ML20074A152

Corrected Page 59 to Suffolk County Revised Opinion

ML20074A152
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/09/1983
From:	SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML20074A149	List: ML20074A148 ML20074A152
References
NUDOCS 8305120332
Download: ML20074A152 (1)

Text

_-

[ ,,,

that the Staff "is satisfied" by a LILCO commitment to comply with GDC 1 during' operations, we believe a more accurate char-i acterization is the following: the Staff testified in the reopened proceeding that given LILCO's refusal to adopt the Denton definition of "important to safety," even LILCO's com-mitment to "do in the future what had been done in the past" would not constitute an acceptable basis for licensing Shoreham. (Findings S7B:40, 42, 46, 64, 66, 70). See Section II.B.2(c) below. Indeed, even LILCO agreed that the dif ference in safety classification terminology would lead to confusion between LILCO and the Staff during operations. (Finding S7B:43).

We concur with the Staff's observation that LILCO's fail-tre to acknowledge the applicability of regulations to equip-meht beyond that defined as safety-related will result in a lower standard of performance during operation. ( F,ind ing S7B:44). Poor performance is likely to occur with respect to treatment of nonsafety-related equipment (including both maintenance and surveillance), compliance with NRC reporting

( footnote con' t from previous page) respect to the operation of Shoreham, LILCO's quality as-surance and quality standards for nonsafety-related SS&Cs are inadequate]"; "LILCO satisfied the Staff's concerns about compliance with GDC 1 during operations by commit-ting to make cortain changes to the Shoreham PSAR and other LILCO documents . . . "; and "The Staff believes that (the LILCO) commitment [to amend the FSAR] will ensure that GDC-1, as the Staff interprets it, is met during operation."

8305120332 630509 PDR ADOCK C5000322 C PDR

- -