRC's regulations, particularly GDC Nos.
10, 13, 21, 22, 35 and 37.
The Policy Statement clearly does not bar litigation of this Contention.
Indeed, as noted earlier, the Commission explicitly contemplated litigation of such an issue when it stated in CLI-81-5:
Parties are generally free 'to raise issues of compliance with NRC regulations.
This hold true.for TMI-related issues, and nothing in the Revised Policy Statement
~
affects this.
CCH Nuc. Reg. Rptr. 1 30,581.
Accordingly, the LILCO/ Staff objection to Contention 29 is without merit.
J.
SC Contention 30:
Documentation of Deviations Contention 30 alleges the need for LILCO and the Staff to document and justify any deviations from current regulatory
--24/
LILCO's Response to Proposed County Contentions 1 to 31, at 2-3 and Attachment A at 4-6; NRC Staff's Response-to Pro-posed County Contentions 1-31, at 2.
)
. practices.
LILCO and the Staff oppose this Contention on the basis that no regulation specifically requires documentation of deviations from standard regulatory practices and because the question of such documentation is the subject of a NRC rule-25/
making.--
Neither objection should be sustained here.
i First, the fact that documentation of deviations is not l
l stated verbatim as a directive to the Staf f and LILCO in the l
NRC's regulations is of no consequence.
To be eligible for an l
operating license, LILCO must demonstrate that it complies with all applicable regulatory requirements or that any deviations therefrom are justifiable.
LILCO has not done this.
Nor has the Staff in its review.
Accordingly, there is a factual void which must be completed before LILCO is eligible for an operating license.
Second, the absence of a verbatim directive to document deviations does not relieve LILCO of this obligation under the Commission's GDC.
Indeed, the Commission has emphasized:
The development of these General Design Criteria is not yet complete.
For example, some of the definitions need further ampli-fication.
Also, some of the specific design requirements for structures, systems, and components important to safety have not as yet been suitably defined.
Their omission does not relieve any applicant from consider-ing these matters in tae design of a specific facility and satisfying the necessary safety requirements.
--25/
LILCO's Response to County's Proposed Contentions 1 to 31, at 2-3 and Attachment A at 4-6; NRC Staff's Response to County's Proposed Contentions.1-31, at 2.
1
. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, Introduction (emphasis supplied).
Suffolk County contends that a "necessary safety requirement" is for LILCO and the Staff to document how Shoreham's design is different from current regulatory practices and to justify those deviations.
The Commission in the Appendix A statement quoted above clearly empowered this Board to require that action.
Finally, the NRC's pending rulemaking does not bar litigation of this issue.
Just as in the Perry case, supra, the circum-stances at Shoreham permit litigation of the County's Contention.
Shoreham is basically of 1960's design and has been reviewed largely against guides and' standards no longer in use.
Neither LILCO in the FSAR nor the Staff in the SER has made clear the standards against which Shoreham has been reviewed and the basis for and acceptability of any deviations from current regulatory practices.
This void in the record of technical review prevents an up-to-date technical picture of the Shoreham plant which is particularly significant because this Board must base its findings on current regulatory requirements.
1
. II.
Suffolk County Reply to LILCO/ Staff Listing of Agreed-Upon Contentions In the Consolidated Statement of Contentions filed jointly by LILCO and the Staff on February 18, 1982, there are 21 Suffolk County Contentions as to which LILCO and the Staff have no objection.
Pursuant to-the February 8 Order (p. 4),
the County hereby replies to the LILCO/ Staff listing.
The listing of Suffolk County Contentions in the February 18, 1982 filing is correct except as noted below:
Contention 3:
The County agrees with the notation of LILCO/ Staff in the Consolidated Statement of Contentions (see p.
- 25) that the citation at the end of Contention 3 should be 10 C.F.R. 50.55a(h).
Contention 8:
The last clause of the first paragraph of Contention 8 now reads "thereby violating 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A, GDC 1, 2,
4 and 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, Sections II, III."
That clause should be amended to read "thereby viola-ting 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A, GDC 1, 2,
4, and 23, and 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, Sections II, III and XI."
Contention 10:
The report referenced in this Contention, now listed as "BN-81-29," should be changed to be "BN-81-49."
Contention 25:
The present heading of this Contention as "ASME Section X" should be changed to be "ASME Section XI."
In i
. addition, the fourth sentence of Contention 25 is incorrect.
It now refers to " Reg. Guide 10 C.F.R. 50.55a(g)."
This citation should 'be changed to delete the two words " Reg. Guide."
Contention 28 (a) (ii) :
In accordance with the discussion in Section I(F) of this pleading, Suffolk County Contention 28 (a) (ii) has been deleted and merged into revised Contention 18.
Contention 28 (a) (v) :
In accordance with the discussion set forth in Section I(H) of this pleading, Suffolk' County Contention 28 (a) (v) has been deleted and made part of Suffolk County revised Contention 22.
Contention 31:
Suffolk County agrees with LILCO/ Staff that the first sentence of this Contention should cite 10 C.F.R. 50.109,-not 60,109.
. III.
Suffolk County Status Report on Reserved Issues In Ms. Dempsey's letter of February 15, 1982, Suffolk County listed five additional areas in which the County was reviewing data to determine whether its concerns had been re-solved or whether contentions would be submitted. See February 15, 1982 letter from Ms. Dempsey to Judge Brenner, p. 2.
These five areas are the following:
1.
The adequacy of Shoreham's security plan; 2.
The qualification of new fuel geometry; 3.
The behavior of reactor fuel under abnormal conditions; 4.
Protection against single failures and reactivity control; and 5.
Electrical cable penetrations of the reactor containment.
Suffolk County has determined that no contentions will be offered as to items 2-4 above.
With respect to Shoreham's security plan, Suffolk County is not yet in a position to determine whether to offer a contention.
LILCO has agreed to allow the County's security consultant to review the security plan.
During the past month, LILCO and the County have attempted to coordinate the schedule of the necessary personnel for such a review.
To date, no such meeting has occurred, but che County will attempt to reschedule the review in the near
. future.
Until such a review occurs, the County cannot make a decision whether to submit a contention.
, With respect to electrical cable penetrations of the reactor containment, Suffolk County has determined to present a Contention.
The Contention is as follows:
Electrical Penetrations Shoreham has installed General Electric containment electrical penetrations which utilize epoxy as a pressure sealant and as an insulator.
The GE-furnished epoxy has cracked and peeled due to aging and has deteriorated due to moisture absorption.
In addition, the electrical penetrations at Shoreham have hot been qualified to current regulatory requirements.
For these reasons, Shoreham violates 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, Criteria 4 and 50.
Further, the GE series 100 and 200 qualification documentation is incomplete in that the qualified life is not established and the LOCA test duration was insufficient to directly demonstrate post-accident operability of 180 days. 26 /
Thus, the eauipment qualification and associated records are not in compli-ance with Criteria 3 and 17 of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
26 /
See " Environmental Qualification Report for Class IE Equip-ment for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," Revision 1, January 15, 1982, at Appendix G.
i
. I IV.
Suffolk County Response to SOC Contentions la, lb and 2 The County has reviewed the Board's February 8 Order direct-ing SOC to particularize Contentions la, lb and 2 and SOC's response to such directive, dated February 18, 1982.
For the reasons set forth below, the County submits that Contentions la, lb and 2 are not ripe for ruling by the Board and, accordingly, requests the Board to defer consideration of any type of ruling on such Contentions until the Suffolk County Emergency Plan is completed.
The process of developing the County Plan will include systematic analyses of site-specific local conditions, including demography, meteorology, transportation routes, communications networks, availability of emergency services and vehicles, and other pertinent factors.
These analyses will provide the factual bases for determining emergency preparedness requirements and emergency planning zones necessary to protect the cublic from tho harmful consequences of a radiological emergency at the Shoreham plant.
Such analyses will also make it possible for the County to determine the needs of all segments of the affected public (including, for example, difficult situations such as bedridden or other non-ambulatory persons and persons situated in remote areas), as well as the particular capabilities and resources of the County to respond to all such needs.
Suffolk County, pursuant to State law and the County's police power obligations to protect the welfare of its residents, is
. currently preparing a radiological emergency plan that will take cognizance of the NRC's regulations, S 50.47 and Part 50, Appendix E, and of appropriate planning guidance, including the NRC's NUREG-0654 and the review program of the Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency.
Until the County plan is complete and. its factual bases are fully elucidated, the County submits raat there will not be grounds for consideration by the Board of SOC's Contentions la, lb and 2.
Accordingly, the County requests that the Board defer consideration of any type of ruling on Contentions la, lb and 2 until the County plan is complete.
1
30-V.
Suffolk County Participation On Additional Issues Under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.715(c)
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.715(c) Suffolk County intends to participate as an Interested County in this proceeding on the Contentions of SCC without necessarily taking a position at this time.
Also, the County is undertaking a prompt review of other issues relevant to operation of the Shoreham plant and will in the near future notify the Board and parties as to the County's in te res ts.
Among such issues are possible seismic concerns, particularly in light of recent seismic activity in the north-eastern United States, and issues which were not litigated in the construction permit proceeding because such were deemed appropriate for the operating license proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, DAVID J. GIIJ1ARTIN Suffolk County Attorney PATRICIA A.
DEMPSEY Assistant Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Mauppauge, New York 11788
[
N f
Rerbert H.
Brown Lawrence Coe Langher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
8th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 452-7000 Attorneys for Suffolk County March 1, 1982 s
b g
s V