ML20041E077

Request for Production of Documents Directed to Util. Related Correspondence

ML20041E077
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/05/1982
From:	Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8203100111
Download: ML20041E077 (10)

Text

. , ,

"'*W GWutESPrxnen; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA " j ;,4 -. .. ./

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s BEFORE

"' THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '82 K'n -a 99 :gs'

)

In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY )

) Docket No. 50 $ N-@L N

(Shoreham Nuclear Power ) q Station, Unit 1) )

) RECEIVED <

G-SUFFOLK COUNTY REQUEST FOR

MAR 091982> r PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

{RQ%f' nx Pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.741, LILCO is requeste County to produce for inspection and copying, at the Shoreham plant or at another mutually agreed-upon location, the documents specified below that are within LILCO's (as defined herein) possession, custody, or control. Such production shall be no later than 30 days from the date of service of this request.

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION The definitions and instructions applicable to these Requests are the same as those set forth in Suffolk County Interrogatories to LILCO, filed simultaneo; sly herewith, and hereby incorporated by reference, except that subparts L through P, and W, of such Definitions and Instructions are not applicable to these Requests.

h j i

8203100111 820305 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O PDR

• 0 0 DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED

1. All documents identified in response to Suffolk County's Interrogatories to LILCO, dated Marcl. 5, 1982. /

2. All Shoreham Emergency Operating Procedures (the "29" Series).

3. The most recent and current version of the Shoreham Technical Specifications.

4. The most recent and current revision of FSAR Fig. 7.4.1-5A through E, " Remote Shutdown System IED."

5. The most recent and current revision of " Remote Shutdown System Design Spec," noted as Reference 2 in FSAR Fig.

7.4.1-6A, and all documents, analyses, and criteria upon which such design specification was based.

6. A copy of the most recent and current revision of " Figure 1" (Typical Valve Control) as referenced in FSAR Fig. 7.4.1-6A.

7. The most recent and current revision of each of the following Shoreham Procedures:

(a) SP #23.133.01, " Remote Shutdown Panel Control System. "

(b) SP #29.022.01, " Shutdown From Outside the Control Room Emergency Procedure. "

(c) SP #29.010.01, " Emergency Shutdown Procedure."

(d) SP #29.015.01, " Loss of Electrical Power Emergency Procedure."

• / Some of the documents requested in Nos. 2-40 are covered by Request 1. These requests are not intended to be dupli-cative but rather are listed separately herein to more adequately identify certain of the documents requested by the County.

(e) SP #23.101.01, " Auxiliary Boiler System."

(f) SP #23.201.01, " Automatic Depressurization System."

(g) SP #23.119.01, " Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System. "

(h) SP #23.707.01, " Fuel Pool Cooling System."

(i) SP #23.122.01, " Service Water System."

(j) SP #23.118.01, "RBCLCWS."

(k) SP #21.006.01, " Station Operator Training and Qualification Program."

8. The most recent and current revision of each of the following Shoreham Alarm Response Procedures:

(a) ARP 1051, "RSDS Transfer Switch in Emergency Position Div. 1."

(b) ARP 1364, "RSDS Transfer Switch in Emergency Position Div. II."

(c) ARP 1365, "RSDS Transfer Switch in Emergency Position Div. III."

(d) ARP (LTR) "RSP Access Doors Open."

9. The most recent and current revision of FSAR Fig. 7.4.1-6A and B, " Remote Shutdown System FCD."

i

10. All updated and current Remote Shutdown System panel drawing (s).

11. All training manuals and procedures, including current versions, for operator training regarding emergency use of the Remote Shutdown Panel.

12. The current Shoreham Shift Turnover Procedure.

13. Letter #SNRC-638 and a copy of LILCO's forthcoming response to NRC request numbers 223.93 through .99 (see Attachment 1

I hereto). If LILCO's response is not yet available, please advise as to when it will be available.

14. Report by Reinhart & Associates, Inc. concerning 1981/1982 pre-service inspection tests of the Shoreham Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV), and all documents, including under-lying work papers, research and analyses, concerning such report.

15. Report by Nuclear Energy Services, Inc. concerning 1981/

1982 pre-service inspection tests of the Shoreham RPV, and all documents, including underlying work papers, research

and analyses, concerning such report.

16. All analyses, test results, and other documents concerning i whether the Shoreham systems affected by water hammer will, during their service lifetimes, withstand flow-induced vibrations.

17. All pre-operational test results of water hammer-related tests performed on Shoreham's ECCS and steam system piping.

18. All documents evidencing that Shoreham has implemented the steps set forth in Section III.1 of the Settlement Agreement.

19. All analyses, diagrams, test results, and other documents concerning the design and capabilities of Shoreham's Loose Parts Monitoring (LPM) System, particularly concerning how the system will identify, record and pinpoint.the location and cause of each LPM system signal.

20. All training materials and operational procedure documents concerning Shoreham's LPM system.

21. All analyses and other documents which were used to support, or which concern General Electric's position on LPM Systems as presented to the ACRS Meeting of the Subcommittee on Electrical Systems, Control and Instrumention on Loose Parts Monitoring Systems, on Thursday, July 20, 1978.

22. All documents describing and all analyses, research and other documents concerning General Electric's current position as to the reliability and meaningful detection capability of the LPM Systems currently available for BWR's.

23. All analyses, test results, or other documents which demonstrate that " adequate net positive suction head to the ECCS pumps is provided with 50% of the free strainer area clogged," as stated in FSAR Section 6.3.2.20.1, or which concern such issue.

24. A copy of the following correspondence from LILCO to the NRC regarding ECCS pump blockage:

(a) SNRC-598 (b) SNRC-602

25. The Environmental Qualification Report and all data, I

i analyses, test results and other documents supporting or l

concerning such report, for the following equipment described in LILCO's Environmental Qualification Status l

Report, Report Number PES-800, Job 1160002, dated 1-18-82:

! (a) Level Transmitter for Reactor Level Trip, manufactured by Rosemount, Model 1151, (equipment ID: *lB21*LT154C; vendor ID: B21-N080C);

i .

l l

I (b) Suppression Pool Level Transmitter, manufactured by Rosemount, #1152DP4A22 PB (equipment / vendor-ID: '

.lZ93*LT001B);

(c) Fuel Zone Level Indicating Transmitter, manufactured by Barton Model 760 (equipment ID: .lB21* LIT 007A; vendor ID: B21-NO37A);

(d) Reactor Containment Electrical Penetrations, manufactured by General Electric, Series 200 low voltage, (equipment ID: .1T23*Z-EB2);

(e) Position Switches / Primary Containment Purge Valves, manufactured by NAMCO, Model #EA740-20001 (equipment ID: .lT46*PN5038A); and (f) Radiation Detector / Containment High Range, manufactured by Kamen (equipment ID: *1D21*RE085A).

26. A copy of Specification SH1-473, which is identified as applicable to Level Transmitters in LILCO's Environmental Qualification Report for Class IE Equipment.

27. A copy of each of the following:

(a) Specification SH1-003 (b) Specification SH1-134 (c) Specification SH1-475 l (d) Specification SH1-172 (e) Specification SH1-406

28. All drawings which show the location and mounting of effluent sampling points for monitoring releases at each I

potential release point at Shoreham.

30. A copy of Regulatory Guide 1.97-Draft 3, October 1980, as used by LILCO as the design basis for the shielding and sampling media on the Station vent and RBSVS.

31. All procedures and emergency operating procedures used by LILCO to describe recommended actions with regard to post-accident monitoring instruments and systems.

32. All analyses or other documents concerning ECCS performance which have shown the 40' Fahrenheit penalty in Peak Clad Temperature (PCT) limits to be justified or unwarranted as an interim resolution of the concerns set forth in NUREG-0630.

33. The most recent and current revision of LILCO's operations OA program manual and all implementing procedures and other documents which concern whether and how the requirements of 10 CFR $50 Appendix B will be satisfied.

34. Copies of the QA Manuals for Shoreham, and implementing procedures of each of the following:

(a) Stone & Webster; (b) Comstock; i

(c) Courter; (d) Jackson; (e) Dravo; and I

( f) other contractors and subcontractors

35. All documents concerning the interface between the Shoreham OA program and the programs of all Shoreham contractors and subcontractors.

l

36. The most current revision of LILCO's OA manual and pro-cedures for non-operational activities (including design, construction and procurement) and all documents which concern whether and how the Part 50, Appendix B requirements are satisfied.

37. All audits, analyses, investigations, studies, reviews, or other documents prepared or conducted by or on behalf of any person, concerning the effectiveness of the QA programs of:

(a) Comstock; (b) Stone & Webster; (c) Courter; (d) Jackson; (e) Dravo; (f) LILCO; (g) other contractors; and (h) other subcontractors

38. All non-conformance 'aon-compliance logs or listings, showing the dates on which each non-conformance/non-compliance was entered and cleared for:

(a) LILCO's OA program; (b) Stone & Webster's QA program; (c) Comstock's QA program; (d) Courter's QA program; (e) Jackson's QA program; (f) Dravo's QA program; and (g) The QA program of any other contractors or subcontractors.

_g-

39. All audits and other documents concerning the initiation and closing of the non-conformances/non-compliances identified in the response to Request No. 38.

40. Copies of all contracts, including contract endorsements, revisions, or modifications, between LILCO and any contractor or between a contractor and any subcontractor who provided any type of QA/OC activity related to Shoreham.

Respectfully submitted, 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 f Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, NW, 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 452-7000 Attorneys for Suffolk County March 5, 1982 f

l l

r waw . -

/ /. . .

/ '

223.23 In Table 1 of SNRC-638, assuming a sincie failure of the SRV valves at the RSP, credit is being taken for 55e RCIC system to reduce reactor pres sure. Verification should 5e provided that the RCIC turbine steam flow is sufficient to reduce reactor pressure to -

achieve cold shutdown. The time to reach cold shutdown using the RCIC system should Se provided.

223.94 In Table 1 of SNRC-638, assuming a single failure to the Reactor Building Closed Loop Cooling Water System (RSCLCW), credit is heing taken for the LPCI system to achiere cold shutdown. Does this mean that the 5 loop of RECLCW will 5e ased for LPCI operation? If so, bow is the transfer of control made, where are the 5 loop controls, and does this require continuous local operation?

223.95 In Table 1 of SNRC-638, assuming a single failure of the Reactor Recirculating System, credit is taken for long ter= cooling using the LPCI system of the RER system. Explain t5e conflict between this statenent and note 3 in Ta51e i that sta'.es : Eat the Reactor Recircu-lating System is recuired to prevent sEcrt cycling t5e core during RER cooling for cold sEntdown. Also, it i~s not apparent to the staff why the Reactor Recirculating Syste= is included in Ta51e 1 since the capability of remote sEutdown must Se provided even with the assumption of a loss of offrite power. .

223.96 la SNRC-638, the applicant stated that assuming a single failure, the plant can be 5 rough.t to Ect sEutdown wit 5out leaving the RSP. Ex plain the discrepancy between this statement and t5e informaf ton presented

in SNRC-638 Ta51e 2 wh.ich indicates :dat Reacter water l evel and Reactor Pressure indtrations are at locations c:Eer than t5e RSP. '

223.97 In Ta51e 2 of SNRC-638, explain why an alternate' indication for Reactor ,,,-

Pressure (lC61-PI'0C6{ is not required ano w5y Reactor tenperature indication is not needed during the 2750 to 2120 shutdown phase where the reac:or pressure gauge is inaccurate.

223.9E Explain the discrepancy 5etween statements in Ee ecergency procedures j for shutdown from outside the control room which indicate teat auto-I matic ESF functions are lost during a transfer of control and the statement ~ in SNRC-633 tha' ESF systems not controll ed from tEs ESP, -

i wnich have automatic features, will function as designed.

1

\

223 % As a result of a review of the SEcreham SER by the Region (

six additional instances regar. ding Engineered Safety Features I (ESFL reset (IE Sull etin SQ-a61 were discovered. These instances l are discussed in Inspection Report 5G-322/ 81 -0 6 dated June 5,1981 l 5ecause of these discrecanctes, tee staff is questioning the applicant's cricinal ESF rese: review and :Ea Easis for the study's conclusions.

The staff has concluded, teat :Eis item needs furtEer review Ey the

~

applicant and requests that an updated su5mittal concerning ESF rese:

he provided.

l l

l l

i

= __----__ -_

d

__ _ _ , a_.C.4- m -- - a - - s. _ u m- .

= # $

m M

9 .

e, f

f W

4 9

9 i

Oe I

l l

l m

A MM A,#C. ..

l l

s S.. .

SpoJ e

• 9

,g i8 1 :s t e, , .

e *

%.. I .

s4 '_, . l ,w

^

t' .t i '

e e -

p,r r ,- .

t <y~ -

e -

O s *s. .

• . s f$,

ge 1,,' ,

= . " =.

. Di ,

, i, J-s .[ /

. e

• =i  % ,

s O

• $ A

, %^ p g O s

, w ww --

• 'vr-- mm--o,- -- ,- -,w ,w---- - , ---- , ,