ML20092P717
| ML20092P717 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1984 |
| From: | Earley A HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CLI-84-09, CLI-84-9, OL, NUDOCS 8407090303 | |
| Download: ML20092P717 (10) | |
Text
lJ /
$.3) e 1.
u 3#'
LILCO, July 5, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_ g
,q i 3 9 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
- n f
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
~
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
3' Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S VIEWS ON CLI-84-9 i
.- j I.
t On June 6, 1984, the Commission ordered a rulemaking to determine the relative scope of the terms "important to safety" and " safety related."
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nu-clear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-9, 19 NRC slip op.
s at 2 (June 6, 1984).
The Commission also gave interim guid-is' ance:
In the interim, the Boards are to continue to proceed on a case-by-case basis in accor-dance with current precedent.
Cf. Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Sta-tion, Unit 1), ALAB-729, 17 NRC 814 (1983).
The Commission understands current prece-dent to hold that the term "important to safe-ty" applies to a larger class of equipment than the term " safety-related."
However, this does not mean that there is a pre-defined class of equipment at every plant whose functions have
/
been determined by rule to be "important to safety" although the equipment is not " safety-related."
Rather, whether any piece of equip-ment has a function "important to safety" is to 8407090303 840705 I \\
PDR ADOCK 05000322 Q
be determined on the basis of a particularized showing of clearly identified safety concerns for the specific equipment, and the require-ments of General Design Criterion 1 (GDC 1) must be tailored to the identified safety con-cerns.
Shoreham, CLI-84-9, slip op. at 2-3.
These comments on the Commission's action are submitted pursuant to the Appeal Board's June 7 Order soliciting the views of the parties.
II.
The Commission's decision to engage the "important to safety" issue by rulemaking narrows the scope of the Appeal Board's consideration of the matter to the proper application of the Commission's interim guidance.
For the reasons set out below, the ppeal Board should affirm that LILCO has met all of the requirements of the NRC for classification and qualifica-tion, including quality assurance requirements.
See Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
LBP-83-57, 18 NRC 445, 546 (1983).
Moreover, the Appeal Board should vacate the Licensing Board's imposition of a license condition requiring LILCO to adopt the Staff's definition of.
l important to safety insofar as the classification and qualifi-l cation of structures, systems and components are concerned.
l Id. at 563-64.
r
~
S.
A.
Shoreham Already Satisfies the Regulations The Commission's interim guidance on the safety classifi-cation issue holds that existing precedent should be applied pending the outcome of the rulemaking.
According to the NRC, precedent holds that "important to safety" is broader than
" safety related."
But the scope of "im-'ortant to safety" is narrowly limited.
Thus, there is no prc-defined class of equipment "important to safety."
Rather, the category "is to be determined on the basis of a particularized showing of clearly identified safety concerns for the specific equipment, and the requirements of General Design Criterion 1 (GDC 1) must be tailored to the identified safety concerns."
- Shoreham, CLI-84-9, slip op. at 3 (emphasis added).
Shoreham has un-questionably met this standard.
To quote the Licensing Board:
The reason that we conclude that LILCO has complied with NRC requirements is that with respect to the treatment of struc~
tures, systems and components, whether for classification and qualification, quality assurance or safety analysis, such treat-ment may and should be effected commensu-l rate with the items' importance to safety.
LILCO has applied this latter treatment to every structure, system and component in l
the Shoreham design, notwithstanding the fact that it used only two classification i
- classes, i.e.,
safety-related and nonsafety-related.
l l
J
/
. Shoreham, LBP-83-57, 18 NRC at 546.
Equally evident is that the Shoreham record makes clear that there exists no "particu-larized showing of clearly identified safety concerns."
- Again, to quote the Licensing Board:
No member of the NRC panel was aware of any area in which the difference in usage of the definition of important to safety has made a substantive difference in the design, construction, or quality assurance at Shoreham (Finding J-691).
We conclude that the evidence provided by LILCO and the Staff is credible and con-vincing and is not controverted by that of the Intervenors.
LILCO and the Staff have, indeed, taken into account classifi-cation and qualifications of systems im-portant to safety in their analysis of the reliability of systems to determine wheth-er there is reasonable assurance that the Shoreham design adequately protects (the public) from credible accidents.
Id. at 564-65 (footnote omitted); see generally id.,
unpublished findings of fact at 613-16 (J-421 to -430), 634-659 (J-482 to -549).
It follows that Shoreham already meets the substantive requirements of the Commission's interim guidance.
I
o.
B.
No License Condition Is Needed The condition in question was imposed to:
(1) confirm the Commission's regulatory authority over SS&Cs and related activi-ties beyond those which are safety-related, and (2) to assure, as a regulato-ry requirement, the continuation by LILCO of the application of quality assurance (to] important to safety SS&Cs and related activities, commensurate with their safety function.
Shoreham, LBP-83-57, 18 NRC at 563-64.
By its June 6 Memoran-dum, the Commission has now confirmed NRC authority, at least in the interim, over equipment beyond the safety related set.
Although LILCO will continue to advocate its views on the long-standing definition of "important to safety" in the upcoming rulemaking, the Company aust and will abide by the Commission's interim requirements.
No license condition is needed either to confirm NRC regulatory authority or ensure LILCO's compliance.
In any event, LILCO will continue to abide by its March 1983 commitment to apply in the future, as in the past, appro-priate quality assurance and quality standards to all non-safety related equipment.
- See, e.g.,
Shoreham, LBP-83-57,
. unpublished findings of fact at 719-21 (J-703 to -706).
More-over, LILCO recognizes that, consistent with the Commission's interim guidance, where such quality measures are prompted by a specific cafety concern, those measures are mandated by GDC 1.
To reiterate, in light of the above, no need exists to impose an "important to safety" license condition on Shoreham.
In fact, if the condition remains unaltered, a substantial po-tential for confusion will arise.
As noted by LILCO on appeal:
The Board's condition is fatally vague.
It specifies no definition of "important to safety," and provides no standards to permit LILCO's reascnable compliance with, or to guide the NRC's enforcement of, the condition.
LILCO's Brief on Appeal at 45 (Dec. 23, 1983).
In fact, sever-al definitions of "important to safety" appear in the record, id. at 45-46, none of which is as narrow'ly focused as the Com-mission's interim guidance.
Again, the Commission's interim guidance concerning the scope of GDC 1 is controlling.
III.
For the above reasons, the Appeal Board should (1) affirm the Licensing Board's conclusion that LILCO has met the NRC's regulations as regards "important to safety" and (2) vacate the i
\\
l
(
)
~1
+.
license condition concerning "important to safety" because it is both unnecessary and confusing.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY lf fAl
'W{
L W.
Taylor Reveley, III
//
Anthony F.
Earley, Jr. / /
Hunton & Williams P.
O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
July 5, 1984
=..
?
D LILCO, July 5, 1984 e
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Views on CLI-84-9 were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or by Federal Express for delivery on July 6, as indicated by an asterisk:
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman
- Gary J.
Edles*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Fourth Floor Fourth Floor East West Towers (North Tower)
East West Towers (North Tower) 4350 East-West Highway 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Howard A. Wilber*
Lawrence Brenner, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Administative Judge Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Fourth Floor Commission East West Towers (North Tower)
East West Towers (North Tower) 4350 East-West Highway 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Dr. Peter A.
Morris Dr. George A.
Ferguson Administrat!.ve Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory School of Engineering Commission Howard University Fourth Floor 2300 6th Street, N.W.
East-West Towers (North Tower)
Washington, D.C.
20059 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814
e
- ^
i b
d t
i.
Secretary of the Commission Atemic Safety and Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Panel Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
Board Panel Edwin J.
Reis, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Maryland National Bank Bldg.
7735 Old Georgetown Road Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Attn: Patricia A.
Dempsey, Esq.
County Attorney Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Suffolk County Department Twomey, Letham & Shea of Law 33 West Second Street Veterans Memorial Highway P.O.
Box 398 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Riverhead, New York 11901 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
Karla J.
Letsche, Esq.
9 East 40th Street Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, New York, New York 10016 Christopher & Phillips 8th Floor James B.
Dougherty, Esq.
1900 M Street, N.W.
3045 Porter Street Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20008 Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
Energy Research Group New York State 4001 Totten Pond Road Department of Public Service Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
Suite K Legal Department San Jose, California 95125 Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501
- \\
i i
[.
I I
L ',
- = Mr.- Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223
/
t /AfLV M Vfd W..phy19r ReVeley, III~ '/
Antho y/ F.
Earley, Jr.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
July 5, 1984 l
1 i
t l.
.