ML20054E063

Supplemental Response to Util 820402 Answers to Shoreham Opponents Coalition Interrogatories Re Coalition Contention 19.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054E063
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/20/1982
From:	Reveley W LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204260093
Download: ML20054E063 (7)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

April 20, 1982 9 _ ,, c t .

\

.g iG 21 p f o

+

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ( RECEWED Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board APR231982* --

1. #,gue#

n h. ,#/

t3 In the Matter of ) a

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SOC'S INTERROGATORIES ON SOC CONTENTION 19 On April 2, 1982, LILCO answered SOC's questions on SOC Contention 19. This response supplements, revises and super-sedes the previous answer regarding SOC Contention 19(b). The new answer reads as follows:

II. SOC Contention 19(b)

A. Regulatory Guide 1.26

1. This answer supplements, revises and supersedes the previous answer. The quality group classifications contained in FSAR Table 3.2.1-1 are based on and consistent with the guidelines in Revision 1 of Reg. Guide 1.26. A statement of this position is contained in Appendix 3B of the FSAR and the demonstration of this position is found in the various perti-nent sections of the FSAR relating to each of Shoreham's compo-nents, systems and structures. Revision 3 of Reg. Guide 1.26 s ,/ !

820426 0 0 c'3

- - ----- -----_- -----___-------------_------_--------- -------------------------__J

• • \

was published in February 1976, the month following the docketing of the FSAR. Thus, Revision 3 of Reg. Guide 1.26 was not published until after the quality group classifications found in FSAR Table 3.2.1-1 were developed. A comparison of the Regulatory Positions of Revisions 1 and 3 has now been com-pleted and a listing of these differences is set forth below.

Paragraph Change Significance C.1 Footnote identification is None-identical footnote now "3" vs "2" C.l.a Footnote identification is None-identical footnote now "4" vs "3" C l.c 4th line, added "and "And bypass" clarifies bypass" and footnote 5 boundary of Group B por-tion of steam system, but the bypass valves remain excluded from Group B - no significant change Per footnote 5, the Shoreham turbine stop and bypass valves are subject to appropriate QA (see FSAR Table 3.2.1-1, pg. 13 of 24, item XXXI.5).

I 13tP line, added "the shut- Clarifies the credit off valve or" available for a shutoff valve in main steam or l feedwater systems. No impact on Shor6 ham as feedwater shutoff valve and all piping / valves within are Quality Group A, exceeding Reg. Guide position.

C.l.e Footnote identification is None-identical footnote now "4" vs "3" i

l

1 C.2.a ' footnote identification is None-identical footnote now "4" vs "3" 9th line, deleted "either" None-changed from "either/

substituting "(1)"; 10th or" criterion to "and" line, deleted "or" substi- criterion which is less tuting "and (2)" inclusive C.2.b Footnote identification is None-identical footnote now "4" vs "3" C.2.c Footnote identification is None-identical footnotes now "4" vs "3" and "6" vs "4"

C.2.d General rewrite combining None-application of Reg.

and modifying paragraphs Guide 1.3 meterology does C.2.d and C.2.3 from Rev. not alter Shoreham classifi-

1. Change acts to (1) cations (even for radwaste delete radioactive waste systems) management systems from the scope of the guide and (2) impose Reg. Guide 1.3 meteorology on the offsite dose calculations.

None of the differences between the Regulatory Positions of Revision 1 and Revision 3 of Reg. Guide 1.26 require or suggest that there be any change in the quality group classifications contained in FSAR Table 3.2.1-1. Accordingly, to the best of our knowledge, the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station complies with Reg. Guide 1.26, Revision 3.

3(a), (b) and (c) not applicable.

B. Regulatory Guide 1.29

l. This answer supplements, revises and supersedes the previous answer. The seismic classifications for the control i room habitability systems and radioactive waste systems l

. i l

i contained in FSAR Table 3.2.1-1 are based on and consistent with the guidelines in Revision 1 of Reg. Guide 1.29. The statement of this position contained in Appendix 3B of the FSAR and the demonstration of this position is found in the perti-nent sections of the FSAR relating to the control room habita-bility systems and radioactive waste systems. Revision 3 of Reg. Guide 1.29 was not published until September, 1978, over two years after the docketing of the FSAR. Thus, Revision 3 of Reg. Guide 1.29 was not published until after the seismic group classifications found in FSAR Table 3.2.1-1 were developed. A comparison of the Regulatory Positions of Revisions 1 and 3 for the control room habitability systems and radioactive waste systems has now been completed, and a listing of these differ-ences is set forth below.

Paragraph Change Significance C.l.n Modified to address only None - no change with the control room and its respect to control room associated equipment habitability systems including equipment used to maintain personnel habita-bility and equipment environ-ment. Portions addressing failure of other structures, systems or components which could cause incapacitating injury to control room occupants have been moved to Paragraph C.2.

C l.p General rewrite combining None - radioactive and modifying paragraphs waste systems no C.l.p and C.l.q from Rev. longer within scope of

1. Change acts to (1) Reg. Guide 1.29 delete radioactive waste

,, b management systems from the scope of the Reg. Guide and (2) impose Reg. Guide 1.3 meteorology on the off-site dose calculations.

None of the differences between the Regulatory Positions of Revision 1 and Revision 3 of Reg. Guide 1.29 re-quire or suggest that there be any change in the seismic class-ifications contained in FSAR Table 3.2.1-1 for the control room habitability systems and radioactive waste systems.

Accordingly, to the best of our knowledge, the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station complies with Reg. Guide 1.29, Revision 3 for the control room habitability systems and radioactive waste sys-tems.

3(a), (b) and (c) not applicable.

Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

/

W. T r Reveley, III Anth F. Earley, Jr.

HUNTON & WILLIAMS P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 20, 1982 L

, l l

J In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SOC'S INTERROGATORIES ON SOC CONTENTION 19 were served upon the following people by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on April 20, 1982, except for those with an asterick who were served by Federal Express on April 20, 1992.

Lawrence Brenner, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Appeal Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. Peter A. Morris U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.

Commission David A. Repka, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. James H. Carpenter Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing David J. Gilmartin, Esg, t Board Panel Attn: Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory County Attorney l Commission Suffolk County Department of Law l Washington, D.C. 20555 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Secretary of the Commission i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i

i

Herbei.t H. Brown, Esq. Howard L. Blau, Esq.

Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. 217 Newbridge Road Karla J. Letsche, Esq. Hicksville, New York 11801 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.

8th Floor New York State Energy Office 1900 M Street, N.W. Agency Building 2 Washington, D.C. 20036 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Mark W. Goldsmith Energy Research Group Mr. Jay Dunkleberger 400-1 Totten Pond Road New York State Energy Office Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza MHB Technical Associates

• Albany, New York 12223 1723 Hamilt.on Avenue Suite K San Jose, California 95125 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.*

Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street P. O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.

9 East 40th Street New York, New York 10016

_ h W. Tay III Antho@pF.r Reveley, Earley, Jr.

Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 20, 1982

\ _