ML20042B248
| ML20042B248 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1982 |
| From: | Reveley W LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8203250141 | |
| Download: ML20042B248 (25) | |
Text
e-e
,21 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- G2 m 23 2:31 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U
c 1,
[.7 j,
.:3"
- h In the Matter ot
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 OL
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO/ COUNTY SETTLEMENT Attached are copies of (1) " Sixth Stipulation and Settlement of Suffolk County Contentions"
(" Draft.1 10/5781,"
that is, the dratt that was ultimately rejected by the County Legislature on December 8, 1981), and (2) an October 13, 1981 letter from LILCO's Chairman to the County Executive indicating the Company's willingness to accept the *.erms in the " Draft of 10/5/81."
The County Executive was also willing to accept them.
Unsuccessful attempts were made thereafter to amend the document to make it acceptable to a majority in the County Legislature.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Y
//
$ll
"/ f W.
Taylor Revel'ey, III
~
Hunton & Williams 4
P. O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
//
g D A'I ED :
March 20, 1982 E; e 4.9g
}
A cc:
All parties g
8203250141 820320 h8 f E3 N
/,
PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
[
l
c
.o...w-...
u..
-m v
-~
['.
,,,,:..gr.....
....o
/L",@D LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM PANY KJf44vWs/.rS ExCCUTidC OFflCES; "!O 063 COUNTE
Octcber 13, 198'1 Hon.. Peter F. Cohalan County Executive Executive Legislature Building Veterans Stemorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787
Dear Alr. Cohalan:
I am pleased to advise that.the proposed Sixth Stipulation and Settlement of Suffolk County Contentions in the Shoreham Nuclear.
Power Station Operating License proceeding before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket 50-322, has been reviewed by me and other officials of the Long Island Lighting Company. As a result of such review, I am prepared to recommend to the Board of Directors of the Company that the Board authorize execution of this document by the appropriate representatives of the Company once it has finally been approved by you and the County Legislature and executed on behalf of the County.
I would like to take,this opportunity to thank you, the County Attorney's office and other officials of Suffolk County, particularly Legislators Blass and Petrizzo, for the efforts of each in reaching a satisfactory solutic,n to a most difficult problem.
Sincerely, cfa /..c CRP:hnn L
O
.i'.
CONFIDENTIAL Draft of 10/5/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
SIXTH STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTIONS i
TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
The Course of Negotiations 3
II.
Resolution of Certain County Contentions 5
III. LILCO Agreement to Take Certain Steps 5
A.
County Representative on the Company's Nuclear Review Board'.
7 B.
Probabilistic Risk Assessment 10 C.
Accident Consequence Analysis 12 D.
Other Aspects of Emergency Planning 14 E.
Physical Inspection and QA/QC Review.
15 F.
Security Planning 18 G.
Simulator 19 H.
Anticipated Transients Without Scram.
20 I.
Diesel Generator Relay Reliability.
21 J.
Fire Protection 21
. K.
Materials 21 i
L.
22 M.
ALARA 22 N.
Loose Parts Monitoring 23 O.
Hydrogen Control.
24 P.
Operating Experience 24 Q.
Radioactive Waste Disposal 24 IV.
Remedies 25 V.
Further County Participation in the Proceeding 26 VI.
Approvals 27 I
k a
I i
l l
l
_ _ _. ~
I.
7 THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS Suffolk County (County) filed a petition to intervene in this proceeding on March 17, 1977, raising numerous contentions.
For the next two years, the County and Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) dealt with one another in a formal, adversarial fashion.
There resulted much written and oral argument, many Board rulings, and the generation of far more heat than light.
Early in 1979, the County and Company, encourafed by the NRC Staff, decided to try an informal approach in the hope that it would prove less sterile than prior exchanges.
This hope has borne fruit.
Thousands of man-hours have been devoted to the new approach by the parties' representatives and consultants.
The NRC Staff has actively participated in the process, while the New York State Energy Office has monitored it.
The parties have met 18 times in plenary sessions:
Meeting Dates Meeting Places March 30, 1979 Bethesda, Md.
April 20, 1979 Shoreham, N.Y.
May 2, 1979 Boston, Mass.
June 5, 1979 Shoreham, N.Y.
November 2, 1979 Shoreham, N.Y.
December 11-12, 1979 Boston, Mass.
June 17, 1980 Shoreham, N.Y.
July 29-30, 1980 Boston, Mass.
August 29, 1980 Bethesda, Md.
October 9, 1980 Boston, Mass.
November 13, 1980 Shoreham, N.Y.
s
_4 January 21, 1981 Shoreham, N.Y.
February 24, 1981 Bethesda, Md.
April 9, 1981 Shoreham, N.Y.
May 14, 1981 Boston, Mass.
May 28, 1981 Shoreham, N.Y.
July 9, 1981 Shoreham, N.Y.
September 9, 1981
- Mineola, N.Y.
Between meetings, there has been significant communication among the parties by phone and mail, and there have occurred a number of smaller working sessions involving consultanta who were dealing in detail with pending technical issues.
As indicated, a huge amount of time has been devoted to this process of information exchange, explanation and negotiation --
man-hours of a magnitude akin to those required for lengthy hearings.
Five stipulations among the County, Company and NRC Staff have resulted so far from this process, dated June 5,
- 1979, November 2, 1979, June 10, 1980, October 9, 1980, and January 21, 1981.
Each of these agreements has been accepted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
See ASLB Orders of June 28, 1979, January 7, 1980, June 26, 1980, October 27, 1980, and February 17, 1981.
The process has hinged on the following factors:
(1) Good faith efforts by the County to state clearly and concretely its concerns; (2) Similar efforts by LILCO and/or the NRC Staff to respond directly and fully to these concerns orally and via documents -- and to respond without regard to whether the concerns have been previously recogniced as " contentions" in the licensing proceeding;
~
?
' (3) A willingness by the County to agree that ith concerns have been resolved when, in fact, LILCO and/or the NRC Staff have provided answers satisfactory to the County; and (4) A willingness by LILCO to take certain steps not compelled by law in order to resolve other County concerns.
II.
RESOLUTION OF CERTAIN COUNTY CONTENTIONS After more than four years of intense participation in this proceeding, the County believes that the majority of its concerns have now been satisfactorily resolved either through information and explanations provided by the Applicant and NRC Staff, or by LILCO's commitments to take voluntarily certain steps regarding Shoreham.
A significant step is the Company's agreement to have a County representative on LILCO's Nuclear Review Board.
Only by such membership will the County be assured of continuing access to significant information regarding the plant and continuing' opportunity to influence developments concerning it.
Part III below details the resolution of most of the County's concerns.
Accordingly, the County agrees to pursue no further in this proceeding its previously raised contentions, except as specified in Part V below.
III.
LILCO AGREEMENT TO TAKE CERTAIN STEPS
In addition to commitments already made in prior stipulations,1/ LILCO for its part agrees to take the following steps in order to-settle this proceeding with the County.2/
1/
Stipulation No. I had the following provisions:
1.
Once every five years, the Applicant will:
a.
Verify the torque on the nuts securing the spent fuel pool hold-down plates, and b.
Visually check the accessible portions of the rack hold-down assemblies for 2
Corrosion.
2.
The Applicant will establish a maximum permissible leakage rate into the spent fuel pool leakage collection system.
And in Stipulation No.
2, LILCO agreed to the following:
Reactor coolant system leakage shall be limited to (a) no pressure boundary leakage, (b) 5 gpm UNIDENTIFIED leakage, (c) 25 gpm total leakage averaged over a 24-hour period, and (d) a 2 gpm INCREASE in UNIDENTIFIED leakage within any 4-hour period.
If reactor coolant system leakage is greater than limit (a) above, then the plant shall be in hot shutdown within the next 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
If reactor coolant system leakage is greater than limit (b) or (c) above, then the leakage rate shall be reduced to within the limit within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> after the exceedance of the limit becomes apparent, or the plant shall be in hot shutdown within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in cold shutdown within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
If reactor coolant system leakage is greater than l
limit (d) above, then the leakage must be identified l
within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after the exceedance becomes apparent, or the plant shall be in hot shutdown within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in cold shutdown within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
2/
As to these steps, LILCO waives its right to take only j
such action regarding Shoreham as is required by law.
Moreover, for purposes of reaching this settlement, LILCO has waived its rights (a) to respond only to those County concerns I
that were previously recognized as " contentions" in the 2
i licensing proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.714, and (b) to provide the County only such limited information as it could j
extract via formal discovery.
l l
. A.
County' Representative on the Company's Nuclear Review Board LILCO will add a County representative to the Company's Nuclear Review Board (NRB).
The following procedures will govern such membership:
1.
Appointment (a) The County representative on the NRS must meet the qualifications set out in FSAR Section 13.4.2.2.
The representative may not be an employee of LILCo.
(b) The County Executive, in consultation with the County Legislature, will select the County NRB representative.
When selecting that person, the County will make every reasonable effort to name an individual acceptable to LILCO.
If after such efforts, agreement cannot be reached by the County and the Company on the identity of the representative, then the County and LILCO will each nominate no more than two qualified individuals, both of whom may not be employed by the same organization.
The County and LILCO may then each object to all but one of the other's nominees, stating the grounds for objection in writing.
The representative will be selected from among the remaining nominees by binding arbitration.
(c) The arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association.
The County Executive and LILCO will select an arbitrator of their choice.
These arbitrators will then select a third, neutral arbitrator from a panel provided by the American Arbitration Association.
(d) The arbitrators will make a binding selection of the County representative by majority vote based on the following criteria, explaining their decision in writing:
(1) the representative's capacity to represent the interests of the County;
-a.
(2) his or her capacity to function objectively and fairly; (3) his or her technical qualifications, reputation and, if possible, capacity to provide the NR3 with expertise in a specific discipline important to it; and (4) the estimated cost of his or her NRB services.
2.
Term of Accointment (a) The County representative will serve on the NRB for a term of three years or until his or her successor is appointed, except as provided in paragraphs 2.(c) and (d) below.
(b) By mutual agreement between the County Executive and LILCO, the representative.may be reappointed for subsequent terms.
In the ab*ance of mutual agreement about reappointment, f.e selection process outlined in paragraph A.1 above will be followed.
(c) The County representative may be removed from the NRB, effective immediately, by mutual agreement of LILCO's Chairman and the County Executive.
(d) The representative may also be removed, effective immediately, by either LILCO's Chairman or the County Executive for good cause, stated in writing.
If the Company or the County objects to the other's removal of the representative, the dispute will be submitted within three working days of the removal to binding arbitration.
The arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in paragraph A.1.(c) above to determine if good cause for removal existed.
Good cause will include, but not be limited to:
(1) any action or fact that will result in a material impairment of the County representative's capacity to represent the interests of the County; (2) any action or fact that will result in a material impairment of the capacity of the NRS to function effectively; and
-9 (3) a material failure by the County or its representative to comply with any of the provisions in paragraphs A.3 to 5 below.
3.
Duties, Responsibilities, and Authority The County representative will be a member in full standing of LILCO's Nuclear Review Board.
It is understood that the County representative will prepare and present periodic reports to the County.
In doing so, the representative will be subject to the rules governing the operation of the NRB.
He or she will have all the duties, responsibilities, and authority of any other NRB member.
4.
Access to and Disclosure of Information (a) All Nuclear Review Board members, including the County representative, will sign:
(1) a non-disclosure agreement concerning information that its owners have declared to be proprietary, and (2) an agreement to hold in confidence all information received as a member of the NRB, whether proprietary or not, unless disclosure is a.
(1) approved after prompt review by che chairman of the NRB (and, for proprietary information, by its owners) or (ii) required by federal law.
Any disagreement over disclosure will be resolved by the procedures in paragraph A.S.(a) below.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph A.4.(a), the County representative may consult with the County Executive, the County Attorney and/or the designee of each on any matter pending before the NRB.
Prior to that consultation, the County Executive, the County Attorney or the designee of each will sign the agreements noted in paragraph A.4.(a) above.
(c) The County representative will have equal and timely access to all information received by the NRB for review.
The representative may also request information necessary to fulfill his or her duties and responsibilities.
If a request for information is rejected by the pertinent LILCO organization, the matter will be promptly considered by the NRB as a whole.
Any continuing dispute will be resolved by the procedures in paragraph A.S.(a) below.
1
i l.
5.
Resolution of Discutes 7
(a) If any NRB member disagrees (1) with the Chairman of the NRB about the disclosure of information or (2) with a majority of the NRB about any other matter, and if the member believes that the dispute involves an issue of genuine safety significance, he or she may take the issue promptly to LILCO's Vice President-Nuclear, who will respond to the NRS member's concern within five working days after receipt of the inquiry.
If the member remains unsatisfied after the Vice President-Nuclear has addressed the matter, he or she may then take the issue to LILCO's President and/or Chairman, who will respond to the NRB member's concern within five working days after the receipt of the inquiry and who will report the matter to the Company's Board of Directors.
Thereafter, if still unsatisfied, the NRB member may take the issue to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Until the member has tried in good faith to resolve his or her concern by these routes and has been unable to do so, he or she must keep the dispute in confidence in accordance with the provisions of paragraph A.4.(a) above.
(b) Except as otherwise compelled by law, LILCO wholly retains the right to set its nuclear policies, taking fully into account the views of NRB members but not being controlled by them.
The Nuclear Review Board remains at all times an advisory body to.the Company's management.
6.
Compensation LILCO will compensate the County for the reasonable costs of its representative in accordance with terms to be mutually agreed upon by the Company and County l
Executive at the time the representative is selected, l
l l
B.
Probabilistic Risk Assessment LILCO has hired Science Applications, Inc. to perform a l
probabilistic risk assessment (FRA).
The study will evaluate very low probability accident sequences that go beyond the existing NRC design bases for Shoreham.
The following l
guidelines will prevail:
l l
l
. 1.
Selection of Independent Consultant LILCO has selected an experienced, independent probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) consultant, Science Applications, Inc., to conduct a Shoreham-specific PRA.
This consultant is not an employee of Stone & Webster, General Electric, or any other contractor having direct responsibility for the Shoreham design.
Should the consultant be later replaced, the new consultant will meet the criteria just stated.
2.
Scope of Study The assessment will be conducted in discrete phases and involve the quantitative evaluation of accident sequences having the theoretical potential for releasing large amounts of radioactivity to the environment (i.e., core-melt conditions).
The phases will be as follows:
Phase I:
A spectrum of initiating events that could lead to significant off-site consequences will be considered and the resulting accident sequences will be evaluated.
A fault tree / event tree methodology will be used in this analysis.
Phase I will conclude with the establishment of a core-melt frequency per reactor year of operation for the Shoreham-specific accident sequences.
This phase will include an in-plant physical inspection looking at major systems and components to identify potential physical systems interactions and interfaces.
Phase II:
An in-plant consequence analysis will be performed for hypothetical events leading to core melt and/or large radioactive releases to establish the magnitude and characteristics of the radioactive releases.
Phase III:
Radiological consequence calculations will be performed for radioactive releases developed in Phase II.
Shoreham's overall risk assessment will include identification of the dominant systems and procedures contributing to risk at the plant.
This risk will then be compared to that associated with other nuclear plants of similar design.
If the comparison proves to be significantly unfavorable to Shoreham, there will be further analysis by LILCO to evaluate plant design and/or procedural modifications that can reduce the l
12-risk from Shoreham's dominant accident sequences.
Without regard to the comparison of Shoreham with other~ nuclear plants, LILCO will also review Shoreham's dominant accident sequences to determine whether design and/or procedural modifications can practicably be made to reduce the risk.
3.
Future Use l
This probabilistic risk assessment is to be a Company management tool that will be periodically updated to consider current plant design and pending safety.
issues.
4.
Review LILCO has established an independent review board whose charter is to review Phases I, II and III of the Shoreham PRA as they are in progress.
This board consists of three experts in the field of probabilistic risk assessment not employed by the Company or its primary PRA consultant.
These experts are Doctors Vojin Joksimovic, Norman Rasmussen and i
Walton Roger.
1 The final PRA report and its recommendations will be reviewed by the Company's Nuclear Review Board, among j
others, and will.be provided to the County on a timely basis.
5.
Schedule LILCO will complete the PRA prior to fuel load, if practicable, and will respond to the report and recommendations based upon the report as soon as feasible thereafter.
C.
Accident Consequence Analysis l
LILCO has hired Pickard, Lowe & Garrick to study the potential radiological consequences of a nuclear accident at
}
Shoreham.
The first part of this effort will involve the radiological consequence calculations done in the course of the PRA study described in paragraph B above.
The balance of the work will be performed in an Emergency Planning Effectiveness t
n.-
3-,.
4.,_
w w
--,-,-,ww y-w-
,3
,.9
. Study (EPES).
If results from the PRA study are not available t
in time for use in the Emergency Planning Effectiveness Study, the latter study will be conducted using generic source term assumptions and pertinent site-specific data.
The EFES will then be revised, if necessary, when the PRA results become available.
The EPES will be conducted under the following guidelines:
1.
Selection of Independent Consultant LILCO has selected an experienced, independent consultant in the area of radiological assessment, Pickard, Lowe & Garrick, which is not an employee of Stone & Webster, General Electric, or any other contractor having direct responsibility for the Shoreham design.
Should the consultant be later replaced, the new consultant will meet the criteria just stated.
2.
Scope of Study Building upon the PRA study discussed in paragraph B above, the EPES is structured to achieve the following goals:
(a) Improve the understanding of a spectra of radiological conditions that could exist in the environment if a major accident occurred; (b) Identify key elements of the emergency plan and improve the understanding of the importance of these elements in determining plan effectiveness; (c) Determine the effectiveness of boundaries established in 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, for specific emergency measures such as evacuation and sheltering; (d) Identify potential improvements in the plan; and (e) Evaluate the effectiveness of the potential improvements.
. 3.
Review 7
LILCO has established an independent review board whose charter is to review the EPES as it is in prcgress.
This board consists of the three PRA experts named in paragraph B.4 above.
The final EFES report and recommendations will be reviewed by the Company's Nuclear Review Board, among others, and will be provided to the County on a timely basis.
4.
Schedule Prior to fuel load, LILCO will complete the EPES and provide the results to the County for purposes of its emergency planning.
D.
Other Aspects of Emergency Planning Emergency planning is the joint responsibility of LILCO, Suffolk County and New York State.
The Company will provide appropriate technical and financial assistance to both the County and State in the preparation and maintenance of an effective emergency plan.
Specifically, the following actions will be taken subject to separate contractual agreements:
1.
LILCO will pay the County $245,000 to develop its Emergency Plan; 2.
LILCO will provide appropriate technical advice to the County on Emergency Planning for the life of the plant; 3.
LILCO will provide the County with an updated copy of the Shoreham Emergency Plan so that the County can mesh its efforts with those of other affected governmental bodies; 4.
LILCO will procure and install an early warning notification system that meets NRC requirements and is consistent with the County's Emergency Plan; and 5.
As soon as practicable, LILCO will procure and install an offsite radiological monitoring system in the vicinity of Shoreham, whose output will be provided
' 15-independently to the County; LILCO will also provide tovthe County the data from the NRC required high-range radiation, temperature and pressure monitors in the containment building and high-range radiation monitors in the containment building vent.
E.
Physical Inspection and QA/QC Review LILCO will hire an independent consultant to perform a non-NRC, third-party physical inspection and review of the quality assurance / quality control program for Shoreham.
The review will consider aspects of both construction and operational QA/QC. The following guidelines will prevail:
1.
Selecticn of Independent Consultant The County has approved as acceptable bidders for the work in question the experienced, independent QA/QC consultants listed in County counsel's September 16, 1981 letter to Company counsel.
None of these consultants is an employee of Stone & Webster, General Electric, or any other contractor having direct responsibility for the Shoreham QA/QC program.
The low evaluated bidder from among these consultants will do the work, and that bidder will be chosen in compliance with the bidding procedures required by the Public Service Commission and LILCO.
Time constraints may necessitate the more rapid selection of a County-approved consultant to do the work described in paragraph E.2.(e) below.
If so, that consultant will be one of the certified NDT Level III experts also listed in County counsel's September 16, 1981 letter to Company counsel.
2.
Scope of Review
(
l The assessment of the Shoreham QA/QC program will include:
(a) a review of on-site QA/QC records for, and a physical inspection of, one electrical system (reactor protection system, FSAR figure 7.2.1-1) and one mechanical system, including its structural support, chosen by the consultant from among the following three systems, core spray (FSAR figure 7.3.1-4), high pressure coolant injection (FSAR figure 7.3.1-1) and residual heat removal (FSAR figure 7.3.1-7), covering:
i I
l.
~ - -
- (i) the designation of safety-related items to determine whether the systems' structures and components have been properly classified, (ii) the LILCO and S&W QA/QC programs for design and construction of the systems to identify those safety-related structures and components not designed or constructed in accordance with 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix B, and assess the safety significance of any deviation, (iii) training and qualification records of construction and inspection personnel, (iv) records concerning the identification and control of installed material, parts and components, (v) records concerning the control of special processes, (vi) disposition of non-conformances, (vii) corrective action measures and timely close-outs, (viii) audit follow-ups and timely close-outs, (ix) equipment qualification records, (x) drawing change control procedures including field changes, (xi) comparison of "as-built" drawings to actual plant configuration, (xii) receiving inspection and test results, t
(xiii) material certifications, l
(xiv) concrete strength where applicable, i
l (xv) visual inspection of the systems including
- welds, i
(xvi) cable identification and separation, (xvii) verification of the torque of bolts, I
. (xviii) control panel functional test results, (xix) non-destructive test records, (xx) the program for control of materials, parts and components for non-safety grade portions of the systems, and (xxi) a determination of the adequacy of the LILCO and Stone & Webster QA/QC programs and their implementation based on all the above; (b) a comparison of the LILCO operational QA/QC program to current NRC Regulatory Guides specifically related to QA/QC activities; (c) a review of LILCO's operational QA/QC program, including:
(i) the qualification of the Shoreham QA/QC staff, (ii) the availability of QC personnel on off-
- shifts, (iii) the availability of "as-built" drawings, (iv) the selection of replacement materials and parts for safety-related items, (v) the applicability of the QA/QC program to replacement electrical and instrumentation components, modules and equipment, i
(vi) the handling and installation of replacement parts and materials for safety-related items, i
and
(
(vii) the program for procurement of non-safety related replacement materials and parts; (d) a documentation review of the reactor pressure vessel inspection practices and results during the vessel's design and fabrication; (e) a review and surveillance of LILCO's 1981
' pre-service inspection (PSI) ultrasonic examination (including checks on instrument calibration) of the Shoreham reactor pressure vessel beltline welds and pressure vessel to nossle welds to ASME code requirements, inclucing L
verificaton of earlier PSI ultrasonic data on l
l l
I
4
_la_
selected beltline welds and pressure vessel to
, nossle welds to review the adequacy of the earlier PSI physical inspection program; any deficiencies discovered will be subject to additional physical inspection and review until the pressure vessel can be verified as adequate and satisfactory relative to ASME code requirements; and (f) the cost of this QA/QC assessment will be between
$50,000 and $150,000.
3.
Review This QA/QC report and its recommendations will be reviewed by the Company's Nuclear Review Board, among others, and will be provided to the County on a timely basis.
If the recommendations include the need to conduct further inspection and testing of the sample or other systems, the work will be conducted in accordance with MIL-STD-105D (" Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by Attributes").
4.
Schedule The Company has begun the process of initiating the physical inspection described above, which will be pursued concurrently with negotiations regarding stipulation and settlement between the Company and County.
The physical inspection and QA/QC review will be completed prior to fuel load, and any appropriate action in response to them will be taken as soon as feasible thereafter.
F.
Security Planning LILCO will give the County's consultant on security matters access to the entire Shoreham security plan.
Such access will be governed by the protective order and non-disclosure agreements already in effect for security issues in the Shoreham operating license proceeding.
The plan will be made available immediately upon execution by the County and Company of this Sixth Stipulation.
If, after review of the entire plan, there remain concerns about its adequacy that l
~
' 19-cannot be resolved by further discussions between pertinent t
LILCO people and the County's security consultant, the issues will be referred to LILCO's Nuclear Review Board for consideration.
A report on the adequacy of the security plan and its implementation will be prepared for NRB review at least once every two years.
G.
Simulator LILCO will provide a power-plant simulator designed with the following features and capabilities:
1.
the simulator will be essentially identical to the Shoreham main control board including all functional controls and instruments; I
2.
a high-speed, real-time response computer will be programmed to accurately simulate plant equipment, including physical, electrical and thermodynamic effects; 3.
metering, alarms and trip responses wizi be displayed as they appear on the Shoreham main control board; 4.
the simulator will be designed to reproduce actual plant behavior for a full range of operating and accident conditions including:
(a) hot and cold starts, (b) normal operations, (c) complete or partial shutdowns, (d) various malfunctions, and (e) complex accident scenarios; 5.
the computer will be capable of stopping the simulated problem to permit analysis of the trainee's actions; and 6.
the simulator will be capable of being controlled by an instructor who can set plant conditions, determine power demand, insert single or multiple malfunctions, and effectively monitor trainee performance.
LILCO will-have the Shoreham-specific simulator in operation within four years or as soon as practicable after the execution by the County and Company of this Sixth Stipulation.
LILCO will also submit to the NRC Staff, prior to the simulator's availability, a comprehensive plan for its use in the training of new operators and the refresher training of previously qualified operators.
H.
Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS)
Prior to fuel load, LILCO will modify Shoreham to reduce its already slight ATWS risk.
Specifically, the Company will provide:
1.
a means to trip the recirculation pumps upon receipt of a signal indicative of an ATWS event; 2.
a scram discharge volume system designed and installed such that it will have sufficient capacity to receive water exhausted by a full reactor scram; and 3.
an independent, redundant and diverse electrical means to initiate a reactor scram upon receipt of a signal indicative of an ATWS event, unless this modification is inconsistent with the NRC's ultimate ATWS resolution.
The Company will also de*celop and implement emergency procedures and operator training designed to help operators recognize an ATWS event and take appropriate corrective action.
Upon completion of the PRA analysis described in paragraph B above, LILCO will also examine the contribution to overall risk 1
from ATWS.
If ATWS prov s to be a dominant contributor to risk at Shoreham, an analysis will be performed by LILCO to evaluate l
whether plant design and/or procedural modifications can l
/
practicably be made to reduce the risk.
Moreover, the Company 7
will comply with whatever ATWS requirements are ultimately imposed by the NRC.
I.
Diesel Generator Relay Reliability To prevent an accumulation of dirt on the relays located in the diesel generator room control panels, the following protective measures have been or will be taken:
1.
the main ventilation system will be operated continuously only when the diesel generators are running; 2.
relay panels in the diesel generator rooms have gasketed access doors and filtered ventilation louvers; and 3.
the air intakes to the diesel generator ventilation systems will have concrete directly under them, with crushed stone several inches deep adjacent to the concrete.
J.
Fire Protection Prior to fuel load, LILCO will install a toxic gas l
detector in the Shoreham control room.
The detector will have the capacity to sense hazardous products of combustion, including those from cable insulation, and alert operators to l
their presence.
K.
Materials l
l To minimize the potantial for problems that can be caused l
by fuel channel deformation, LILCO will install, before fuel load, channels with a thickness of.100 inches (100 mils) or advanced designs / materials having similar resistance to deformation.
For piping and sparger material, LILCO will i
l l
- comply with NUREG-0313, Revision 1 and NUREG-0619, as i
delineated in a LILCO letter to the NRC Staff, SNRC-566, dated May 15, 1981.
L.
Water Hammer Prior to fuel load, LILCO will contact engineering personnel at other recently completed General Electric SWR Mark II plants to determine if any water hammer problems arose during their pre-operational testing.
LILCO will evaluate any problems so identified to determine their relevance to Shoreham and to see whether there is any need to modify Shoreham's pre-operational testing program for water hammer purposes.
The results of the pre-operational testing program, including any that relate to water hammer, will be reviewed by nhe Company's Nuclear Review Board, among others.
M.
As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) Radiation Levels LILCO will incorporate certain features into its operations designed to keep radiation levels as low as reasonably achievable.
These features include:
1.
water chemistry procedures to limit iron-cobalt radiation buildup in order to reduce primary system radiation exposure rates; 2.
provisions for decontamination of the reactor water cleanup system, if needed; 3.
procedures for monitoring and control of individual and plant total annual occupational radiation doses, with individual exceedance of i
three rem per quarter occurring only on an emergency basis and requiring special management approval;
. 4.
review of individual and plant exposure totals at lehst annually by LILCO's Review of Operations Committee and every two years by the Nuclear Review Board; action will be taken to reduce radiation levels and/or exposure if the in-plant totals exceed 1000 man-rem in two cuccessive years; and 5.
a condensor design that uses the minimum number of shell connections required to provide safe and officient system performance.
N.
Loose Parts Monitoring LILCO will install a loose parts monitoring (LPM) system.
The system will be a modular acoustic detection, analog processing, and annuciation system providing real time detection and recording of impact noises in Shoreham's pri.T ry coolant system.
Frequency range, signal-to-background noise ratios and rate of occurrence of impact events will be manually programmed to optimize system sensitivity and alarm logic. The-LPM system will contain three design features to aid in recognizing false alarms:
1.
low pass and high pass filters will attenuate t
l signals due to spurious electrical, mechanical, or hydraulic transients; 2.
automatic adjustment of the alert threshold above the background noise will result in detection of i
only those signals that rise above the changing average; and l
l 3.
the system alarm will not actuate unless a i
minimum rate of alerts (indicated when the above setpoint is exceeded) occurs.
In addition, the LPM system will have the capability to automatically inhibit alarms during specific plant maneuvers that are found by experience to create spurious alarms.
i l
i l
t
~24-O.
Hydrogen Control 7
LILCO will install a containment inerting syst%' and will operate the Shoreham plant with its containment inerted. The Company will also participate in the NRC's degraded core rulemaking and will abide by whatever requirements result from it.
P.
Operating Experience LILCO will continue to incorporate new operating experience into its plant design and procedures, and will maintain membership in the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) and Nuclear Safety Analysis Center (NSAC).
Q.
Radioactive Waste Disposal There are three matters of concern:
low level radioactive wastes, spent fuel, and plant decommissioning.
1.
Low Level Wastes (LLW)
LILCO does not intend to use the Shoreham site as a permanent disposal area for low level radioactive wastes.
As soon as a regional LLW disposal area for New York State becomes available, LILCO will ship whatever LLW is at Shoreham to that disposal area.
Prior to such shipments, LLW at Shoreham will be minimized to the extent feasible, stored in accordance with federal regulations designed to protect the public health and safety, and subject to inspection by the NRC.
Under the Low Level Waste Policy Act of 1980, Congress has placed the responsibility for managing LLW on the various states.
The Act authorizes interstate compacts to establish disposal areas for LLW generated within each compact region.
LILCO anticipates that the Act will be implemented.
2.
Spent Fuel
. LILCO will not use the Shoreham site as a permanent di'sposal area for spent fuel.
As soon as appropriate, LILCO will begin shipping spent fuel at Shoreham to off-site areas where it will be reprocessed, stored and/or otherwise disposed of. Prior to such shipments, spent fuel at Shoreham vill be stored in accordance with federal regulations designed to protect the public health and safety, and it will be subject to inspection by the NRC.
The federal government is pursuing a number of alternatives for the management of spent fuel.
While none of these alternatives is likely to become operational during the next several years, LILCO is confident that one or more of them will be in service before the end of Shoreham's commercial life.
3.
Plant Decommissioning At the end of Shoreham's commercial life, LILCO will ensure that, at all times, the decommissioned plant poses negligible risk to the public.
LILCO expects that roughly 75 other nuclear power plants will be retired before Shoreham.
The decommissioning experience gained at these 75 stations will be crucial in determining the precise approach to be taken for Shoreham's own decommissioning.
It is too early to define that approach precisely now.
The Company will provide funds to pay for Shoreham's decommissioning in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Public Service Commission.
IV.
REMEDIES Any dispute between the Company and County regarding the meaning and requirements of this agreement will be referred to the Company's Vice President-Nuclear and the County Executive, or their designees, who will make strenuous efforts to resolve the dispute.
After this process has run its course, if the County and Company still disagree, they will submit the dispute to binding
o arbitration.
The arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association.
The County Executive and LILCO will c
each select an arbitrator of their choice.
These arbitrators will then select a third, neutral arbitrator from a panel provided by the American Arbitration Association.
The arbitrators will decide the matter by majority vote, explaining t
their decision in writing.
' ~
The arbitrators' decision will be binding except, of course, it cannot be given effect if inconsistent with NRC or other federal requirements governing Shoreham. Further, any issue regarding the modification of Shoreham's design or procedures, except as the modifications have been precisely defined in this or prior stipulations, will be dealt with solely pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures set out in
.... ur paragraph III.A.S above.
V.
FURTHER COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN THE NRC OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING l
A.
i~
l The County will retain its rights as a party to this n
proceeding.
For reasons already.noted, he aver, (a) the County will not litigate further in this proceeding any of its previously raised contentions except those stated in Attachment l
One below, and (b) the County through its representative on the i
Company's Nuclear Review Board will make every reasonable
27_
affort to resolve any subsequent concerns about Shoreham's t
safety through the NRB, including use of its dispute resolution procedures, as defined in paragraph III.A.5 above.
B.
Several County concerns, other than those listed in Attachment One below, remain partially unresolved.
They deal with accident monitoring equipment and Mark II containment.
These issues are currently under NRC review pending Commission rulemaking or generic resolution.
LILCO will have to address the NRC decision on each issue.
The County representative on the Company's Nuclear Review Board will have access to these LILCO responses, may raise any remaining concerns in the NRB, and may resolve disputes by the procedures set out in paragraph III.A.5 above.
Therefore, the County agrees not to pursue these issues further in the operating license proceeding.
VI.
APPROVALS Both the County and Company have formally authorized their counsel to enter into this Sixth Stipulation and Settlement, l
and present it to the Shoreham Atomic Safety and Licensing i
Board.
Attachment Two below is the authorizing resolution of l
the County Legislature, signed by the County Executive.
Attachment Three is the corresponding resolution of the LILCO i
Board of Directors, signed by the Company's Chairman.
l
\\
In the judgment of the County, Company and NRC Staff, the resulting agreement is very much in the public interest.
These parties urge, accordingly, that the Licensing Board approve it, to the extent such Board approval is necessary.
Respectfully submitted, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK LONG ISLAND L73HTING COMPANY David J.
Gilmartin W.
Taylor Reveley, III Patricia A.
Dempsey Anthony F.
Earley, Jr.
NRC STAFF Bernard M.
Bordenick DATED:
l ATTACHMENT ONE For reasons stated in the foregoing Sixth Stipulation and
?
Settlement of Suffolk County Contentions, the County agrees to limit its contentions in this proceeding to the three sets of issues listed below.
The Company does not agree that these contentions have factual merit but daes agree that they are adequately particularized for purposes of litigation.
1.
SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 1:
HUMAN FACTORS The County contends that LILCO and the NRC Staff have not adequately demonstrated and ccnfirmed that the control room design at Shoreham is adequate to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criteria 13, 19, 20, 22 and 29, and to provide the timely control necessary to protect the nealth and safety of the public.
Specifically, (a) There is no first-out alarm capability provided in the control room annunciator system that identifies the initiating events when multiple annuciator alarms occur.
In view of this deficiency, the control room operator is forced to rely on the events computer for the needed information.
The events computer is slow, not classified as safety-related, and not directly integrated with responce procedures.
Accordingly, a reliable and timely response to all plant failures cannot be guaranteed.
Further, the following taken in conjunction with the above, are i
l other defects such that the information for control room operators is not presented in a manner that facilitates the recognition of developing off-normal conditions and the mitigation of accidents:
A-2 (b) There is no audio or visual annuciator indication to signal that an alarmed condition has cleared.
(c) There is no indication-to distinguish that an annunciator is lit because the system is, in fact, inoperable due to malfunction, or has been by-passed and is actually capable of functioning.
2.
SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 2:
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT The County contends that Shoreham's safety-related equipment is not capable of maintaining functional operability unde; all service conditions throughout its installed life and during the time in which it is actually required to operate, thereby violating General Design Criteria 1, 2,
4 and'23 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, and Section II and III of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
Deficiencies in the qualification of Shoreham's safety-related equipment must be eliminated before operation can be authorized.
Specifically, (a) The' limited test conditions posed in the Shoreham environmental qualification program are not sufficiently conservative.
(b) Equipment has been qualified by grandfathering to older, less stringent standards.
(c) The list of emergency equipment to be qualified is inadequate.
(d) There has been an inadequate demonstration that all safety-related equipment has been properly qualified to meet aging and other life requirements.
(e) There is insufficient information to evaluate the overall adequacy of Shoreham's satisfaction of environmental qualification requirements for safety-related equipment.
t I
g A-3 3.
SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 3:
INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO INADEQUATE CORE COOLING The County contends that LILCO and the NRC Staff have not sufficiently demonstrated and confirmed that Shoreham has adequate instrumentation and procedures to detect and monitor the onset of inadequate core cooling (ICC).
Specifically, (a) NUREG-0737 (Item II.F.2) requires that instrumentation provide an unambiguous, easy-to-interpret indication of inadequate core cooling.
LILCO has taken the position that no additional instruments, suci. as in-core thermocouples, are nesdsd.
(b) Potential ambiguity exists between the normal-operation and accident-condition water-level instruments on which LILCO intends to rely because they are referenced to entirely different points in the vessel.
LILCO has not changed the existing instrument reference levels as required by NUREG-0737 (Item II.K.3.27), but will instead rely on operator training.
Thus, Shoreham's design and instrumentation are inadequate to detect and monitor the onset of ICC, thereby violating 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 13 and 10 CFR 50.55a (h).
i
.- __