ML20066F908
| ML20066F908 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1982 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8211190227 | |
| Download: ML20066F908 (28) | |
Text
LILOO, Novcmbar 15, 1982 RELATED COPWSW:D"#
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "'
. E50
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'82 Iny Before'the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ;g go;44
- 7. . .; -
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
LILOO'S STATUS REPORT ON ISSUES CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR SETTLEMENT In response to the Board's request for a November 16 status conference on open issues, LILOO submits this report:
- 1. WNTENTIONS ON WHICII TESTIMONY HAS BEEN FILED
- 1. SC Contention 5 -- Loose Parts Monitoring: Since the litigation of this issue,. settlement discussions have been pursued at length with SC. A draft Agreement'has been reached with SC and the Staff on every issue known or believed by LILOO to be open. A proposed. final agreement has been prepared and signed by'LILOO and was sent to SC on October 26. Nothing has been heard from SC in reply.
- 2. SC Contention 3/ SOC Contention 8: Since the prefiling of testimony on May 25, 1982, LILOO has prepared and distributed on October 15, 1982 a Shoreham-specific report on ICC (Review of Shoreham Water Level Measurement System, SLI-8221, September 1981). LILOO has also distributed, on September 24, a generic BWR Owners' Group report (Review of BWR Reactor Vessel Water Level Measurement Systems, SLI-8211, July 1982). A' Iso on 8211190227 821115 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR 3-
g September 24, 1982, LILOO distributed two chapters of a second BWR Owners' Group report then (and still) in progress, Inadequate Core Cooling Detection in Boiling Water Reactors.
The two chapters (3 - " Inadequate Core Cooling in BWRs"; and 5 - " Evaluations of Alternative Inadequate Core Cooling Detection Devices") are the two chapters of the generic report which are not necessarily supplanted by the more detailed information in the Shoreham-specific report; they are also in final form. With this background and given the Board's inter-est in obtaining a substantive report on this issue on November 16, a meeting among LILOO, SC and the Staff took place on November 11 at Hunton & Wi llams' Washington, DC offices. SC and the Staff had previously met on November 8 without LILOO.
Proposals for resolution'of (1) water level measurement issues and (2) more general ICC issues were discussed, and a second meeting was scheduled for this Thursday, November 18. It is LILOO's view that the second meeting may well point the way directly to a settlement (total or partial) of this contention.
If it does not, LILOO is prepared to litigate it at the Board's convenience following the conclusion of QA/QC Issues.
- 3. SC/ SOC Contention 18 -- Human Factors (Equipment):
Agreement has been reached- to the best of LILOO's knowledge and belief, on all issues on this contention. A proposed final agreement has been prepared and executed by LILCO and was sent to SC on November 2. Nothing has been heard from SC in reply.
- 4. SC Contention 24/ SOC Contentions 19(c), (d) -- Cracking of i Materials: Agreement was reached with SC and an agreement signed by LILOO was forwarded to SC on October 18. That i agreen.ent preserved SC's right to argue in favor of, and LILOO's right to argue against, the litigability of the "Halapatz Concern" about possible stainless steel cracking in reactor internals (Board Notification 82-20, July 20, 1982).1/
On October 25, SC notified the Staff and LILOO by letter that because of large-dianeter pipe cracking phenomena observed in l
May at the Nine Mile Point reactor, described in IE Bulletin I 82-03 (October 14, 1982) and subsequent Staff review of it, SC would refuse to sign the agreement until its consultant had "had an opportunity to review whatever documentation exists concerning the issues and meetings discussed in IEB 82-03 . . . .
" LI LCO r ep l ied t o SC on Oc t obe'r 29 in a letter which pointed out that SC's consultant had been a' ware of the Nine Mile Point phenomena, that he had had specific language addressed'to that issue inserted into the draft agreement, and that thus LILOO saw no respect in which IFB 82-03 modified the 1/ SC requested, by letter dated October 22, 1982, copies of all documents reviewed by Joseph Halapatz, originator of the "Halapatz Concern," in a meeting between him and GE personnel in San Jose on September 22, 1982. A proprietary agreement pertaining to these documents was given to SC on October 29, 1982, and the documents have been provided to SC counsel and
- consultants, pursuant to that agreement, on November 5, 1982.
Since SC's ability to argue the litigability of the Halapatz Concern is explicitly preserved in the Agreement, its pendency does not affect the issue of whether the agreement-is ready for execution.
l
-4 I
conditions underlying the agreement. The Staff ascertained that the only document in the Staff's possession concerning the generic subject of IEB 82-03 was a proprietary GE document, and so reported to SC on November 3 by letter. On November 4, LILCO provided that document to SC counsel and consultant upon execution of a proprietary agreement. Nothing has been heard from SC since that time. Copies of all pertinent correspon-dence are attached hereto.
- 5. SC Contention 31/ SOC Contention 19(g) -- Electrical Separation: LILCO has prepared responses to the Board's three questions of August 27 concerning the August 26 Resolution Agreement (" Agreement") on this matter:
(1) Lateness of potential litigation: The areas reserved for potentially ,last-minute litigation under 1 2 of the Agreement are violations detected by the special inspec-tions, which are proposed to be corrected by analysis
(" Option 4" of the Tedesco letter of August 31, 1981).
LILCO will minimize the risk of late-occurring disputes by dividing the plant into 23 areas, inspecting each area sequentially, and distributing area-by-area inspection reports upon completion, thus flagging possible issues as early as possible. The inspection will begin inminently.
(2) Staff involvement in the inspection: The NRC Staff
- has agreed that various of its resident I&E inspectors will familiarize themselves with the inspection procedures and will observe inspections on a random basis. ,
( 3) fe l ec t ion o f t he 2 &E s ample : The sample has been ;
selected on a random basis using a computer-generated listing. This listing was reviewed to verify that the 20%
sample was, in fact, distributed throughout the plant.
~
Further details of each of these proposals, as well as i answers to various Suffolk County comments on proposed inspec-l tion procedures, are set forth in a letter of November 15 to SC counsel, a copy of which is attached.
4
- 6. ECCS Cutoff / Restart: Pursuant to the July 30, 1982
- Resolution Agreement on this issue, LILOO was to prepare a report evaluating the installation of an automatic restart function on the Core Spray (CS) system. This report,
" Evaluation of Core Spray System Automatic Restart for Shoreham Nuclear Power Stction" (9/28/82), was served on the other parties on October 12. On October 21 and November 1 LILOO and GE personnel talked by telephone with SC counsel and consult-ants, pursuant to the July 30 Agreement, concerning the sub-stance of the final report. On November 3, SC counsel tendered LILOO a letter proposal for final resolution of the issue; on November 8, 1982 LILOO counsel accepted SC counsel's letter proposal and offered to draft a final agreement if SC counsel would be otherwise occupied for more than the next few days.
SC counsel i s currently involved in another matter for the next i
several days and LILOO, having not heard a response to its offer to produce a draft, does not expect to receive a draft of a final agreement before next week.
[
, - - -- - - , , - -,---.n_. .-,._-,.._e_,.nn,_-__,_,,,m., , , , - . , . . . , - . . . - , - - , , , , - , - - - - , , . - - . - , , , , . , , - - , ,
. 1 II. CONTENTIONS IMPACTED BY SER OPEN ITEMS LILCO has nede repeated efforts to stimulate settlement discussions on areas af fected by SER Open items. Suffolk County has taken the position that before it can discuss settlement of any such issue, it must have at least one
" technical meeting" involving, essentially, informal discovery of LILCO and the Staff not limited to areas covered by the contention. Although it is LILCO's view that SC should know its contentions and their substance sufficiently to discuss their potential resolution without the need for preliminary meetings keyed to resolution of open items between LILCO and the Staff, LILCO and the Staff have nevertheless agreed to such meetings in the overall interes t of furthering the set tlement process. Issue-by-issue status reports follow:
- 1. SC 1 -- Remote Shutdown Panel: The Staff's open item was essentially resolved in August after the submittal of SNRC-757; this fact was formalized by the Staff's SER input, filed under cover of an October 6, 1982 letter from Staff counsel to the ASLB. A " technical meeting" was held on October 6, after two p'reviously scheduled meetings has been cancelled by SC. A second meeting could not be arranged, because of SC's sched-uling problems, until November 4, but was held that day. SC indicated at that second meeting that it expected to transmit a settlement proposal to LILCO by November 12. LILCO has re-ceived nothing to date. On December 2, LILCO expects to file e
_7-either a settlenent agreement or written direct tes t inony on this contention.
- 2. SOC 19(i) -- Seismic Qualifications: The second SQRT audit report was issued on November 10. LILCO believes that it can submit all remaining information necessary to close the SER issue before the end of November. A " technical nmeting" was held on October 22. SC is to notify LILOO when it wishes to hold a seccnd meeting. LILOO wants to meet.
- 3. SC Contention 8/ SOC Contention 19(h) -- Environmental Qualifications: The only open area of this contention, for SER purposes, involves interim justifications. LILCO submitted in early November what it believes to be adequate information to close out interim justifications for electrical equipment, and expects to submit the interim justications for mechanical equipment by the end of November. A " technical meeting" among LILOO, SC and the Staff was held on October 21. SC is to notify LILOO when it wishes to commence actual settlement talks. LILOO believes that they can be productively begun now.
- 4. SC Content ion 32/ SOC Contention 19( f) -- Electrical Penetrations: With respect to the SER Open Item, LILOO intends to file within the coraing week what it believes will be ade-I quate information to enable the Staff to close out remaining Issues (dealing with one set of penetrations). That portion of the October 21 " technical meeting" on environmental quali-fication dealing with electrical penetration was postponed at
?
1 LILOO's suggestion because of the then-unresolved status of its own analysis of the SER open item area. LILOO is now prepared to comm2nce discussion on this issue.
- 5. SC 23 -- Containnent Isolation: Three SER items remain open. LILOO expects to submit its remaining information to the Staff within the next few weeks to close them. At that point, it may be fruitful to commence settlement discussions.
III. OTHER ITEMS Security: Barring unexpected last-minute disagreements, LILCO expects to join with SC and the Staff in a final, complete resolution of SC's security contentions, to be filed with the ASLB panel appointed to hear that set of issues on or before the November 24 check date set by that Board.
Respectfully submitted, Donald P. Irwin One of Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 DATED: November 15, 1982 e
5 KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, Hrz.I., CHRISTOPHER & PHII.I.IPS A Paarwsmoute Inst:enne A Paorsessomat Compemarsos 1
1900 M Srazzr, N. W.
WASHINGTox, D. C. 20006 TrterHows feos) ese.roco cAELe wrens trLes saceos Ntru tJa samatarasat.sacasAsf.aoswoor a netcatsow w urs=. on.cx out new. October 25, 1982 '
(202) 452-7064 ,,,,,,7 ,*, ",,,*,*,*** 2* ,,,,,
3.
4 David A. Repka, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Road 8th Floor, Room 8794 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 -
Dear Dave:
We just received a' copy of IE Bulletin No. 82-03,
" Stress Corrosion Cracking in Thick-Wall, Large Diameter, Stainless Steel, Recirculation System Piping at BWR Plants,"
dated October 14, 1982. The Bulletin refers to two meetings (September 16, 1982 and September 27, 1982) held between the Staff and BWR licensees to :ceview IGSCC experiences and the implications of the Nine Mile Point IGSCC degradation in main recirculation piping welds, and to discuss the extent and results of examining welds in the recirculation system for i
BWR plants currently in or scheduled to be in a refueling mode or extended outage through January 31, 1983. The Bulletin indicates that as a re'sult of the meetings, the " Staff has determined.that additional information is needed to assess the effectiveness of the UT methods employed or planned to be used and to determine whether such piping should be designated
' service-sensitive' in accordance with NUREG-0313, Rev. 1 . . . . "
'IGSCC in*the recirculation system piping is one of the central issues raised in Suffolk County Contention 24.
l Accordingly, the matters covered in IEB 82-03, and the subjects discussed during the meetings referenced therein, are directly i
related to that contention. The County was not notified, in advance, that meetings on these subjects were being held. The lack of notice is particularly disturbing because the events described in IEB 82-03 were occurring while the County and other parties were attempting to negotiate a resolution of SC Contention 24. Suffolk County's technical consultant thus participated in such negotiations at a disadvantage, since.he had not been informed about clearly portinent events, of which the other parties to the negotiations were presumably aware, G
m_._.e ,
KrwxrArnacx, LOCKHART, Hrr.z., Crtapr:Pnza & Pan.I.TP3 The proposed Resolution of SC Contention 24 has not yet been executed by the County. It is presently undergoing final County approval.
Such approval will be held in abeyance until the County's technical consultant has had an opportunity to review whatever documentation exists concerning the issues and meetings discussed in IEB 82-03, and he is able to satisfy himself that such data do not require changes in the SC 24 resolution.
Therefore, the County hereby requests copies of any minutes, transcripts, or reports of the meetings referenced in IEB 82-03 and any other meetings on related matters, as well as submissions, correspondence or other documents'concerning the matters raised and discussed in IEB 82-03. In addition, the County expects to receive notice, in advance, of any meetings or discussions which occur in the future on these matters, so the County's technical consultant may attend or participate.
Please let me know when we can expect to receive the materials requested.
Sincerely, f
/
. Karla J. Letsche cc: Donald P. Irwin, Esq.
Dale G. Bridenbaugh 4
O O
e
t HUNTON Sc WILLIAMS 707 East MAIN STRCCf P. o.Dox1535
. . . , . . . . . . Itzcaxono, vinorw 4 aaaza ....................
.. ....... .. ........ m ,,,,,,,,, ,o.. ,,,,,,,, ....... ........
- *.,'*",* " .*,. ..... r .. . . . 24566.3 November 4, 1982 ....,. , ...... 835 BY HAND Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 SC-24 (Cracking) -
Dear Tip:
I have Dave Repka's November 3 letter replying to your October 25 request for documents in the Staff's possession from the September 16 and 27 meetings on the IGSCC phenomenon. That letter stated that the only docu-ment in the Staff's possession was a proprietary GE sub-mittal dated September 30, 1982.
I enclose a GE proprietary agreement form. Promptly upon your and Dale Bridenbaugh's executiony.gf,sthe form, GE is amenable to release of this submittal' to you and him.
Sincerely yours, Donald P. Irwin DPI/403 Enclosure cc: David A. Repka, Esq.
bc: Mr. Phil Bohm
<-D6niel O. Flanagan, Esq.
,e I -
H u xT o w Be WILLI AM S 707 EAST MAeN statti P. o. Box 1535 .
t
., e e .
- Custo... Rzenwown, VamotwsA ase:a .... .....,6,........c...
p e.ams o. e.o..oas.aao ocsteen. .oet, ca.ote.. 7 08 wa.m..ato , o c. aoo,e
.......a..
TELEPMONE 804 788 8200
.o..........
l'.*.*.'J','.I.'.'.'. *'.'.'.'.*..* * " October 29, 1982 ,, . .,0. 24566.000003
.. ..... o..ce , o,.6 ....o. ,.. 8 3 5 7 Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips Eighth Floor 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 SC Contention 24 -- Cracking:
Dear Tip:
- S I have received your October 25 letter to Dave Repka relating to IE Bulletin 82-03, dated October 14, 1982, and the j pending settlement agreement un cracking of materials, Suffolk County Contention 24. It is your prerogative, of course, to decline to sign any agreement until you are satisfied with its circumstances. I trust that the documents which you have requested from the Staff will clarify the issue, and by copy of J this letter I'm asking Dave Repka to send me copies of the same materials, and urge him to do so posthaste.
Still, your letter leaves some misimpressions which must be clarified. First, it appears to suggest that the Nine Mile Point IGSCC phenomenon, on which IE Bulletin 82-03 is based, is somehow new ma'terial. It is not, of course. The County's consultant, Dale Bridenbaugh, evidenced good knowledge, during our negotiations, of the phenomenon which was first noticed at Nine Mile Point in March 1982, and the settlement agreement draft, at pp. 13-14, contains language, inserted at the County's request, which specifically reflects the County's concerns with it:
In addition, LILCO and SC consultants have discussed the major replacement program currently underway at the Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 plant. It is anticipated that this experience will provide valuable experience and input for possible future programs.
(4) Closely follow the plan and implementation of the large recirculation pipe replacement program currenty. underway at Nine Mile Point, Unit 1. -
t.,
I .
~2-I Hunrow. & WILLIAM 3 LILCO will advise SC of its implementation of its Item 4 commitment no later than 20 days prior to '
commencement of fuel load or by November 15, 1982, whichever is earlier.
You will note that the quoted material (i (4)) contains a LILCO commitment to provide its reaction to the Nine Mile Point program by November 15, assuming that this settlement agreement is executed.
Second, your letter appears to suggest that meetings held on September 16 and 27 on the matter were not announced, improperly, to the County since settlement discussions on tnis issue were occurring simultaneously. This is, of course, not accurate. Settlement negotiations on everything except the "Halapatz concern" were completed well before mid-September; indeed, your September 13 letter to Dan Flanagan refers to the settlement agreement as " ready to be finalized." I can also assure you that counsel for LILCO are no more knowedgeable about those meetings than you appear to be.
Third, you appear to suggest that I&E has concluded that IGSCC is a problem requiring immediate action by all licensees and permittees. This is not so: IE Bulletin 82-03 puts all licensees, other than those in a current of imminent refueling or other prolonged outage, merely into an "information only" category. No action of LILCO is required by this IE Bulletin. Even the actions required of companies affected by the IE Bulletin.82-03 are limited to monitoring the effectiveness of ultrasonic testing and other ISI measures, which are regulated under Reg. Guide 1*.150 and are subjects which were thoroughly explored and agreed upon in connection
- with the settlement of SC Contention 25.
l
! In short, IE Bulletin 82-03 treats, so far as I can tell, a subject with which the parties were already familiar in detail; does not change the contours of that subject; and is encompassed within the scope of the existing draft agreement on SC 24. Unless the documents which you have requested from Dave Repka present a significantly different situation than has appeared to date, I trust Suffolk County will not' find itself unable, by virtue of IE Bulletin 82-03, to carry through to fruition the long negotiation process on this contention.
Sin erely yours, l
l
^
q ' ~k Donald P. Irwin 91/728 l
cc: David A. Repka, Esq. (NRC)
Robert M. Kascask -
Brian R. McCaffrey
~ -
[p %,Ig UNITED STATES
!* .*'e NUCLEAk REGULATORY COMMISSION
{ c, ., ,I WASHINGTON. D C. 20555 gJ .c.V/
November 3, 1982 Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Eighth Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322 (0L)
Re: SC Contention 24-IE Bulletin 82-03
Dear Ms. Letsche:
I have finally received copies of your three letters to me dated October 25, 1982. I will respond seperately to each of the r.atters you addressed.
In your letter on Contention SC 24 and IE Bul'.atin 82-03, you express a concern that your technical consultants were not present at two meetings (September 16, 1982 and September 27,1982) held to review IGSCC experiences at Nine Mile Point. The technical staff informs me that only the first of the two meetings involved a generic discussion of IGSCC. At that meeting General Electric made a presentation to the NRC Staff, which, I am told, did not include new information. The second meeting was a Nine Mile Point specific meeting with only tenuous relevance to Suffolk County's contention.
You have rather broadly requested any minutes, transcripts, or reports of the meetings referenced in IEB 82-03 and any other correspondence or documents concerning the matter. The Staff has not prepared any such documents. Hov-ever, on September 30, 1982, General Electric did send to the NRC a summary of its presentation on IGSCC made at the September 16 meeting. The Staff considers this document to serve as minutes and a summary of the meeting.
General Electric has labeled the document proprietary and I have asked Don Irwin to pursue making it available to you.
~
Finally, I understand that Dale Bridenbaugh has called Warren Hazelton to
- discuss these two meetings and the problem of IGSCC. Mr. Hazelton was present at both meetings, and Dale should feel free to call again if he needs any further information to facilitate his review of the settlement agreement on SC 24.
Sincerely, W
David A. Repka Counsel for NRC Staff de: Donald P. Irwin, Esq.
l' 1
l l
r l
I
,. , . - _ - - , - . _ . - - . - , , . _ , . . _ . . . . ~ - , , . . - , , . , - - - _ , , , . . - - - - - ~ - . , - - . . . _ . . - - , _ _ .
T'",?.TED COF P.SSPONDE.1Cl-00:y. r 0 H U NTON & WILLI AM S WA'[
707 rAST MMN STREET P. o. Sex 1535 o o a v .v 6.... Rscsosown,VamorwsA 23212 . o..fMd(fp.
e e. een so.
..sa.s ,..=,- c..ou.. ev..e ***"'"*'*"*******
'q
... .: n'g ,)1 ks ws, .. .
o.e.s a s . s,. Tc6eeao=c ao4-7sa eaoo ,
e.e.........
,.., ...... .... ,o. .
..P t
,, . ,,a 62s'5 6 6 . 0 0 0 0 04
.... ... . r ce. ees ..m November 15, 1982 ...ce,..6...... ... 83 5~/
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
KirkpatriCK, Lockhart, hill, Christopner & Pnillips BY HAND Eightn Floor 1900 M Street, N.W.
Wasnington, DC 20036 Electrical Separation: SC 31/ SOC 19(g)
Dear Larry:
This letter responds to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's questions of August 27, 1962 (Tr. 9930-35) concerning various provisions of the Resolution of SC Contention 31/50C Contention 19(g) -- Electrical Separation, dated August 26, 1982 (the " Agreement"). It also responds to the comments ten-dered on behalf of Suffolk County (the " County")'under cover of your letter of October 11, 1982, concerning inspection proce-dures sent to the County by LlLCO on August 31, 1982.
I. BACKGR00ND On August 27, 1982, the Boaro requested claritication of three aspects of the Agreement:
- 1. Whether, in view of tne closeness to fuel loao ot various actions contemplated by the Agreement, the NhC Regulatory Staff should be enabled to become sufficiently knowledgeable about the pertormance of the inspection calleo for under g 1(c) of the Agreement to be able to render a timely, inoependent judgment on it (Tr. 9930-31, 9934-35);
- 2. Why the time frame for resolution or disputes relating to the electric inspection needed to be so close (potentially beginning as little as 20 days) before fuel loau (Tr. 9932); ano
3 Hux1ow Sc WILLIAMD
- 3. The basis for selection of the 20% sample of cable and raceway contemplated in 1 1(c) of the Agreement (Tr. 9932).
Your October 11 letter forwards an attachment which suggests that the inspection procedures sent by LILCO to Suffolk County on August 31, 1982 pursuant to 1 1(c) of tne Agreement (Stone and Webster (SWEC) Quality Control Instructions FS 1-F 12.1-07D (April 4, 1980) and FS 1-F 12.1-081 (March 19, 1982)) appeared inconsistent in six stated respects with various provisions of the Agreement and Attachment A thereto.17 I have appended the attachment to your October 11 letter to this letter.
In anticipation of our report to the Board tomorrow, November 16, I will address both sets of questions -- the Board's and yours -- in this letter.
II. LILCO'S INSPECTION Let me start, however, by identifying what LILCO is greement. First, doing to fulfill its commitments under the although the Agreement does not require it,. gJ LILCO is in tact 1/ The attachment to your October 11 letter also asserts that SC wishes to reserve a later opportunity to compare the inspec-tion procedures for consistency with FSAR S 3.12 and the basic S&W work specification, SB1-159. The scope of the inspection called for under 1 1(c) of the Agreement, and thus of SC's right of comment on the adequacy of procedures to accomplish that inspection, do not, of course, extena to the full breadth of either FSAR 1 3.12 or SH1-159, and LILCO does not accept the attempted reservation of nonexistent rights. LILCO's position would be no different if the October 11 letter had been timely i
submitted, i.e., by September 15, as required by 1 1(c) of the Agreement.
2/ The Agreement states that "LILCO has inspected or will inspect . . . " the stipulated kinds and number of cable and raceway according to the criteria in the Agreement. LILCO l
believes that the inspections already accomplished using the QCI's forwarded to you on September 15 substantially satisfied i the requirements of V 1(c) of the Agreement and of Appendix A l
thereto, and that the reference to a " reinspection program" in the first paragraph of the attachment to your October 11 letter misconceives the requirements of the Agreement. Nevertheless, as stated above, LILCO is in fact performing a special 20%
inspection.
-U" Hexrox & WILLIAxo independently reinspecting 20% of the Class 1E cable and ;
raceway installations and the non-Class lE cables and raceways in the vicinity of such Class lE cables and raceways. The inspection is being conducted using a randomly selected 20%
sample of cable and raceway distributed among each of 23 areas covering the entire plant. The results of the inspection, including violations, will be written up on inspection reports
("QCIR's") specifically designed for the inspection. The basic procedure for this inspection (the " Procedure"), including the method of selection of the 20% sample, actual inspection proce-dures, sample QCIR inspection report form, and listing of the 23 sectors into which the plant has been divided for purposes of the inspection, is set forth in the attached document entitled " Resolution of SC Contention 31/ SOC Contention 19(g):
Electrical Separation: Sample Selection and Inspection Procedure," dated November 2, 1982.
Under the inspection process, which is to commence in the immediate future, individual areas will be inspectea in sequence as work on them is completed and they are turned over to the plant staff. Individual areas will be inspected per the Procedure and the results, including any violations which LILCO proposes (Tedesco Option 4 ), will promptly be made available to the Staff, Suffolk County and SOC, in accordance with the Agreement.3/ One purpose of this sequential process will be to move as many of the inspection results as possible as far forward in time as possible, so as to minimize the likelihood of last-minute litigation immediately before planned fuel load.
The final inspection report will be submitted, as called for by 1 1(c) of the Agreement, at least 20 days before fuel load.
l Although it will probably not be possible before that time to determine definitively whether the number of violations is such as to require a 1004 inspection, it should be possible to get a sense of its likelihood as the inspection proceeds.
Finally, Brian McCaffrey has talked with Mr. James Higgins, the chief NRC resident inspector at Shoreham, con-cerning NRC participation in the inspection process. Under this Agreement, Mr. Higgins, or one of his staff, will become knowledgeable about the Procedure and will accompany Stone &
Webster Field Quality Control inspectors at random on inspec-tions of various (though not necessarily all) areas, verify 3/ As you know, under 11 1(c) and 2 of the Agreement, the Staff has committed to use its best efforts to evaluate within l 14 days any violation proposed by LILCO to be resolved by analysis, and SC and SOC nave 10 days thereafter to submit any contentions relative to any violations corrected by analysis.
,,.,___.---.---___._,,..-r.,,,__,- - . , _ , _ _ _ , . , - . - _ _ , . . - . . __ _ _ . _ , . , . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . , , . , . . , . _ _ , , _ . _ _ _ _ . , , , , , ___ ,,
I
, Huxlow & WILLIAMO l
I that the inspection was being conducted in accordance with the Procedure, and provide the " element of witnessing" with which the Board was concerned.
III. BOARD QUESTIONS Let me now turn to specific response to the questions posed by the Board:
- 1. NRC Staff Participation: As stated above, one or more of the NRC I&E resident inspectors on the Shoreham site will (a) be familiar with the Procedure and (b) accompany Stone
& Webster FQC personnel on random inspections to witness such inspections and verify their conduct in accordance with the Procedure.
- 2. Timing of Inspections: As noted above, the plant l has been divided into 23 sectors which will be inspected sequentially. Reports on individual sector inspections will be filed (thus triggering, in the event of violations, the Staff's and the County's response periods) promptly upon completion of each sector. In this way, we hope to minimize the possibility of last-minute litigation resulting from the inspection under 1 2 of the Agreement.
- 3. Selection of the 20% Sample: The sample of Class lE cables is to be selected at random from all Class lE cables and raceways throughout the plant, with attention to the inclusion of cables and raceways from each of the 23 areas.
The methodology is more fully described in the " Sample Selection Method" portion of the attached Procedure. The pop-ulation of non-Class 1E cables in the vicinity of the Class lE cables is a function of the location of Class lE cables: thus, wherever a Class lE cable or raceway is inspected, non-Class lE cables within separation criteria range (vicinity) of it will
- also be inspected for the adequacy of the appropriate safety-related/non-safety-related separation criteria.
I propose to recite the gist of the above to the Board next Tuesday, in resolution of its three questions. I do not see any of these matters as requiring modification of the '
Agreement.
IV. OCTOBER 11, 1982 LETTER The attachment to your October 11 letter raises six questions about the inspection, based on the procedures sent to the County on August 31. Let me address them in the context of the preceding discussion:
EcxTow & WILLIAMD (a) A separate, special inspection, following the attached Procedure, is to be conducted beginning in the immedi-ate future. The County's apparent fears about whether such an inspection would be conducted are needless.
! (b) The attached Procedure details the basis for random selection of the 20% sample of Class lE cables and i raceways. The basis for selection of non-Class 1E cable and I raceway in the vicinity of Class 1E cable and raceway, as noted
- above, is simply that non-Class 1E cable and raceway within separation distance of Class lE cable and raceway is to be
- inspected. The random number series by which the Class lE 20%
sample is being generated will be kept on site and available for inspection.
(c) The special inspection Procedure requires that the
- inspection be conducted on the basis of all outstanding docu--
ments, including E&DCR's. Incorrect implementation of E&DCR's is a violation under the Procedure. Following up on E&DCR l implementation and in-process deviations, while a requirement of the Agreement, is not a function of the inspection per se
! and hence is not included in the Procedure.
(d) The Procedure and attached QCIR form set forth tne basis for determination of violations. The basis for crossing the threshold from a 20% to a 100% inspection is specified in 1 D.2 of the Attachment A to the Agreement, and does not need '
to be repeated in the Procedure itself.
i (e) The QCIR form attached to the Procedure' requires identification of raceway and location and makes use.of SH1-159 as a reference, thus assuring proper identification.of raceways and conduits,. The reporting requirements for each inspected area are set forth in the Procedure; the requirements for the overall inspection report are set forth in the Agreement at 1 1(c) and in Appendix A thereto at 1 D.3, and need not be repeated in the Procedure.
~(f) The Procedure defines violations, which are the
! only items giving rise to either the need for a further inspec-tion or the possibility of further litigation. Thus, the terms
" deviation" and "in-process deviation", when not associated j
with violations, do not need to be set forth in the Procedure.
As to the choice of methods of resolution of violations, that l lies within the province of LILCO project management, not FQC inspectors, and hence is not properly a part of the Procedure.
l As to violations corrected (or proposed to be corrected) by analysis, the Agreement specifies, at 1 2, the process for their resolution. Further, that material is not relevant to l
J
]
i
. . ~ . _ - . _ - - _ . - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ - . _ _ . _ - _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ __m .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ m..
Ht:xTbx & WILLI AMC the preparation for or conduct of the inspection and hence not ,
appropriate for inclusion in the special inspection Procedure. i I apologize for the length of time it has taken me to get back to you on all this. I trust that the County's dif- ,
ficulties expressed in your October 11 letter will be resolved '
by this letter and its attachment. If you or Dick Hubbara have any further questions, please call me or have Dick call Brian directly.
Sincerely yours, Dor.ald P. Irwin 91/728 Attachment cc: Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- a y
- PESOLUTION OF SC CONTENTION 31/ SOC CONTENTION 19 (g)
ELECTRICAL SEPARATION Sample Selection and Inspection Procedure This document describes the detailed inspection procedures as called for on page five (5) paragraph C of the subject agreement and its attachment A.
Sample Selection Method The sample of raceways to be inspected to resolve Suffolk County Contention thirty-one (31) was selected in a manner that insured that all Safety Related raceways had an equal chance of being included in the sample and insured that all areas of the plant were included in the sample.
First an alphanumeric listing of all Safety Related raceways, The Stone & Webster EC-6 report with all Category II raceways suppressed, was generated. It was determined from this report that there were five th,ousand eight hundred sixty-nine (5,869)
Safety Related raceways. A list of one thousand one hundred seventy-four (1,174) random numbers, twenty (20) percent of five thousand eight hundred sixty-nine (5,869), was then developed by the LILCO " Quality Assurance Random Number Gene-rator" computer program. As each raceway contains at a minimum one cable, the inspection will encompass one thousand'one hundred seventy-four (1,174) raceways and at least one thousand one hundred seventy-four (1,174) cables.
The raceway sample was then selected by utilizing the two lists in the following manner. The alphanumeric Safety Related list was numbered from one (1) to five thousand eight hundred sixty-nine (5,869). and the raceways whose numbers correspond to numbers from the random list were designated to be the sample j of raceways to be inspected.
Sample Inspection Process The, twenty (20) percent separation criteria inspection of cables and raceway shall be conducted on an area basis as follows:
After specific plant areas are completed by construction and inspected by FQC, an independent inspection of the raceways shall be performed on an area basis from the sample list provided by LILCO FOA. This will ensure that the separation requirements have been met. The inspection
m 3- ,. .,
shall be parformed by inspectpre from Stone & Webator Fiold Quality Control (FOC), of whok none ehnll have previously participated in either the design or installation of cable or raceway at Shoreham, nor in previous Quality Assurance iaspections for separation of cable or raceway being inspected by him pursuant to this agreement. They shall be qualified to the latest inspection guidelines in accordance with site proce-dures. The inspections shall be performed to the latest revision to the electrical installation specification and all applicable design drawings, E & DCR's etc. The results of inspections shall be documented on a Quality control Inspection Report (OCIR)
(see attached sample).
Violatior.;* shall be reported on an N & D and processed in accordance with existing site FOC procedures. The N & D numbers shall be recorded on the OCIR.
A summary shall be written for each specific plant area listing the overall findings. Attached to the report will be all of the individual raceway QCIR's as well as a raceway number inspection list as extracted from the twenty (20) percent sample list.
- Electrical Separation Agreement - Attachment A, Para. B.2 Violation - A deviation that has not previously been identified on an E&DCR. An E&DCR shown incorrectly as having been implemented on an as-built drawing used for the inspection shall be considered to be a violation.
All violations will be written up on a Nonconformance and Disposition Report.
CT3NE O WEDOTER EN2fNEERIN3 C'!R AATION "A1.lTY CONTROL . . . . . . _ _ .
JPECTION REPORT TQ70'.50 SYSTEMIS) oR REFERENCE PART(S) NAME loc ATION(S)
DOCUMENT (S) eway lio. Bldg. S111-159 Rev.
Elev. Section 3.9 FOC 6.1 Rev.
lNonConformance & Dispositi
,FOC 12.1 Rev. --
'acpor l Electrical Installations)
__ .a . .-
'N Po ITEM oTY DESCRIPTION (S) AND INSPECTION REMARK (S1 i
, SAT UNSAT W!i i '
l l1. Hortizontal Separation Criteria 3
l
\
i .2. Vertical Separation Criteria '
I s
- 3. Color to Noncolor Separation Criteria l
l I
- 4. Separation Between Differently Color Coded Con-1- . duit Within The Same Group i
I Remarks:
I I
I i
I l '
1 l .
i t
I i
l -
- UNSAT is equivalent to violation as defined in Agreement--Electrical Separation, Attachment A, Para. B.2
. I _
QUALITY CONTROL INSPEC./ENG. DATE PAGE
__. Or____
.s ,.
GTONE O WECOTER ENGINEERIN3 CORPG..ATION UALITY CONTROL ,,, , , . ,,,,
JSPECTION REPORT l-g.
11600.50 SYSTEM (S) OR REFERENCE PART(S) NAME LOCATION (S) DOCUMENTIS) scewcy No. : Bldg. 5H1-159 Rev.
Elev. Section 2.1 & 3.2 POC 6.1 Rev.
(NonConformance & Disposit:
'?OC 6.4 Rev. Repo)
(Deficiency Correct. Order:
TOC 12.1 Rev.
(Electrical Installations;
- GpgNC ,
' STEM OTY DESCR!PTION(S) AND INSPECTION REMARK (S)
- l 1 i SAT UNSAT N//-
, 1. Identification I i Remarks:
~
s' I
! l e
'q.
l l
1 l
l CU ALITY CONTROL INSPEC./ENG. DATE PA GE
{ or
r=" 7 MatMF.ICu. sstARAT oM AGREEMENT BESOLUTICH OF SC COMTBNTION 31/80C CotITENTION 19 (G)
INSPECTICHS SY AREA
- 1. seeotor Building Primary
- 2. Remotor Building 175'
- 3. Reactor Building 4'
- 4. Remotor Building 150'
- 5. Reactor Building 112'
- 5. Reactor Building 51. 95'
- 7. Reactor Building El. 79' O. Esaator Building E1. 63'
$ ' 9. Reactor suilding 51. 40' ,,
- 10. Screenwell
- 11. Manhole No. I 12 He11way No. 8 and Etttery toome ,
13.
an/AC 21. /aat HVAC E1. 63' 14.
i5. Chiller Room 31.'44' _
- 16. Chiller Room El. 63' 17 .- Energency switchgear Rooms 18 control Room E1. 63: ,
- 19. Control Room C1. G3' ,
- 20. -Relay Room El. 44'
-21. Turbine Building ,
22 Diosel Generator Rooms 1 '
Yard Area
- 23.
i
&O I
I
' ' ~
~ ~ ~ ' - - - . _ , _
1
. t l Dys?JT :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVJ.CE or IGV 18 A10:44 In the Matter of:; . . .;,;_ ..
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANYT}$f7;'CE (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station #R0htt 1)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Status Report on Issues Currently Available for Settlement were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, by hand (as indicated by an asterisk):
Lawrence Brenner, Esq.* Secretary of the Commission Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety ano Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 -
Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Peter A. Morris
- Commission Administrative Juage Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing 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 Dr. James H. Carpenter
- Admin'istrative Judge Daniel F. Brown, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Fanel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 w
7 1 s
a Bernard M. BorJenick, Esq.* David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
David A. Repka, Esq. Attn: Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory County Attorney Commission Suffolk County Department of Law Washington, D.C. 20555 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.* Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Twomey, Latham & Shea Karla J. Letsche, Esq. 33 West Second Street Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, P. O. Box 398 Christopher & Phillips Riverhead, New York 11901 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W. Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
9 East 40th Street Mr. Mark W. Goldsmith New York, New York 10016 Energy Research Group 4001 Totten Pond Road Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 217 Newbridge Road Hicksville, New York 11801 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
Suite K State of New York San Jose, California 95125 Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Albany, New York 12223 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 ,q l f}.cy-
? .
Donald P. Irwin One of Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: November 15, 1982 .